if the Devs say so, i guess they will
Unfortunately.
I love this update.
After a great day, I’d like to leave a few thoughts.
The naval decompression is huge. Its clearly a stealth relaunch of naval. This is a strong push to attract more players to the mode. There’s no doubt that when the update drops, the first few weeks will see a surge of players, many of them curious newcomers eager to try out the new beasts.
But what if naval doesnt draw in as many players as expected?
In a few months…
Will queues be even longer?
Will we see even more bots in matches?
We only have three ships at 8.7 and a handful more at 8.3/8.0. Will top-tier become Yamato vs Yamato brawls?
Will jets get BR changes for naval? Or will I be able to attack these ships using jets from the ’70s and ’80s?
Frigates with ’70s and ’80s missiles will probably sit around 8.7/9.7—will they be fighting Yamatos and their 1940s friends?
We still need bigger maps…
We need submarines (its good to know they’re coming).
And we definitely need aircraft carriers. That shouldn’t be a problem, the mechanics could be similar to the new SPAA system: a main vehicle (the carrier) and the ability to spawn 3 or 4 aircraft. Once you lose your planes, game over, unless the carrier goes down first.
If they want to relaunch naval, like we say in Argentina, “you have to throw all the beef on the grill.” Three legendary ships and a giant Russian fantasy vessel cooked up by some ex soviet peoples commissar won’t cut it, especially if we have to wait three more years to see another change.
GAIJIN! ADD THE DART THIS UPDATE AND MY LIFE IS YOURS!
2 Likes
tested
4 Likes
Screw the F-106 Delta Dart.
Where F2Y Sea Dart?
Sci-fi ahh helmet
Don’t know if asked already.
But what about the ‘‘Hanomag’’ SdKfz 251/21 with Mg151/20 coming to germany too?
Not that we know of.
Who cares? Not the Navy lol
1 Like
honestly its crazy that the Aim-4 being used in that test actually had enough pull to make an HMD useful. Maybe it was one of the later Aim-4’s tho
I love the F-35 disclaimer :D
1 Like
We are all just cute little donuts.
The AIM-4 wasn’t that bad, especially the later models (F,G,H). Its big problem is that it had no proxy fuze until the prototype H model, which may or may not have been tested on the F-106.
arguably better than the Aim-9B when it came to hitting stuff. the IR version was the first US missile with radar slaving and having an uncaged seeker allowing it to pull off pretty good offbore shots. Its flight performance tho was near identicle to that of an Aim-9B. Both missiles tho were pretty much tied in being bad, as while the Aim-9B in theory was the better missile, had an incredible amount of faults such as a really bad proxy fuze design and a near useless impact fuze. Aim-4 tho was alot more functional than the later Aim-9E tho which somehow had even worse kill stats than both the Aim-4 and 9B combined
I heard someone said that on the Russian devstream, it was stated that the BUK-M3 and ASTER-VL are in the works, that means Britain is the only one without a capable SAM(Italy is also using the ASTER)
@Smin1080p_WT can you explain why sweden has yet to grind another unfoldered 400k rp vehicle amd why its the same BR as the worst 14.0, you cant expect anyone to believe that this is good balancing especially when you consistently do this to sweden vs most other nations that get their near identical vehicles foldered.
Funny spelling there.
Lmao
The only area where the Aim- 4 had an absolutely horrendous record on, was on F-4C’s and D’s because improper labelling on the fire selector switch, really poor training, and the F-4’s not having the proper automated fire control computer for the missile
2 Likes