No im claiming no American bias I’m literally saying there’s only one American IFV Which is the Bradley Almost at 11.0 No striker combat vehicles no Marine Corps AAC SO THE US GETS NONE OF ITS WILLIE BOY IFV’S
1 Like
The us has be operating strikers since the 90s I’m just saying there old ass dirt And not one is represented the M118 Is not a striker combat vehicle but a tank killer It’s a mobile gun system
1 Like
Strikers are so old that they’re getting rid of them. The army is getting rid of its striker combat brigade units. They’re downsizing them replacing them with the new IFVS
The M3A3 Bradley is 10.3, not 11.0. There’s also LAV-AD, M3 Bradley, XM800 as a recon vehicle, ADATS built on a Bradley chassis, M1128 infantry support vehicle, countless M163 chassis vehicles…
Styker with TOW missiles will come in time, as will HUMVEEs, Soviets are missing BTR variants as well that I’d prefer to have in-game.
Development takes time.
Just quit after one death!
IF YOU DONT YOU ARE JUST SILLY!
As if half the teams for Russia aren’t made of Su-30s and 34s?
Just this morning I had a match where of 8 people alive, like 6 were in Su-30s/34s. They were just firing Kh-38 after Kh-38 after Kh-38. They’d fire them at the spawn before people spawned in, so the moment someone DID spawn they would have 5 missiles up their rear end.
Nothing changes drastically for GRB, other than it makes it truly combined arms and also allows for a hard, Capable counter, which unless its a mixed battle with Pantsir’s on both sides, we don’t have.
The other option is Ground Only, but it seems few people really want that.
1 Like
Ground RB is literally a 1v1 when it comes to CAS vs SPAA. Tanks can’t do anything, and fighters prove my point.
Common use =/= more OP.
War Thunder needs better SPAA than Pantsir to protect against Su-34, F-15E, Rafale, etc.
I’m excited to see how you spin my statements even more when my original post was clearly AGAINST russia lmao
1 Like
At the end of the day, man, you wouldn’t have all of us here literally complaining about something if there wasn’t a problem it’s kind of like an intervention or a coming to Jesus moment before people say hey enough is enough Because if you can sit here and say that there is not a despair in the equipment that nations are given purposely Gaijin Could have been given these nations this equipment and we wouldn’t have this problem or argument. Honestly, the game would work 50 times better.
Newsflash bro, i only have up until rank 5 russia air so you can gtfo here with gaslighting me defending russia
2 Likes
That’s like Activision making another call of duty and not allowing the Russian faction to use certain weapons or gear. You get what I mean. ?
If your post is against Russia, why are you claiming Pantsir can frag Su-34s when we know it can’t?
If your post was actually against Russia you would be SUPPORTING new SPAA superior to Pantsir to be added, not equal, not inferior, superior.
You would not be dismissing F-15E and Rafale despite having the same kit or in F-15E’s case a superior kit.
And gaslighting means to make you question your sanity; I am respecting you and treating you as an equal, that is not gaslighting.
I’m calling your posts wrong, and your posts aren’t you either.
Your memories are at least mostly correct, your psyche is fine. Anyone saying otherwise is gaslighting you.
The problem is, CAP would cost much less than those so you would see this behavior from both sides, turning GRB into something completely different.
It will change the mode drastically as having CAP cost so little would without a doubt invite people from ARB that don’t even want to play tanks. You’ll see many people having issues with current ARB implementation, where they don’t like current 16v16 and want it drastically reduced, which is something that would be on offer here.
To some markers are also a problem since they want to rely more on radar to find targets, which is already a thing in GRB.
Many people do want TO, but Gaijin doesn’t care enough to listen.
@Saberzen
I feel like there’s miscommunication between us, cause I believe your intention isn’t to defend Russia or Russian equipment.
I am merely saying that your posts are not showing your intentions if that’s the case.
Too bad we can’t see if you are on Russian team. e.g REDFOR matchup
You get there easier with single life, dying and respawning sets you back by 2-3 kills
One of my first frags in the match was against a T-90M, pretty sure I faced the Soviets.
Oh ok so its alright for Russia to have it but not ANYONE ELSE? Bold.
Just like the introduction of LGBs, CCIP, FnF, etc. etc. changed GRB. Before the Kh-38s, CAS wasn’t nearly like this. Before the MiG-27, CAS wasn’t nearly like what it was before either. People don’t like how attackers handle in current ARB state, so they go to GRB. Anything and everything you are worried about is something Attackers already do. You just don’t like it because it means you may have to work for a ground kill instead of get free ones.
I more meant few people in the Gaijin headquarters because they never seem to want it. I have seen the threads and am aware that TO is popular amongst the loud crowd.
Superior equipment is only going to be detrimental to those not having the same, I don’t want another power disparity like Russia currently has, forcing majority of the players to either flock to US or USSR, creating a homogenous match every time. I want it to be EQUAL (more or less) and COMPETITIVE so all nations become viable.
I also do support new SPAA like the ones stated by devs recently and want it to be superior but to expect that just doesn’t align with Gaijin’s way of implementing NATO equipment, a damn shame.
2 Likes