You prefer getting farmed by highly experienced level 100 guys who feed on beginners with barely any experience already in Ranks I and II, just to quickly do some BP tasks?
1 Like
I don’t see how this counters my point. You’re making it sound like this kind of interaction with a nuke carrier is common, which it is not. And you are missing the point entirely of why this being added. So let me be quite clear about this. This penalty is being added because an overwhelming majority of these teamkills are intentional. Ask anyone who has consistently spawned nukes. “Enemies in blue” become a real problem.
2 Likes
Oh my GOD. My BROTHER in Christ. How is is possible that you FIX THE T-26s and copypaste the M44 to EVERY NATION THAT COULD FEASIBLY GET IT but you CAN’T COPYPASTE AN M36B2 OVER TO THE CHINESE TECH TREE!? I am losing my mind. This update isn’t real.
3 Likes
inb4 next battlepass vehicle
im happy we got the cv90mk4… but why this one? israel got a namer with trophy, and there are several other nations with IFV’s w APS, so why not sweden? D series turret is what shouldve been added imo, but still happy sweden has spikes now
1 Like
That would be a new level of stupid. The ROC never used the standard M36. It should have been updated to the M36B2 alongside the T-26s. The least they could do is change the flag to PRC since they actually captured a few standard M36s. The model would still be wrong but it’d be more accurate than what we have now.
can we also have it when squad members marks an area, you can interact with it as a CAS player ???
Buddy lasing >_>
Hello.
I’ve already mentioned this in the suggestion thread for ASEAN planes but I’ll do this here as well, hope the devs see this.
The A-7E that is being added is having issues with historical accuracy.
RTAF A-7Es never had AIM-9Gs as Thailand never operated USN missiles. They did however operate AIM-9P4s which wouldn’t be much ch of a balance breaker at 10.7 where the plane is at. It is also having AGM-62s which RTAF never bought. I suggest that as a historical fix.
The US A-7E should however also get it’s historical AGM-65F/G and AIM-9L, especially since it got a Desert Storm time period ALR-46V RWR.
BOTH of the planes are lacking at the BR they’re at (performance and weapons wise) and I BEG the devs to update it and bring it to a somewhat relevant spot again.
Please reconsider the existing bug reports about mavs and AIMs and make the planes accurate to their service countries and available weaponry. They’re not gamebreaking at all but very VERY powecrept.
🙏
2 Likes
Poor faith choices as always.
Where’s AS-90? Should have been in the TT instead of M109.
Considering Japan for once receiving some attention can we expect Type 10 bug fixes that some of them “accepted” since release? Namely, neutral steering problems when a driver engages 1st gear, hull collision model making tank bump on seemingly mild terrain where other tanks drive just fine, and CVT not being modeled(or at least substituted for vehicle to perform as it should - M1A2 SEP accelerates about the same, when Type 10 should be noticeably faster than Type 90).
No, NOTHING should be added “instead of” another, and nothing is in-game either.
Britain should and will have M109 alongside AS-90, despite your posts’ anti-player attitude.
1 Like
Do you mean Britain?
Yeah? Where is it then? M109 was added over a year ago. Still no AS-90 in sight.
It’s not the only example. You can point to tons of BR’s with copy-paste vehicles that still haven’t had domestic vehicles added.
Clearly AS-90 research is taking its time, and there are hundreds of domestic vehicles added alongside these vehicles so stop with the blatant lies. We can play the game for ourselves and know your claims are incorrect. Sherman 2 Cromwell, easiest example.
1 Like
Cromwell’s were already in-game when Sherman II was added. That point means nothing.
Hey, I completely missed that one! I’ve been waiting for this since the Rooivalk came out… = )
1 Like
And it took years for Sherman II to be added.
Cromwell’s weren’t added “instead of” Sherman II, they just were ahead in development.
Game development isn’t instant as you seem to imply.
2 Likes
You’re circling with your point here.