Anyways, gaijin really does need to focus on adding more historical weapons like the shrike(as an example) to more vehicles that had them, now I guess they are already working on it and it’ll take time but yea… sorely missing a lot of weapons they just don’t have (usually because adding them would mean they’d be OP in GRB)
1 Like
We need JP233, I desire to eat migs.
also AGM-84 for A-6E carrier killing
1 Like
i mean, id love the a US A-4 to have shrikes, as grinding out a whole another nation for 1 aircraft with a different weapon can get tedious as the A-4N Ayit has a set of 4 shrikes, but not everyone wants to grind out a whole other tech tree for them
It looks more realistic but under the hood it’s extremely simplified.
2 Likes
It is not, WT is unironically more realistic in many aspects including missile seekers lmao
F-4E doesn’t have MTI
2 Likes
Which vehicles are missing them right now?
Isn’t that another Intruder (sub) variant/upgrade standard than what we have in game?
Of the top of my head some Kfir variants, the A-4E and the F-100 could carry them
This would be the perfect game mode for simulator. Because there are no lobbies there would be no more ***nese bot farmers than in realistic mode. I bet they won’t do it though as they just generally hate sim and treat everyone playing it the same as the bot farmers. Unless they see this as an opportunity to finally pull the plug on EC.
See here then: Nuclear Escalation: Possibility for Sim? - Game Discussion / Simulator Battle - War Thunder — official forum
= )
Fair enough. It’s been my go to plane whenever I played Sweden since I couldn’t queue with US much at the higher tier.
IIRC the A-6E SWIP
1 Like
Going back through everything over the past 10 hours.
All I can say; lot of yall are still thinking inside the box as main characters. Meanwhile, I’m minding my own business in my Thunderchiefs, using rocket salvos to take out SHORAD or as improvised flares, and actually trying to work with my team to cover what I can’t do.
Too many of these arguments keep falling into static, equipment based debates when the core issue is going to be human bias and perspective. The AI targeting logic hasn’t been altered since the last round of testing; it will engage whatever it finds in range, but it attempts to prioritize actual threats to AA over other aircraft. This still holds up from testing a buddy and I did practicing on patrol boats with Bucc Sea Eagles and Shrikes from an A-7E; they swapped from my Shrikes to attempting to engage the ASM salvo even though the Shrikes were the closest threat.
I still think there are aspects of the mode that are stupid, make no mistake. But I’m not going to pretend like the mode isn’t infallible one way or the other. There’s no problem with not knowing anything; not wanting to learn is the issue.
I personally think things like the A-10 and SU-25 should stay in the mode because they are fun to take out for their purpose of just ground pounding. But their ability to use all aspect IR missiles should be removed, especially since there are a lot of flareless fighters they can face. Besides, in the game files, this bracket is just labeled as “1970s” instead of Vietnam specifically, and both those aircraft were active in the 1970s.
2 Likes
Or the thud
That isn’t reliable at all. 99% of the time it holds lock for 0.1 seconds and then it just drifts completely off the target.
It’s pretty reliable as long as you’re slightly below the guy you’re locking. I’ve locked people near multipath height doing this over using ACM.
It’s not reliable at all. I can be sitting on the deck trying to lock someone nearly a KM above me, making sure the whole ACM box is above the horizon, and basically every time it does what I described.
I just thought of something, But I really want them to enable night battles in Nuclear Escalation…
1 Like
ACM =/= SRC. SRC box has a thinner scan area so it’s less affected by clutter, and the subsequent AQC box locking via SRC is even smaller.