There’s some weird behaviour with ammo placement, it’s actually lethal with vehicles that have nothing but empty space for survivability. Love to see the ammo that should be neatly stacked in one corner of the crew compartment being spread out just to maximise the chance of it being hit
1 Like
They messed with the ammo storage this update for some reason, don’t see any explanation as to why this is, a lot of people mentioned the Abrams now storing ammo in the hull opposed to in their ready rack, which means the blowout panels and such won’t do anything either I imagine.
I hate how many little manipulative things are going on with things like ammo racks and ready racks amongst other things.
1 Like
Similar thing with the Ho-Ri, in a test drive it load racks 4-5.
Yet in a game it’s 1-2.
1 Like
did they just put back the missile launch sound? 😄
As a fellow Mig-23 pilot I highly approve this. Gaijin went too far with this change, and fully automatic switchmode is unrealistic.
@Smin1080p Is there any way I can get this report looked at? Community Bug Reporting System
While I made this as a historical report, I genuinely consider this to be a bug. This is a feature that must have been an oversight. And the reason I say this is because:
This feature is available for…
AIM-7F and was given to AIM-120s.
R-27ER and was given to R-77.
Super 530D but not given to MICA EM.
This feature carried over from some SARH missiles to ARH missiles but was overlooked on MICA EM.
11 Likes
I see a yellow D in the forums, I click on the link and I heart the comment.
That would be a welcome buff considering the range is even more gimped by the wobble.
Actually that could even have an impact on the wobbling at long range, with the PID reducing TVC impur from long distances, who knows
1 Like
That is true, a side-benefit that could help the missile at long ranges. The implication of this feature couldn’t be understated.
1 Like
Isn’t it already the best arh in closer range, it’d be a little broken, maybe to the point they add later amraams
I just want to say that the smaller match option is useless.
Everyone I know and have come across with has it enabled because, just like me and the majority of players, they can’t stand 16v16…
And yet, not even 20% of the matches I play are anything but 16v16. And the very few smaller matches I’ve got were all 12v12, which is better, but a far cry from the “can be anywhere from 6v6 to 12v12”. I have not got anything but 16v16s today as of now.
We really need a HARD ban option.
We need players to be able to select whether they want large matches, small matches, or both. But give us the option to select exclusively one of the types.
Most of us find 16v16 matches a disgrace to the game and yet we are thrown into them even though all of us have the smaller match option enabled…
This “option” thing was presented as a solution to 16v16, at least to those of us who find it to be a problem, and yet, it’s not even an inkling of a solution.
I am starting to seriously consider leaving every 16v16 match before even spawning in from now on.
It’s just not fun. Launch a missile at an enemy? Wasted; the enemy took 4 missiles from other teammates simultaneously. Proceed to die to 5 missiles fired from 3 different enemies.
7 Likes
Yes while it is the best in closer range, it atleast has competitors in that category which is R-77 with 50G. But in BVR, AIM-120A stands alone with no proper alternative when it could be the MICA EM challenging it in BVR capability.
@Smin1080p Is it a feature that the T-80U-E1 's atgm, the 9M119M1 does not trigger the Strikeshield APS on the KF 41 Lynx ?
Because I caught one starboard, right in the middle of the perfectly healthy APS panel and there was no activation whatsoever.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/pjvLPjCXnQys
(this thread seems more appropriate for such topic)
Earlier today it intercepted and defeated a spike LR2 from a Namer IFV, so i would like to think that since the threat velocity is within the APS capability it should have at least attempted to stop the atgm.
Strikeshield 70-700 m/s, 9M119M1 is at 445 m/s
At least let the aim 120 be good in longer range, while mica em is best on short otherwise mica em would be outright best in game
I’d rather they give R-77-1 and AIM-120C-5 than to keep the MICA gimped.
Fair enough, though I can’t control what the devs do
1 Like
Gaijin the reverse speed on the zlt-11 is wrong and you have acknowledged it a long time ago can we please get this increase implemented , please
Changing the order of the slots was not necessary for anyone. It would have been better if you had changed so that the expert or ace level was assigned to the machine and not as it is now to the crew. Often buying an expert level is expensive, especially at the highest levels. Not which reach almost 2 million silver lions (we are talking about premium machines) and most slightly over a million silver lions or an ace level for which someone has spent, for example, golden eagles or spent a lot of time to earn it. People appropriate machine slots for the corresponding battle classification and then comes the change of the battle classification of machines in order to balance the game, and after such a change it turns out that there are two machines with the same battle classification in the same slot and this forces to fill one machine in another slot and buy again the level of an expert. The case is even worse when the level of an ace was purchased. I understand that it is necessary to change the battle classification to make the game better. But you can’t punish players with this change and force them to buy expert or ace again. I hope that you will address this issue.
Regards
1 Like
THIS!
Ever since the the Devblog about it I have been saying that something like 8v8 or 10v10 should be the norm and if one, for some reason, should desire 16v16 there should be an opt-in switch to get such games, but telling us that its fixed when we cant still go days without seeing anything other than 16v16 is an absolute disgrace and makes gameplay and especially stockgrinding very hard and annoying.
2 Likes
I have only had 16v16s in the past 3 days, and almost every time there are users complaining that they don’t get any smaller matches despite enabling the option. This solved nothing.
Best of all is; the reason why I don’t like 16v16 isn’t even so much about me getting engaged by tons of enemies simultaneously anymore… it’s more about the fact that every single time I engage someone, they just die before my missile reaches them because they were being engaged by multiple other teammates.
Rushing in a suicidal way is rewarded here. If you sideclimb or defend, you will just get too late to the party. Only the head-on kamikazes may get a kill or two before blowing up themselves, that’s the gameplay 16v16 encourages.
This is extremely frustrating.
2 Likes
Pretty much my experience, only time this ever feels fun or engaging to me is when both teams die at about the same rate until about 4-6 people are left o each side and then we have some proper gameplay with a very nice mix of standoff BVR and CQB fighting but that happens about as rarely as one of those “Small lobbies”, usually one side just snowballs and even if you survive it´s like 3v 11 and you got no chance.
I´m pretty certain proper small games would fix all of that.
There´s a reason I almost exclusively play SB these days when touching anything at 12.0 or above
1 Like