voted “for”. thanks.
1 Like
What did it say?
question, since the YAK-141 was well documented and we know they would have tried to fit the radar and IRST at the same time, can the same argument be made for the Streetfighter 2 and its brimstones as if it was fully realised it would have had the twin launcher
it would also fit 2 roles the UK doesnt have, ATGM armed MBT and a vic with FnF ATGMs or at the very least top attack ATGMs
2 Likes
Gaijin did say they would on their YouTube channel shortly after it was released, what happened to that?
Please do not encourage others on the forum to vote no on a vote (let alone one that isnt in this forum) for a vehicle that you do not want
Tanks and aircraft (as well as ships) have differing requirements.
In the case of streetfighter, the entire launcher was a non functional mockup. So the tank is not planned. Other ATGM carriers are possible.
I don’t know what its referring too. Entirely possible perhaps it was discussed with the video team at one stage. But its not planned now.
but by the same argument the Yak-141 never mounted a functional IRST? and like the Yak-141 its an incredibly unique tank
Again, they key point missed:
We have already removed tanks that were either partly functioning but had incomplete turrets or components. We dont plan to introduce more.
I dont understand why there isn’t a universal rule here, it feels like gaijin picking and choosing what they want in the moment, like is there even a reason on why ground is held to such a higher standard then air? also up until this point im pretty sure most people thought that Air and Ground had the same implementation rules and it was only naval that it was relaxed
9 Likes
except Ho-Ri
We’ve mentioned it many times and also explained both the Yak-141 and Challenger 2 Streetfighter. Its not a new rule or concept. Its the very reason the German tanks were removed.
1 Like
fair enough I guess it just seems like a very inconsistent rule to limit ground compared to air
I don’t think any of these are bad judgement individually, but they seem like they aren’t purely objective decisions, and seem to vary in judgement between nations and types of vehicles too much.
Suggestion rules are clear and objective in the way they show what is and isn’t able to be suggested. While I don’t say the devs have to just use those for additions (as much as I’d like it), their own ruleset would be very interesting to see published in a similar way, since right now it is impossible for players to understand it properly and apply it to future vehicles.
Maybe with published rules we understand what goes into it more, and it becomes more logical and fair than it seems right now.
13 Likes
my assumption is its designed that way intentionally so the devs arent held to a standard like the Yak-141 and Streetfighter 2 debate even though they are increadably similar, hell the streetfighter 2 is in an arguably better spot as the majority of the tank is the same as a base challenger 2 and works the only part that would need to be added is the brimstones, which is the exact same as the Yak-141 getting a radar and IRST
6 Likes
Where’s today’s Dev update
1 Like
We have already removed tanks that were either partly functioning but had incomplete turrets or components. We dont plan to introduce more.
- Tiger 2 105 “removed” in 1.91
- Radpanzer added in 1.97
Smin forgor Radpanzer didn’t have a functioning turret, not even optics on the hull 💀
2 Likes
yak 141 may not but will mig 29 9.12/9.13 ever get R73 and remove R27er R60s are unusable will it ever get them as it could go to 13.0 or even remain same BR as Su33 at 13.0 gets 6 R73 and R27ER
12.3 F/A-18A hornet has better missles on a very similar FM aim7m is a bit worse than ER but mig29 a radar is fooled easily so it does matter and IR wise he has AIM-9L which GAPS the R60MK by miles
1 Like
@Smin1080p_WT Perhaps it’s an idea to explore these set of guidelines or a frame work to what can or can’t come to a tech tree in the next community notes as then you can explain more in detail to why X came and Y didn’t.
10 Likes
Still no word on BOL being fixed
Just about to hit 800 votes for it to finally be fixed.
1 Like