Still, even that doesn’t make sense as for most of the time there isn’t a “late” counterpart to an “early” variant.
Keep in mind it isn’t all about progression either, if you want variation things get really iffy in the long run
“Early”/“Late” is a generalisation that enables Gaijin to pick and choose outfit for balance purposes.
there is? i don’t think it necessarily is always called “late” but is instead just a normal tech tree one or similar. The naming of Early/Late is inconsistent and that is perhaps an issue in of itself but my comment still stands about it not necessarily corresponding to when that model/upgrade/ordinance was introduced.
And it’s a really loose definition.
We can argue the A-7E is in its early variant but considering it’s got an RWR from late service it all just winds down to the fact that they can lazily pick and choose whatever the hell they want it to have just to not bother with weapons variations. ( Balancing is of secondary importance here given that planes for example have two different BR systems lol)
3 Likes
Well, if its not too OP why it can’t be added?
It’s a terrible naming scheme which only accomplishes wasted time with the creation and research of bug reports. If they would attach a year or block number to said aircraft it would be far more efficient. Hell they don’t even have to be specific with the date they could do 81-91.
2 Likes
Not currently planned in this update.
ARH mode for Brimstone is not planned in any capacity currently.
A missile being in an aircrafts inventory is not an automatic inclusion. It’s always been subject to balance considerations too.
Absolutely. And all that makes the whole thing about bug reporting extremely toxic as an immediate consequence.
“Passed as suggestion” and “will not be implemented, not INTENDED” my smelly rear lol
4 Likes
Any?
I thought it was only about ARH to ground
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.