Can anyone tell me if the F-14 got the AoA limiter diabler? And why the EF got it when it’s already the best dogfighter in the game and never had it IRL?
F-14B didn’t have it when I tried it this morning, didn’t look at the other F-14s.
idk probably too many people crying that only Sukhois got it
1 Like
Iranian F-14 doesn’t have it. Also would it make sense to have it? Doesn’t the TF-30 have a habit of flaming out on extreme maneuvers?
F/A-18A was fine at 12.7, could’ve used AIM-7P but still solid
The only one I think should be moved down is the C late to 13.7
Given that flameouts don’t happen in WT, that’s not a concern. Also, the F-14s had it IRL, so there’s really no reason not to have it, especially since their DF playstyle revolves a lot around being an all round great jet in energy retention and AoA. I’m also slightly impartial because on controller it’s very hard to use Full Real controls in a dogfight.
realistically they couldve all stayed at their BR, we just need decompression
1 Like
I mean if you have documentation for it, you could submit a report. That’s what that GM did for the Rafale Necro something
1 Like
This is the only comment that even mentions Draken. That makes me sad.
That plane is the reason I started playing this game years ago, it’s sad seeing it ignored.
1 Like
Just noticed all US hornets now have single-pop CMs, havent checked the swedish one. Pretty sure it was double pop a day ago. Having played Su-33 its not half bad I would dare say.
There is a button in the tank IRL that you can press to ignore the “safety” mechanism they have implemented, but they haven’t added that.
So IDC if its a “real limitation” as there are plenty of examples of “real limitations” not being implemented across all the trees.
I think its got it.
Spoiler
1 Like
can US main complain ground instead of air
For God’s sake, if “u.S mAiN cOmPlAiNiNg” really determined things, the Abrams tanks wouldn’t have a billion modelling issues and wouldn’t be getting the new extra artificial weakspot of the turret basked; and American ships would not still take 5 business days to reload, and a very long etc.
Maybe F/A-18A was made 12.3 because it did not make sense that it was sitting at the same BR as a variant of the same plane armed with better missiles and generally better, and because it didn’t make sense to have an almost subsonic plane facing 13.7s armed just with 7Fs and 9Ls?
8 Likes
the thing is, it ALSO does’t make sense for the F/A-18A to be at 12.3
1 Like
What we needed was to raise the top BR to 15.0. Then, all F/A-18s could sit at proper BRs where they are neither outclassed, nor outclassing in downtiers.
If BR was 15.0, F/A-18C Late could be 14.3, F/A-18C Early could be 13.7, and F/A-18A could be 13.3, for example.
But… here we are.
EDIT: also now it has 2 less AIM-7s than before.
But even then, I now look forward to this plane. Facing 13.7s with 7Fs and 9Ls did not sound fun at all. I find this decision reasonable.
4 Likes
So IF the T.10 doesnt get dropped to 11.0 as its currenr state, its in a worse situation then the A and C early and they get separated BR
I’m telling you: If Russian air received half the handholding that Russia ground receives/has reveived, and US ground received half the handholding US air receives/has received both nations would be better for it.
6 Likes
Yeah, it almost feels intentional lmao
Neglect each on a different field, so that one surpasses the other in one way…
But here’s a great idea- how about, uh… giving them both the same care in both ways!? CRAZY IDEA HERE
I would give up 5 American planes for 1 Abrams fix. And I am sure Russians would give 1 T-80 for… whatever they think they suffer for. I don’t know. They are getting R-77-1 on an amazing plane but I still read them complaining so I don’t know what else they would need to finally be happy xD
1 Like
US air deserve more stuff than US ground tbh. Ground fix overdue but shouldn’t come at cost of air