I know, but at the rate we’re going everything will just be a copy of everything else but i guess if you want to just play the same meta copy and paste vehicle in everything and the removal of anything unique from each tree you do you…I can’t get excited about the same vehicle appearing over and over again. when there are so many unique vehicles in the world
We don’t have 2a3 and would be different
1 Like
Not yet, but seeing Australia this update has given us Canadians hope; we can see our MBT join our SPAA and Jet for a lineup (both of which are in the UK tree). So the push for it to happen won’t end.
1 Like
@Smin1080p_WT hate to ping you over this once again
but now we have the stats for the ALARM why is it being gatekept at 12.3? it worse then both the AGM-88A and Kh-25MPU both of which are well below 12.3. number carried is only an issue on the Tornado GR1 if gaijin want to give it a full loadout instead of a limited one, similar to how the Tornado GR4 came with a limited brimstone loadout
I eated them
Hey.
As I’ve already answered you multiple times on this subject, its currently not planned to add ALARM below 12.0 for now. Its not purely about “on paper” stats, but other factors like the warhead/seeker, behaviour and other elements to consider too.
These are all entirely new systems and missiles to come to the game, with an added complexity in terms of their interactions with combined battles. Due to this, the GR.4 will be the launch aircraft for now for ALARM with a full component of 9.
After this, once there is tangible game data to assess and review fully, further considerations may be made.
1 Like
100% hope , but i bet they will just add the Rafale to cover the gap in rank 9 and call it a day
1 Like
hi pipimer!!
so russia gets ARMs on literally the majority of thier planes from 11.0 all the way to 14.7 but the UK gets 3, 2 typhoons and 1 tornado
how does that make any sense? even in performance both the AGM-88A and Kh-25MPU have better warheads, better speeds, the same or better seekers like that just doesnt make sense
but whatever its typical gaijin so I dont know why im not surprised
hi!
1 Like
AGM-88 HARM for Mig-29 when?
Hello, is its still impossible to create loadout on free jets in nuclear thunder? If it is impossible, then is there any chance we will get such ability any time soon? Existing presets on those jets were rather limited and didnt let player experiment with available weaponry to adjust plane to their preferences.
at this point wish the UK used HARM its clear they have some kinda bias aginst the ALARM as any sane person who has looked at the stats can see the ALARM is worse then even the AGM-88A but we live in a clown world where it apparently cant go below 12.0 while HARMs and KH-25MPUs sit below 12.0 while being better in every aspect
Hi
Currently that’s not possible no, since editing loadouts mid battle is not possible. Suggestions are always welcome for new loadouts for them via the mode feedback, which we can pass for consideration.
1 Like
Yeah, I’d also say there’s a lot of significant technical changes that are important in the real world, but the game just doesn’t really represent. This can be things like modifications/additions with no gameplay impact like A/C or APU, entirely different engines or transmissions that seem the same in Gaijins simplified model, anything to do with crew comfort, and so on.
Even things like different ammunition or loadouts that matter in reality can be less unique in game where they might just be excluded for balance or to unify it with similar vehicles in other nations.
And even then, the whole meaning of “C&P” initially means low effort. Basically Gaijin taking an existing model and reusing it instead of doing a different option that would require more effort. Pure C&P like this is really only things like the Thai M60A3, that was copied from an existing model despite not matching reality, but if they altered it to match the Thai tanks then they wouldn’t have been able to just copy it.
2 Likes
I would also like to add this,
many players argue that subtrees should only contain completely unique vehicles or vehicles that exclusively fill gaps in the main tree. My main issue with this position is that it would reduce subtrees to little more than gap-fillers, likely consisting of only one or two vehicles while excluding many historically significant vehicles.
A subtree should not be judged solely on whether every vehicle offers entirely unique gameplay. If that standard were applied consistently to stuff like main tree’s, a large number of vehicles already present ingame should not qualify either. For example, the OF-40 is, both historically and ingame, pretty much a copy of the Leopard 1. Historically this was because Italy wanted to export the Leopard 1 but was restricted by agreements surrounding their licensed production As a result, they developed the OF-40, it fulfills essentially the same role and offers a very similar gameplay experience, yet few people argue that it should not exist because of that.
So my argument basically boils down to this.
There is a big discrepancy between how trees and subtrees are often treated by the community. Main trees can receive virtually every vehicle they operated, including imported or license-produced vehicles that are very similair to already existing vehicles without much controversy. Subtrees, however, are often expected to clear a much higher bar by the community, with their vehicles being scrutinized much more heavily solely because they belong to a subtree. A vehicle that would be accepted without much fuss in a main tree is often rejected by the community when its apart of a subtree.
2 Likes
wait son im crine is this AI generated
Could mid battle loadout editing that occurs as soon as you rearm be suggested?
So long as no one has made one it should be able to be suggested. Pretty much anything that fits within the current suggestion rules should be fine to suggest (with a few exceptions).