A lot if not all of of your suggestions are covered by our comprehensive coverage of the tech trees which can be found here if you want to go and give that some support: Comprehensive proposal to Improve the proposed Grouping of vehicles
From my experience, landing a single pass is enough to down anything other than some Russian planes. 50s can be inconsistent. Also, at 8.3, 2 1000lb bombs with CCIP is all you need for CAS.
It handles more differently and does not compress as much.
I just checked with WTRTI but, MiG-15/MiG-15bis and MiG-17 pulls almost same AoA at over 800km/h when you are using keyboard/mouse control. Probably you have that opinion because you have either not played both the MiG-15/MiG-15bis or MiG-17 at all or just a few times.I don’t know about sim because instructor on MiG-17 works so hard in current game but, it is kinda offtopic.
Anyway, it is just a placebo or something similar, and there is literally nothing different between the MiG-15bis and the MiG-17 other than the 3D model other than top speed, roll rate, and weight. Even on flat turns at same speed, the MiG-15bis turns almost as well as the MiG-17, and the T/W is almost the same.
Your argument to me sounds like “i JuSt fInIsHeD rEsEaRcHiNG oN tHe mY MiG-17. LeT mE rEsEaRcH MiG-23MLD WitH oNLy tHiS 9.0BR plAnE REEEEEEEE”.
BTW, MiG-19 and MiG-21 (F-13/SMT) have completely different FM from MiG-17 and MiG-15/MiG-15bis, so even if new players researched them with MiG-17, they won’t handle them smoothly.
Sure, if you actually hit the enemy.
With F84F 50s you can use 100 rounds just to aim with the tracers, 100 rounds to kill the enemy, kill 4 dudes and you still have more ammo left than saab105 when it spawned.
But… We aren’t talking about CAS?
Atleast i’ve been talking about AirRB whole time.
I didn’t see a game mode so I just figured you guys were comparing the vehicles in every aspect. Which the turnrate of the F84F needs to be taken into account. Since, it may have the ammo count to kill 4 plus targets; if those targets are dogfighting you, you’re basically dead
I hope gaijin can remake Chinese Ground Tree by this chance. And here is my suggestion.
Which is exactly the same with the saab… That thing turns like f104 without the speed.
Also @Smin1080p i hope the foldered vehicles will also have reduced SL cost?
Yeah they downgraded in a while back and left Japan having advantage with it in efficiency task and event point modifiers. Look at all the other vehicle they are moving up in some nations, and leaving the same in others. Effectively improving some vehicles in one nation tech tree over others. Every vehicle that is a copy of another should share the same rank across all nations.
In some stores if you bough an item and few days after it went on sale , you can get it on refund, and buy at reduced price. In current case like in let’s say sherman, 70k is reduced, you get from 1-2k rp in good match that last on avg. 15-20 min. That is about 600min so 10h of grind for sherman only, not to mention much more to 1 mln with top ranks. Considering that large diffrence in amount of time spend on grind, yes I would love to see some kind of redirecting of that RP.
We aren’t talking about few days here though.
Some compensation would be nice, but i don’t think it’s in any way required for vehicles ypu researched and bought years/months ago.
Only place i think it should be compensated is if you have over 50% researched on vehicles that will be foldered and reduced the rp cost 50%.
So for example IPM1 costs 340k rp and according to the suggested changes it will be foldered with M1A1 and reduced the cost to 170k. If you have already researched 250k, i think the rest of the rp should either go to your next research or the IPM1 modifications.
Will this mean that the players that have these new folded vehicles get any form of reimbursement of RP to go towards a different vehicle in the tech tree, or a reimbursement in SL or GE equivalent.
After many years of someone trying to grind a tech tree, finally getting to the top, just to find out all of their efforts and time investment has gone to waste as the folded vehicles will be much easier to aquire and faster tree progression?
I find it really unfair that a lot of tech tree vehicles going down in rank reducing their effectiveness for grinding vehicles/events/tasks while premiums go up in rank. (Not saying premiums shouldnt go up)
How much have you used the SAAB? From my experience, it can turn really well, it just bleeds energy pretty fast and takes forever to get it back. The F84F, however, turns like it’s a b25 or worse. It’s only advantage is it’s speed and that’s negated because stuff below it’s BR is as fastif not faster.
