U can have a K9 for sure.
1 Like
Reminds me of these
7 Likes
ww2 targeting pod
3 Likes
I just noticed- no MBTs had new detailed modules or turret baskets on the Dev Server…
When people rightfully said that implementing these ONLY to the Abrams and Leopards was unfair, they claimed that they were going to implement more update after update… but it appears the Leopard and Abrams tanks are going to be needing to be in a disadvantage for yet another 3 months.
16 Likes
No MBTs receiving detailed modules, no aircraft ejection seat animation retrofitting, no old ships getting radar aswell… That’s the stuff i look the most forward to
3 Likes
Apparently, with the absurd random RNG damage and bounces, they don’t have enough to make a satisfactory artificial balance for them, so they move on to something more original, putting a disadvantage that many tanks should have, only for a few tanks.
well at 12.0 youd only face it in a full uptier like whatts a f104G supposed to do against it with AIM-9E as a stock missile not to mention R24R not being picked up on RWR
I would like to remind people that one of the vehicles that was the major reasons behind the new modules (2S38) only really got buffed from them.
Most other vehicles dont really get affected by it or they are worse to play
1 Like
Thank you for describing BR compression to me.
The R-24R (or any othet SARH missile) doesn’t trigger the RWR, because these missiles don’t have radars. The planes radars trigger the RWR, IF their RWR is able to detect the band used by the opponents radar. (I don’t know why you are worried about the R-24R anyways, as the MLs have R-24Ts and IRST)
Certain planes can detect the MiG-23MLs radar, others cannot, that’s not a BR thing.
Again, the F-104G would still meet MiG-23MLs, a BR raise for the MLs would just punish the MLs, most (if not all) 10.7 and 11.0 planes already fought MLs before the big BR changes that raised the F-4Js to 12.0 and the MLs to 11.7. Compared to the Phantoms, Mirage F1s and the Tornado F.3/ADV it’s fair for the MLs to be 11.7.
The MLs weren’t particularly problematic at 11.3 before 2024s decompression and at 11.7 they still aren’t problematic.
1 Like
All F-2 will be Strike Aircraft right?
The F-2 is a fighter
2 Likes
Its not, primary role of the F-2 are anti ship strikes and ground supression, fighting other airplanes is secondary
It’s a multirole fighter, just like the F-16, Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, etc
The F-1 is the one you are thinking about, as it’s a T-2 modified for the anti-ship and ground attack role.
Edit: scratch the F-4, got my classifications mixed up, the F-4 is a fighter-bomber
3 Likes
I don’t want F-2 to be another fighter anymore because I play Ground. Whay a very wasted slot to make F-2 as a fighter because we just got Thai line that can CAS as fighter and the strike aircraft right now for Japan is just poop A-7E. So, if F-2 come as strike I can play both F-16/Gripen + F-2 that will be very nice. I’m waiting Sweden to get F-18D as strike but it is not going to happen.
It’s not going to get the strike role in-game as it’s not a fighter-bomber (Tornado IDS, Su-34) or strike-fighter (F-15E)
The comments in that bug report discuss why the Fighter classification is correct.
This case is similar to the F/A-18A/C which are classified as Fighters in-game as well, despite Attacker being part of their designation (F/A = Fighter/Attacker)
As it says directly here on the website of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, it’s a “close support fighter jet”. In other words Multirole Fighter.
Remember, youre talking about those who wanted to introduce spall liners to a select few tanks, and give it to more vehicles at a later time…
I know but in-game I don’t want to make it too fixed you know. If you play ground and play more than 1 aircraft in line up you will know how struggle it is to play. Then take that realistic role apart and make it fit to the game and help making it more enjoy is better imo.