The modules are currently WIP and reports will be reviewed over the coming days for dev server.
1 Like
its tomcat tiime
I guess no ;-;
@Smin1080p_WT
Can we pass a note to the devs about the Harriers flaps. The Harrier 1s do not have flaperons and have a negligible effect on speed.
The devs current change in deployment speeds is spot on.
The only change needed still is their method of deployment.
Harrier flaps Mechanism incorrect // Gaijin.net // Issues
1 Like
Oh I totally agree. The devs don’t even appear to PLAY naval in the server, and even the update streams barely say a word about naval and what they do say is largely inaccurate. The updates about ships basically don’t actually understand how the ships play out in the game or what they actually get used for, and the BRs for ships are broken and inadequately understood.
We still don’t have a response and I don’t expect we’ll get a proper response. Just like the last update, which I and other protested against, this will go through, the player numbers will drop more, and the devs will shrug and go “Well guess naval isn’t popular” and do even less to improve it, bug fix it, or make new things for it. The major bugs, like the one you posted (been aware of that for a long time myself too) will continue onwards. The BR issues, the issues with certain vessels (like the SKR1/7), the issues with battleships (shell room explosions, spawn range), the bot/cheating issues, will all continue unabated because they’ll just keep abandoning naval more and more.
If they would just speak to the people who main NAB, they could possibly learn what the community wants, what they feel could fix a lot of issues, and what could be done to improve. Rolling back the last couple updates of “range finder work faster” would be a good start, as would the perma-damaged hull breaches, the loss of targeting just due to a small island in the way, and the change in camera placement (it’s getting REALLY annoying figuring out the height of my ship compared to landscape when swapping from bridge camera to sighting camera causes a massive change in placement and elevation). Then work towards actual improvements- making FCS take into account your ship’s placement in comparison, BR decompression, spawnpoint movements, new frigate spawns, new BB spawns, no shell-room explosions, AA tweaking, HE spam fixing, etc etc.
Just talk to us. We’re here. We care about naval in this game. There is no other game that does naval combat this well. Don’t let it become just a clone of WoWS.
2 Likes
when did i say about new vehicles dude? i said to wait so gaijin can give them the new models…
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
I do not understand that. The French HAC receives PARS 3 according to the update.
When the only ever existing Tiger HAC was shown at an air show, the PARS 3 didn’t even exist.
How is the Tiger HAC different from the Tiger UHT?
The helicopter had not yet been setup, this has been corrected in a future game version to the French version TRIGAT LR.
7 Likes
I’m sorry if I seem a bit offensive. But the Trigat LR?
A rocket that never existed is now becoming the main weapon of a helicopter?
After the joint Trigat project ended, the Germans developed PARS 3.
Perhaps it corresponds to what France imagined it to be. But probably not, otherwise they wouldn’t have used the Spike.
Seriously, this is like adding Abrahams to the German tree because they previously worked with the US on the XM1 Main Battle Tank Program.
The picture and the article only prove that France was part of the joint venture until 2004.
At that time the rocket was still called Trigat.
So France gets a Trigat that meets the performance parameters of the Trigat when France exits 2004?
The safe shooting distance is then 4.5 km.
If the Tiger gets the Mistral instead of the ATAS, that would certainly be fair.
@Stona_WT or @Smin1080p_WT or whoever else, could you please clarify whether it’s intended that VTB 11 and VTB 14 are being removed entirely?
They’re split off from the “old reserves will be available” statement, but the phrasing leads most people to believe they’re simply being grouped with VTB 8, not removed entirely. I didn’t even realize this until it was brought to my attention, it’s that misleading.
If vehicles are being made unobtainable, we need a much clearer and more obvious statement than this sort of ambiguity buried near the bottom of the patch notes; this should be part of the “new vehicles” section at the top.
Please do not fully remove them from research (especially when VTB 14 is the best of the three), and instead give them the same researchable-after-Rank-I courtesy as the others being replaced. :(
5 Likes
I imagine, given they’re being grouped, that they’re all reasearchable upon researching all of Rank 1. What’s weird is the idea that all of those shouldn’t be researchable until the rest of their new Rank 1 are done. Feels like that just means even fewer standard ships for Rank 1.
Another update and yet the ROC M36 still remains unfixed. Fellas, it is literally just a model and camo swap.
1 Like
they will not be removed, they’ll be obtainable after researching 2 rank of coastal fleet (same was with FCM 36 tank, for example)
1 Like
Id just like to throw in some Input on the Tracked Rapier.
I think it should get the Option of the MK2B Rapier missile.
Which was a Dual Fuse, High Explosive Anti Tank or Anti Aircraft version of the Rapier.
It could make use of the new Fuse Switching mechanic that is being implemented on the M107 Proxy shells, Allowing it to switch between being a Proximity fuse AA missile, And a what would be low power, but High speed HEAT missile
The HEAT action of the MK2B’s Warhead in HEAT mode apparently was not very powerful in testing, only penetrating around 350mm of RHA. So this would not be a ADATS situation where its a better AT missile than a AA missile, But it would allow it to have some fight back against tanks if needed.
1 Like
What I’m trying to tell you is this is the new model. Gaijin is purposely making sheets of metal apart of the turret drive.
That’s what we’re all assuming, but the phrasing is ambiguous and per the post I linked in my comment it seems that’s not actually how it is on the dev server, which is why I’m asking for clarification.
@Smin1080p_WT Hi, are there any plans to add the fuel tanks on the planes that haven’t received them yet/haven’t received all of them? It’s been a few updates since there have been any new additions