For many vehicles there are ingame armour components that are obviously modelled incorrectly, however, providing direct sources for these is impossible as they are so new.
In the case of that report, there are clearly two armour plates rather than one, with it being modelled as one ingame. This is simply an error made by gaijin, real life images prove this to an undeniable degree. The Ajax is so new that it very much falls into the category of modern vehicles referred to in the article below, which specifically states that images are acceptable as a source.
Yet it was rejected, based of “estimations” which I clearly stated were not final, with the main issue being something that is visually evident and cannot reasonably be argued against, which fits gaijins criteria outlined in the above post. If real life images cannot be used for this kind of report, then gaijin needs to update that post.
then sure my bad, still makes it a balancing decision
It doesn’t, we agree on that.
What I mean is, the devs want the F-14D at 13.3 (most likely), so they won’t add AMRAAMs to it or 9Ms which’ll push it up. It not having armament isn’t ahistorical, its balancing.
And I do agree that the F-14A should get 9Ls, and the F-14B/D get 9Ms and stay where they are. Doesn’t change any of my points though.
(also this original discussion was on the F-16 triple racks AMRAAMs, of which would be ahistorical if added)
theres a new challenger 2 video incase you havent seen it, i really wanna try make a bug report on the turret traverse speed because it looks like its faster than 31
Flame has been very kindly helping me with getting the required images of the documentation for it, so far I have almost all of what I need. It’s been updated with some additional info (the document front pages) so hopefully gaijin takes another look.
