can’t wait for HQ-29 / HQ-19 :D maybe one day
i think u wanted to say about HQ-14,5 and HQ-9,5 like the new HQ-5.5
3 Likes
these are abm systems so kinda not the best for anti air
So, Gaijin thinks this so-called HQ-11, which has neither a large number of missiles, nor short-range infrared missiles, and whose missile performance is quite average, can compete effectively at BR 12.7?
Comparing with the Japanese Type 03 anti-aircraft system being introduced in the same update, the only advantage of the HQ-11 is that it can quickly move with all its weapons.：）
3 Likes
It’s compact, trust our devs they know where it’s all time
3 Likes
With all due respect, I’m not denying that it’s compact, but I don’t think that’s enough to justify it being at BR 12.7.
And of course, it’s not just Chinese vehicles that suffer from this issue.
As someone who also plays Sweden, the Eldenhet 98 seems to me like a vehicle that shouldn’t have been introduced at all. I still prefer using the ITO 90 in top-tier battles rather than this vehicle.
Returning to our discussion, the current situation of the HQ-11 is identical to what happened with the Eldenhet 98, especially when numerous forum posts have clearly stated that the HQ-11 should be a system rather than a single vehicle.
Gaijin could have implemented it as the FM-3000 missile launch system with two launch vehicles and one radar vehicle, or added the LD-3000 close-in defense system.
Instead, as we’ve seen, they’ve chosen to introduce what appears to be the worst anti-aircraft system in the upcoming update, which is truly disappointing for Chinese players who’ve been looking forward to a split-type air defense system for a long time.
P.S. After the next update, only Israel and China will lack split-type air defense systems.
3 Likes
Not sure, but I think ulquiorra6 was being sarcastic
3 Likes
Yes, I agree with that too, because I’ve read through his other comments.
That said, it’s alright—the point I want to make is not directed at individual players, but at the development team.
3 Likes