Why would they do it. WIthout bvr radar missile they would be blep.
( https://youtu.be/2GPyb0U-29c?t=1719 )
Not quite, the effect was closer to being " techtrees are named after the nation which forms the majority of vehicles represented w/in them ", the specific statement being " There 's no point in changing the Swedish branch name, as long as Swedish vehicles are the majority ".
Which makes sense, since the point of subtrees is to augment existing trees which have gaps/lack diversity in play, via the representation of other nations w/in them which would themselves have much more painful gaps and/or lack diversity of play on their own.
Probably not worth polling until/unless the other nations which comprise the SWE tree are close to being half the vehicles in it.
According to the Q&A linked above, the Swedish subtree is already intended to include those countries. Finland is represented through researchable vehicles, and Norway/Denmark fill it 's old position of content well for premium and event vehicles.
1 Like
The issue is that Sweden didn’t use an F-16.
Yes? What was my first response in that chain?
thanks a lot!!
Sweden already has a subtree in which an F-16 would not fit, and Sweden did not use an F-16, so one should not go to Sweden.
Ah yes because historic vehicles have to go into historic trees and we must have to have a historic match maker because I want full immersion.
Oh wait hang on does this mean we must have Poland then to be able to fight on Poland ?
And Germany must win on default because it’s historic ?
You do realise 100% immersion just wouldn’t cut it in this age of WT
I never said anything about immersion.
They still have the standard R-27R. Problem with the ER is that it came in service in 1990, after the introduction of the MiG-29S (9-13S) upgrade, and more importantly, after the dissolution of East Germany. So the 9-13 may not have the R-27ER (don’t know if the missile was back-compatible), and the 9-12 in German service definitely never had the ER1. On the flipside, the R-73 and MiG-29 were co-designed, and every model of the MiG-29 from its introduction to today flew with some variant of the R-73. For historic context it would be very fitting, as for gameplay balance, the more powerful IR missile may offset the loss of the very powerful ER, while softening the standard MiG-29 against enemies. Remember, the R-27ER was introduced to make up for the lack of functional R-73 missile in game back in Apex Predator
“Sweden did not use an F-16, so one should not go to Sweden.”
Sounded like you wanted immersion from that
1 Like
I want interesting gameplay, and I used the fact that Sweden didn’t use an F-16 and has a suitable counterpart as an argument for why Sweden shouldn’t get one.
But yet we have Norway in Sweden so you want the VIDAR removed then ?
Sweden doesn’t have an equivalent of the VIDAR, so no, I do not want that to be removed.
hmm
2 Likes
The Bandkanon 1C doesn’t have a laser range finder, and the VIDAR doesn’t have a ~3 second reload, so they are not equivalents. They have different roles in the game.
I mean they are both bonk cannons so one has less equipment doesn’t mean it can’t do the same job.
This is like saying Stug and the Zrinyi II can’t be used the same because one has less armour and speed.
1 Like
Sweden doesn’t have a counterpart to F-16A, as the Gripen is either 11.7 or 12.3, and no in-between.
4 Likes
The VIDAR is optimised for longer range engagements, and the Bandkanon 1C is optimised for shorter range engagements. The StuG III and Zrinyi II, on the other hand, perform effectively the same in almost all scenarios.
I said F-16, not F-16A.