You could argue that the Mig21 bison is unique
The airframe itself might not, but the whole package is
Just asking, are there plans to increase or differ rewards for munitions eliminated?
Also how does it work if I launched 1 but got missiles intercepted twice?
Right, now what about other situations?
Yak-141, while a unique vehicle, is still incomplete and added to a nation with many options for the BR.
Similarly the F-16AJ, which was never built in the first place, was an exception added instead of another nations very real F-16, something that would’ve been equal to the F-111K situation.
I understand how it’s done now, but there’s a subjective judgement involved that makes it unpredictable. For example one person might argue that, while the Kranvagn was incomplete, and the Tiger II in the tree fills a similar role, this Tiger II isn’t close enough, so instead the Kranvagn should be added. Another then might argue that the Tiger II is close enough, so it shouldn’t be added. And another person again might argue that no matter how the Tiger II relates, it is not placed in the research tree, meaning no matter what the capability from the tree is missing and needs to be added.
Just generally, at what point are vehicles too similar to be added alongside eachother?
It’s this bit of subjective input that I think is not entirely fair, which is why I’d want to see a more clear and objective system. I am not saying the current one is inherently wrong, it is working for them right now, but I have my reasons to dislike it.
eh its still at the end of the day a mig 21 still gonna fly like one
Fair if you see it that way
But imo it is unique just like the Iranian Tomcat
A plane at higher tiers instead just defined by its flight model but also by its sensors and armament
1 Like
If I can’t identify and read DNA sequences with it than it’s modeled wrong.
2 Likes
if i cant weld tank hatches shut with the laser its modeled wrong
Someone please tell me they have added BOL to American fighters and my cries have been finally answered.
And them getting the sniper pod!
no it hasnt happened for either thing
Bro, i’m going back to my big report spot and rot away to make one.
A very iconic domestic vehicle that was the only one of its type until F-35 (Afterburning / Supersonic VTOL carrier aircraft). There is no equivalent of this.
At there time there were no “other nations” inside Japan. So no other options were on the table.
1 Like
I don’t know if I’ve asked this or not but is there a limit to how many subs a nation can get ?
1 Like
According to some secret sources (my mind) the dev server will close and reopen for a third time, this time bring an extra, and new vehicle to each nation (and vehicle trees) that isn’t necessarily something they need, but instead dual purpose (need/want).
When you use the CLAWS radar vehicle you cant lock onto what you are looking at, instead it toggles between what it has scanned, meaning that even if its scanned, you have to press 3-4 times depending on how much is scanned, should that be changed?
I never disagreed with Yak-141, just bringing up the idea that some incomplete vehicles are included even if the gameplay need isn’t there, simply because they are interesting.
In this specific case I’d contrast that with O-I, a very iconic tank and one of the few superheavy tanks, yet this one has been repeatedly denied.
Fair in a way, but at the same time Australia isn’t a subtree either and Thailand was already a rather popular idea before the F-16AJ was added.
Personally I don’t mind it as is, or at least wouldn’t if it was accurate to the source material and historical context. But it’s still an example for an exception, something specifically decided on subjective judgement, outside of even Gaijins understanding of rules for additions.
And it’s the most extreme example, representing an aircraft not only incomplete, but not built at all, and on top of that in a state that isn’t historical, but theorized by Gaijin based on them missing some important background information
5 Likes
That confuses me why India was picked since Australia is well represented within Britain already
idk there are more options for copy paste I guess
Tbh I think they added the 111C not because of any Australia/Commonwealth ties but because there is no other non-US F-111 to add in place of the K
Gameplay is not the only reasons vehicles may be considered. Domestic importance, uniqueness, functionality and features as well as its gameplay are all considerations.
Sadly its not really a comparison here. Yak-141 is a very well known and documented aircraft. Everything it had or was going to receive is clear, its flight tests and evaluations are all well recorded, as was its weaponry and equipment.
O-I is a very different case. As the devs have already answered quite a few times, its spesifically the information gaps and lack of overall clear information that are the primary reason it has not been introduced. Much of it is still not clear. Whilst that is very clearly the subject to debate for many, its not something that yet again needs to be opened up for discussion here as off topic.
Indeed its not, its vehicles were deployed to wherever is most applicable already before the F-111C, including some already in the UK tree. Any vehicle that is not a sub tree can be deployed as such. Particularly if there are multiple that are applicable. In this case, the US had no need of the C as the F was present, with the C filling the K requirement for many.
But not yet at the time a sub tree or implemented nation in game at the time.
2 Likes