This logic doesn’t make any sense. Gaijin doesn’t use consistent logic to determine these results, there are many vehicles that suck simply because they didn’t get something they should have, and the opposite is true too.
2 Likes
You have to be either very bad or very new at the game to think the 9E and the 9P are similar missiles. The 20g limit on the 9J massively changes the missiles properties.
2 Likes
The Su-25 survives far more than the F-5 does regarding damage.
2 Likes
This is true. You have to use API rounds against Su-25s to kill them. Anything less and they soak up far more damage.
If we want to play that game, the F-5a in the chinese tree is the same BR as the F-5e, which is an undisputably better jet due to it’s better engine performance, there are other planes which should be moved in br, that has nothing to do with my argument.
I’m making the point that flares are an enormous piece of kit in terms of effectiveness which makes the difference between standing a fighting chance in high tier air rb or just being food for any player that knows you can’t flare. Aim 9p over aim 9e is nowhere near as big a difference as being able to defend missiles in a tier where almost every jet has missiles.
Because of this, you would have to move the F-5c down to the upper-limit of BRs with very few/ineffecive missile, which I stated would cause more problems, so no, let it keep the flares and stay.
Such as? Show some bias then if you think there is one.
Also didnt have an RWR
I’m pretty late to replying on this but 3 things
1: Using one of the worst things at a given BR as a comparison isn’t a good way to measure how well it would do, there’s things like the J35a which have a better flight model at the same br, I could just as easily cherry pick things like it and say that the F-5c without flares belongs lower than that and be just as wrong.
2: I didn’t say the flight model would bring it down, I said the lack of flares would require it to be moved down.
3: I don’t even want it to be lowered in the first place, let it keep the flares and remain at a balanced br, sometimes Gameplay is more important than historical accuracy, because at the end of the day it’s a game, not a sim.
1 Like
If they want to do it for balancing reasons then they need to do it for everything.
Give the G.91YS flares since it sits at a BR where it sees aim-9Ls and other missiles it has no chance vs.
I’ve said several times, I just like that they can pick and choose when to be historically accurate.
And even without flares the F-5C has no business being below 10.3.
2 Likes
Prove that a flare retrofit was done to G91Ys, otherwise wait for decompression.
If you don’t want F-5C below 10.3 then stop wanting it to be through the removal of flares.
This is a reminder the reason F-4C is 10.0 is cause no flares and it’s superior to F-5C.
Why do we need proof? We have proof that the F-5C didn’t have flares and that the F-104G had them yet here we are.
2 Likes
No, we have proof the F-5C & A did have flares. The same flare system as is on F-104S & F-104G.
Currently an incorrect amount as it should be 30 flares, or 15 flares 30 chaff, but that’s a feature to be added in the future when we get separated flares & chaff.
1 Like
Not while it was in US service. What’s the point of choosing when to be historical and when not to?
1 Like
WT never once claimed to go on service history.
F-14B never flew operations with BOL pods, but it was trialed with them for consideration of acquisition.
Vickers Mk7 never fired L26 in testing since the munition didn’t exist, but is capable of firing it.
F-104S rarely flew with countermeasures yet it’s in WT.
And while you used F-104G for China as an example, the most notable one, there is only one bug report for it and it’s recent so gotta be patient.
F-104J should not get countermeasures not because it didn’t have them, but because I don’t want a one-time feature added to the game that players will forget about after getting F-4EJ.
Especially later down the line when things are likely decompressed.
It does claim historical accuracy which is why they deny adding something’s over others.
Typically, if a vehicle didn’t use something while it was in service, they don’t get it.
1 Like
No, Gaijin claims authenticity of vehicles. NOT their service history.
Ok, so what about all the vehicles that don’t get what they could have potentially used? Why doesn’t the F-4C have flares? Why doesn’t the F-104G get them? We all know they can use them, and clearly, it doesn’t matter if the vehicle actually did because look at the F-5C.
So many tanks are missing so many rounds for literally no reason.
3 Likes
F-4C never had countermeasures made for it.
The bug report for F-104G is in acknowledged state, so you have to be patient.
And no tanks are “missing” rounds, they all have their ammunition.
1 Like
Well… Technically the jaguar Gr1 and Gr1A are supersonic with 9G and 10. and 10.3 respectively, though with bombs they are barely transonic
Ohhhh. Ok, yup, I can’t actually keep doing this. So many vehicles are missing historical things.
How about the F-1? Why doesn’t it have chaff? And hey, since it could use chaff, they should just give it flares?
How about mig-19s? None of them have flares. US tanks are missing so many rounds at top tier man.
5 Likes