nah 8 120´s during the missile bug phase were just better…
Don’t argue with these people in these terms. They prefer “roleplay” or “historical accuracy” more than efficiency. But it’s their right after all
If you do have public available reliable sources - then post them. If you don’t - don’t make such loud groundless claimings
I’m aware, but saying that,
… doesn’t make it competitive for 13.7. I get that he prefers to roleplay, but that doesn’t justify saying its as good as a 13.7 as the others.
For example, with the gripen with 4x R-darters and 2 Aim9Ms, a very poor loadout for top tier standards, I still have ok results but my “battle presence” is very weak, and I can’t help my team as much as with the F-15J(M) for example.
1 Like
alright keep ur hair on
also :)
enjoy your “If you do have public available reliable sources - then post them. If you don’t - don’t make such loud groundless claimings” comment
1 Like
the power of a 30 second googling is wild
Sending suggestions as sources is like…
someone posted it and did it already so why not
ASM-1s warhead seems somewhat realistic.
It’s barely newer than the AS.34, but it is a bit lighter (150kg vs 165kg), so it makes sense to have slightly less explosive mass proportionally.
I would say that a 15kg lower warhead weight taking away 9kg of explosives is a bit much for a placeholder value, but in this case it’s close enough that I wouldn’t be surprised if they actually had a source for it.
The ASM-2 currently only has just over 20% warhead explosive mass, less than half of what the closest equivalent (AGM-84) is known to have, and that despite the ASM-2 even having the (slightly) heavier warhead.
It’s probably just copied from the ASM-1 for lacking sources, but in turn gives the ASM-2 the worst warhead of any ASM.
It’s also missing the incendiary effect, so a properly working ASM-2 would have good potential of being among the best ASMs even.
1 Like
Sadly even if they fixed everything about them (and they have improved them a bit) the maps and rewards just make it pointless. Ai ships have almost full player damage models so you’ll need more then one to even kill it assuming your missles even hit. And the rewards are pathetic.
As for ground units well as long they are sea skimming that aint happening.
Best we can hope for in the future is more refinement, better rewards, easier to kill the ship bots and also eventual modern player ships.
As for future missles its still bleak but we have ASM-2B with its gps function maybe can be used on ground but i have doubts too since well…sea skimming unless ASM-2B doesnt have sea skimming or can be programmed to not use it idk.
Same with ASM-3 a nice potentially good missle but we’ll see how gaijin models it if they even add it.
Ironically we would have to wait for the new Type 12 development for F-2 which main purpose is anti-ship but is more like a cruise missle with anti ground capabilities as well its essentially their own Tomahawk missle in a way.
1 Like
IIRC ASMs can irl be fired either in sea skimming or non sea skimming mode. But WT does not support multiple launch modes
2 Likes
Do you have source for ASM-2 for this mode?
You don’t need to be a missile truck to be competitive. I often end up among the top 3 on the leaderboard even in a match filled with Su-30s, Rafales, Typhoons etc.
For 13.7, your only two weaknesses are the lower than average number of ARH missiles (although your missiles are better than the US) and lack of HMD, but everything else the plane offers simply makes up for it. Just don’t rush into the furball and you’ll be fine.
No idea, remember seeing a document that mentioned it posted in here before. Hence me saying IIRC, because its something i recall, but dont have the proof on hand for.
1 Like
Would be good if we have this proofs. Probably ASM-2B could be added as simple GPS missile
The amount of missiles is above average for 13.7, and ARH missiles is the average while being better missiles than the average.
People were complaining about the amount like it was 14.0… or under-BR’d 13.7s that are currently OP and need moved up to their 14.0 equals.
All while being the best airframe at 13.7 as well. [Though Su-27SM does do high-speed slightly better due to mach 2.3 airframe.]
He specifically said ARH Missiles, not just “missiles”
If you wanna argue semantics at least do it right.
4 ARH is not “above average”
1 Like
Forgot to include that in my post during creation. Gave up on trying to remember and posted, your post reminded me.
All claimings need sources for them. Otheriwise they’re just words. And I want sources specifically from you because you already made multiple loud statements with no evidence. For example, about HMD on F-2 or about it’s testing on 501 unit. There were also other topics where you were wrong, like chaff pods on F-1, or RWR on T-2.
I have checked all sources listed in suggestion about ASM-2. Not only I haven’t found any mentions about 225 kg warhead, the number 225 itself is not mentioned in any of the sources! Well, 1 source isn’t opening, so maybe it has the number… Wouldn’t trust it anyway. I also may be wrong, so correct me if that happened
2 Likes
It would be cool if Gaijin also had to provide sources for their claims and numbers. And if they cannot, they should go with the general consensus even if it’s not backed by any proper sources, as long as the consensus sounds reasonable.
1 Like