While on that topic, I get that its just a buncha malding ( as always) in here but if they want historical accuracy which the playerbase oh so whines about they should, instead of half assed internal modules, focus on historically accurate plane loadouts and clear model definitions.
Would it be at all possible to get these reports reopened?
I have found additional info relating to them.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/jS291jJ6zFv9
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/2aSCzWsuzlg3
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/nnvpxnUdCCLw
Do you by any chance happen to know what rounds are currently planned for the squadron VT-5? Or is that still too early to tell?
1 Like
Because more useful things can be added instead
Most likely something from the Chinese 105 long dart family like the DTC2-105.
1 Like
Contact a Technical Moderator for those types of things, you can find them listed here: (Who is who and Reporting Procedure)
I have contacted two separately no response from either within 48~20 hours now.
What even is a fair expectation for the response time?
I kind of want to have this dealt with before a cyclone (Alfred) arrives. Sorry if I’m being pushy.
I mean then balance it accordingly??
It’s already a top tier premium so why not just admit that and not screw about?
And preferably do that for non premiums as well.
I’ve been begging for a historically accurate A-7E for years now and quite frankly do not care about it’s BR, just raise or lower it accordingly. How come that idea still hasn’t gone thru?
It would fit right in at 13.0 with AIM-9Ms
This clearly isn’t like with the AMI-9X that most top tiers should technically have, the AIM-9M is a perfectly balance-able missile
2 Likes
Better to remake new ones with all the additional new information and context all in the OP.
What upgrade has Gaijin chose that locks the F/A-18A at 1988. Or is that just a date thrown at a board?
I could understand if you would have just said "For Balancing purpose. But I guess that wouldn’t work with the C early being the same BR. But to just put a date on something without anything pointing to the dates is madness.
2 Likes
Currently there are a higher than normal amount of reports to process due to the dev server. So moderators will be additionally dealing with those on top of regular processing. Naturally response times on all fronts go up during this.
Ok, Ill get on that.
Do you mind if I link back to this post in the report to prove that I was directed to do not, and it’s not just a duplicate?
It’s mostly already written anyway.
Yes I agree…it has to be used in the right moment in a 16v16…NOT when you have 2 or 3 enemies in all directions moving in!
It is balanced accordingly for the weaponary it has.
Well, looks like with the new dev update, the F/A-18A may end up as the best Hornet to play…
You lose two Sparrows (on the wing tank hardpoints), but in exchange are now at 12.3 (and that’s still with 6x Sidewinders and 2x Sparrows, for a total of 8x missiles)
Some of this could have been reduced by this:
1 Like
That was the thing, they are about changes that we’re made to the dev server.
Well (aircraft that were missed) by a change that was made.
Are you saying it can’t be balanced with AIM-9Ms though, because I though historical accuracy came first and only if that couldn’t be balanced would changes be made to that effort?