Swept wing A-10, cursed af
1 Like
Delta A-10
Im picturing a variable geometry wing
How would that even work with the engine placement?
I wouldn’t even know lol
That reminds me, why did they never bother to build a Osprey A-10 hybrid.
Such a wasted opportunity to have a VTOL A-10
Isnt that just a Harrier II? :P
1 Like
I mean yeah, but doesn’t this just shift that problem further? Now to play the Pakistani/Vietnamese vehicles you play China, and so on?
I’m speaking rhetorically here, I don’t really have a better answer.
Ehhh I think there’s definitely a case for it starting at Rank V with a mixture of both domestic vehicles, foreign aid vehicles, and weird modifications/technicals.
That’s a good question. I think some of their maritime patrol aircraft have some precision-strike capability, and definitely should come to the game. But on the other hand, does every nation need to have a perfectly balanced lineup? Might it be OK for some nations to be better with some tactics than others?
This is another excellent point. Right now, most of those vehicles are put into the country of manufacture’s tech tree, like the A-5C you mentioned earlier or the Leopard MEXAS. I don’t think I saw many people complain about the A-5C but certainly fits were thrown (and continue) about the possibility of Canadian vehicles ending up in the German tech tree. If we follow your perspective, that vehicles and sub-trees and nations should be added to the game for the sake of player nationalism, then the JF-17 and MBT-2000/3000 should go to either a Pakistani subtree within China or an independent tree. But will there really be enough content to fill a whole independent tree? Should Canadian vehicles be a subtree of Germany or their own independent tree?
I hope I’m not coming off as antagonistic or anything, I’m in favor of more content for War Thunder regardless, and I’m genuinely curious to hear everyone’s perspective.
1 Like
Swedish A-10 ?
Saab P1642 -06 B3LM apparently, dont have the time to explore that rabbit hole right now
4 Likes
I will then **** off US mains by making a suggestion on it lol
1 Like
It could potentially mount just 4 Python 4/5 and 3 iirc
So, and I mean this respectfully, you are saying that there are “hundreds of thousands of vehicles and unique prototypes not added to the game” but you can’t name one because you haven’t researched them? I don’t know much about many tanks, but I can at least name a few or do a quick google search…
I understand you don’t want C&P either, and I also want to see unique vehicles from unique nations, but it’s especially hard to imagine all of these “hundreds of thousands” of vehicles, especially from the WW2 era being viable. Just my 2 cents.
Cessna with Meteors guided by AWACS )))
1 Like
I don’t think I’ve had a match yet in the Su-7 where an Ozelot, usually an Ozelot, or some other decent IR missile AA or radar SPAAG didn’t blow me out of the sky. I get the Alpha is slower, but you can’t just dive in the Su-7 at supersonic speeds and not become a lawn-dart… Something has to change for the Su-7’s, and the Su-17M2 to be honest.
1 Like
Sir, I didn’t even know my nation-built airplanes until I went down the rabbit hole for the air tree. I’m still learning about my nation’s stuff. This is something that could be changed with games like WT
And no I don’t have a problem with C&P I had a problem with nations that could get C&P from everywhere as they are made up of a lager number of nations. I welcome C&P if it means I can see the cool stuff in trees with a small number of nations making them up.
2 Likes
I don’t have a better answer than a broad coalition tree. I guess a regional tree might be more appropriate? Eastern-Europe, Arab/ME, SEA? All three would be good to go imo, and yeah, people might rub shoulders with former or current geo-political enemies, but it is what it is man.
A case perhaps, but it would be like Israel, only worse because people would actually complain that their favorite tank version is only available in the Ukraine tree, which lets be honest, would still be insanely political for Gaijin to add as a stand-alone now. Ukraine as a USSR subtree would be the only thing that pisses off everyone the right way, just like RoC and PRC in the same China tree.
Get 3 kills in Type 74, spawn in P-3 Orion. Get a$$-blasted before I can deploy my AGM-84, which wouldn’t track ground targets anyways… Not trying to be an a$$, it just isn’t going to work. And yes, the goal is to try to create viable lineups, not at every teeny-tiny sub BR in .3/.4 increments, but to have a generally balanced BR in every rank that has at least two MBT’s, a light vehicle, an SPAA, and a CAS, with a helicopter or a fighter as well even. That’s how the game is most fun to play in GRB.
A good question, and I can’t answer it either. I think the South Africa in the British tree is the approach of last resort for Gaijin, but they shouldn’t be afraid to do it. If they were keeping things honest, the MBT-2000 would have a Pakistani flag (China bros may correct me, but that makes sense to me at least), instead they didn’t put the flag on it. We have to remember Gaijin’s goal for all nation’s trees is for them to have fun and interesting, balanced playstyles as a whole. If that means more of a Britain approach, and less of a Finland/Hungary approach, then I guess that’s how it happens.
1 Like
Can’t speak about the Su-17M2, but for the Su-7s it’s literally a case of “it is, what it is”.
While I don’t see anything wrong with giving them ahistorical modifications to make them more competitive (provided they start doing that for all the ugly ducklings and just for some of the favored nations), in terms of BR there is nothing that can be done to improve their situation (except for some VEEEEERY extensive decompression)
I’m still surprised the Su-7,11 still hasn’t gone up more yet