It seems you fail to understand that the reason you play warthunder, at least should be, is to have fun and enjoy the game. I do not understand where this mentality is coming from where you feel like you should be compensated for grinding a vehicle out months ago. Stores don’t give you a refund if you buy milk and come back with it 3 months later. The only time gaijin reimburses you, is when they remove something (like modifications) off a vehicle. With these changes, nothing is being removed. The only thing to really complain about would be vehicles being lowered to rank 2 from 3 and vehicles being pushed up to rank 7 to justify a rank 8, other than the nonsensical foldering.
I must ask the dev team to not implement the changes to rank 5 US ground. These changes are going to leave players with only one viable BR to play at (7.7) and completely removes the option to grind with 6.7-7.0 vehicles as was before.
So I had a look at the French aviation tree, and there have been a few improvements (such as the M.B.175T going into the attacker/dive bomber line), I still think it lacks a certain “logic”.
What am I talking about?
In every tree, there is a bomber line. Most of them have a strike fighter line or equivalents (Britain and Japan).
Now let’s talk about the fighters. In each tree, fighters are grouped in a line because they share the same role or the same manufacturer:
USA has 3 fighter lines: Fighters with little secondary armament or without any/Fighter-bombers/US Navy and US Marine fighters;
Germany has the Messerschmitt line, the Heinkel/Focke-Wulfe line and the Twin-engined fighters line;
USSR has the Polikarpov/MiG line, the Yakovlev line and the Lavochkin/Sukhoi line;
Britain has the Hawker line, the Supermarine/Gloster line, and the Royal Navy line;
Japan has the Imperial Navy line, the Imperial Air Force line and the Heavy Fighters line;
China has the “occidental equipement line” and the “Japan/USSR equipement line”;
Italy has the Reggiane line and the Fiat/Macchi line;
Sweden has a fighters line and a heavy fighters line;
Israel has a single fighter line;
As for jets, if it differs from above, they are given a line based on their origin (American/Soviet/domestic), you can see that in the German, Japanese, Chinese and Italian tree.
But for France, it’s confusing. You have planes from different manufacturers/origins, with different roles/abilities that share the same line.
The most striking example is the F6F-5 which immediately precedes the M.B.157. Those two have very little in common: they are single-engined, yes, but one of them is from America, has heavy secondary armament and is a naval plane. The other is French-made, very lightly armed and is a Armée de l’Air plane.
I have worked on two designs that address these issues. However, I must admit, it is at the expense of balance. But new additions would be easier to place. And I know there are suggestions wating to fill the gaps ;)
That one follows the logic Armée de l’air (1) Aéronavale - French Navy airforce (2) Heavy fighters/Dive bombers/Strike fighters (3) and Bombers (4).
(I am aware the Bearcat wasn’t used by the Aéronavale, but it can land on a carrier and as I said above, that line lacks planes)
That second design is French home-made fighters (1) Imported fighters (2) Heavy fighters/Dive bombers/Strike fighters (3) and Bombers (4).
Of course you can do some adjustments here and there (such as foldering the Hellcats, the VB-10s, or the Vautours II N/A).
Voilà! Tell me what you think :)
Current battle ratings are so bad they need a serious overhaul for instance .
Strv m/41 S-II ,Pz 38(t) N.A both fitted with the 37 mm gun like the the Pz 35 and the pz 38(t) in the German tech tree BUT because both the previous vehicles have scouting someone in their infinite wisdom or madness decided to put them both at a BR of 2.3 Facing 105 Shermans ,T-34s ,Pz IV F-2s etc .YET the german Pz 38(t) is 1.7 max why?.
If you wanna scout at 2.3 use the puma AC which is what it was mainly used for in action .
Both the previous swedish and german tanks should be max 1.7 due to gun diameter and armour strength .
For god sake make the matchmaking and battle ratings fair for a change please or ask the devs to play 5 games with these tanks and see how they perform
Stop crying about the m/41 S-II and use APDS that is has. It has horrible stock grind, but after getting APDS it is good. I have about 1.8 KD in it. You can get rid of Pz4, T-34 and M4 from turret shot. The Pz38n.a needs change tho.