Whats to help? Gaijin has already stated by Smin they have no plans to listen to the Finnish community nor plans to change the BR so what we get is the worst 14.0 in game and told to wait 6 months for maybe a 14.0 worthy vehicle to arrive but this time at a higher BR.
Not to mention if they were happy to help, they wouldn’t have been arguing until blue in the face that it shouldn’t be improved.
So I’d wager they’re about as happy to help you as a ferret is content with a salad bar. Not very.
2 Likes
If we get on trusted, legal documents, you can always file a ticket and GJ will add the HMD. So far, there is no legit source
It wouldn’t matter? Again they have stated they have no interest in changing the model, iirc the report for the gun radar sight was denied so the Finnish Hornet doesn’t even have a lead indicator lmao. This entire aircraft is a joke to call it done so gaijin can go on ignoring adding a actual 14.0 vehicle to sweden.
Just a reminder even if you had a document saying the Swiss hornets were the exact same models sold to Finland it would be irrelevant as gaijin has shown that Finland is exempt from the rule bending that other nations get when it comes to balancing.
Wouldn’t even be difficult for them to fix it to the next standard that brings the air to air on parity with the US, to my understanding.
But that would give something nice to Sweden/The Finns.
3 Likes
Can’t have that on the nordic airtree, here lets just ignore that they exist for a year and add AU hornets with ASRAAM and the MLU with 9M can be the same BR. Watch the MLU 2 not be lighter than whatever US model gets added with AESA radar at the same BR because they both get BOL.
2 Likes
The lead indicator of the F-15i was not there in first place. Myself and other did report this and it got added after the fist couple of fixes.
If the lead indicator is not there today on dev, I am absolutely with you to find proove. They will add it, pretty sure.
The problem is that Gaijin is picking a variant with no regards for parity just to shaft players of a playerbase by choosing a variant with “uniqueness” but Gaijin never shafted any US aircraft with JHMCS systems or added anything worse than viable for the meta but now having the same courtesy for any other nations is too much for Gaijin
Not an actual document but sums up nicely what we’re talking about
All i can say is goodluck, sweden has one of the smallest group of bug reporters and thats saying something considering i originally thought Isreal had less. Somehow sweden has like 10 total so its very unlikely anything will change. I hope im wrong but im normally not so again goodluck. Regardless its 8am and i need to get up and do things and try to pretend this update just doesn’t exist. Until i here if the T.10 pack has BOL cm since thats the only thing im looking forward to right now.
3 Likes
In terms of the countermeasure numbers, I think it’s being fixed due to this source Community Bug Reporting System 97
Not really, Finnish F-18C is currently a mix of historical and fake accuracy by gaijin and has any attempts to buff it denied for the sake of historical accuracy. So unless gaijin wants to triple dip the Finnish F-18C into a further state of irrelevancy this bug reports will not come to fruition until we have more battle ratings or the MLU 2 is added as the bug report uses a Finnish MLU 2 document for its supporting evidence for mainly both the US and Finnish model while only using brief test examples for the US Hornet.
What about the US hornet, do you think the bug report will count for that?
Eh, its hard to say. I think it might but it likely wont be added until MLU 2 is added. Smin when asked has stated the MLU 2 is a possibility in the future but when asked about next update has stated there are no current deadline plans. So i think its unlikely the US will get BOL on the C late but rather may get them on a new F/A-18C model likely one with Aesa or may receive them on the Super Hornet. Realistically the report only even holds ground because of the MLU (RAAF F-18 isnt in game so i find it irrelevantfor the current chance for BOL for the US). Id say if you want BOL you better hope the MLU arrives soon considering its already a heavily debated vehicle and i think adding BOL to the current US model right now would cause even more outrage.
@quartas121 does my assumption sound about right or do you disagree (pinging you as my resident US main.)
1 Like
Agreed.
What if Gaijin goes haywire and decided to add BOL on F/A-18C Late in this update
While neglects every idea about the Finnish F-18C.
Then We might be sure that Forum will burn light as the morning sun with profanity.
As same as when Gaijin decided to
- geld brimstones for balancing decision when ‘Tornado’ was the best fuselage for utilising it ATM
- but decided to add another Kh-38 slinger at same update
(which can be seen as double-standarding to players.)
before.
Right?
1 Like
Eh, Finland and The nordic community as a whole don’t have enough of a presence. Gripen A would likely have stayed HMDless had it not been for the Brits also backing it up gaijin poor decision to add the A model so late that a C model had arrived. Similarly we dont hold the US presence when it comes to stuff like the 229. The current Finnish F-18C has a worse RWR (can’t detect K band) will stay 12.7 in ground despite being worse in ground rb than the US Hornet. Asked Smin and his response was it cant move down. And no HMD. As it stands right now the MLU 1 may have been saved to add as a premium a few years from now as the only clues we have as to what is coming is the next Finnish Hornet will have A2G and HMD. Currently we know a Finnish hornet which is on par with the US is planned but its not known if its slated for next update or later and when asked Smin stated no specific timeframe so we could realistically be waiting a year if the snail decides.
Thenn…
Gripen case goes again?
- Export users need to unlock ‘single modification’ for their ARH missile on Gripen
- While Nordic players needed to buy and spade a whole another jet for utilising ARH.
This sound hurts :(
1 Like
I mean it has about 140 people of which many are not active Nordic users. Its clearly a small number of people who want change.
As for Gripen its even more rough, NG is essentially on par with the E in general with a few outlier models not having IRST or having different changes to the tail but having the same engine and pylons for A2A. So i cant see the E or NG realistically until Meteor and IRIS-T missiles are more prevalent. Id like to see Gripen E but i think it will be added when we get to those if anything.
The real moral of the story is go play the US if you want a Finnish Hornet that isn’t handicapped.
I’m a US main anyways, just hoping I don’t have to get around on 120 countermeasures 🤣👍🏼.
While the US doesn’t needed to go play IDF if they want USAF F-15E that isn’t handicapped?
:/
Don’t get me wrong, I supported and kinda liked the addition of PW229 on F-15E even though I am not US main.
Because I felt it is kinda sucks that GB has Tornado IDS which has worst engine(RB199 Mk.101) while export partners has better engine(RB199 Mk.103).
And I didn’t want to see another GR.1 case.
I really hope these problems, which Nordic players are suffering, get solved soon.
Playing a vehicle which acts worse than its counterparts in the 'similar variant’ and same BR is always annoying.
I think.