From my pov we need to stop watering down unique characteristics of certain TTs with stuff that these nations actually rejected.
In addition this is no Lend-Lease aircraft in the classic sense as just the US had a Lend-Lease act and the UK exports of aircraft to the USSR were usually unwanted / outdated or already used aircraft - meaning that these aircraft were either a gesture of good will or just an a placebo answer to USSR requests for support.
“invaluable” I don’t think that word means what you think it means. It means something is so useful that it’s impossible to place value on it, which would contradict the first part of the statement that they underperformed.
There are already many trainer aircraft and vehicles that where leased for trials but never adopted into service, some of which where even returned to their home nation afterwards, most of the captured trophy vehicles in game where tested and moth balled, not used in combat. So this is well within the established norms for adding something… not that Gaijin doesn’t just ignore their own guidelines to add what ever they want where ever they want.
even when it does nothing but make trees less unique and interesting? if i wanted an early mustang id play US or UK. there are many Yakolevs and Lavochkins for the USSR
It’s not. Only things I use AI with is help with specifications and I’ll cross reference with other sources.
Oh and I’ll use it to template the specifications too.
And yes, the Mustangs weren’t really liked by Soviet Pilots, you’re welcome to do your own research.
Whilst i fully agree with this statement on a stand-alone basis - my point still stands from the watering-down perspective.
Besides the IFF issues for the fellow SB players - there is zero benefit for the USSR TT. Ever thought about a proper BR? If i see the A-36 at (Air RB) BR 2.7 a similar performing aircraft with way weaker armament has to be lower. U get a decent USSR fighter with a 20 mm at 2.3…
So we talk about an entry level aircraft for rookies or enthusiasts. There is nothing wrong with this aircraft in the UK TT.
As addition: Adding such aircraft makes either sense for players (like closing gaps) or for gaijin (adding premiums & earn money). There is neither a gap nor a lack of imho way better premium aircraft in the USSR tree.
I would much prefer new and unique aircraft, and the Russian tree doesn’t have any holes that require plugging, one could argue that they lack a good high alt fighter, but the game rarely plays out at high alt and the Allison engine in the Mustang 1 sucks at altitude anyway, it was mostly used for ground attack and low level photo recon.
Take my comment as more a statement of it being in line with Gaijins policy of adding vehicles, rather than support of adding it, or of copy paste in general.
I personally prefer vehicles to have some unique modifications to justify adding them outside the nation of manufacture.
Yes, it saw service training pilots. But I do see what you mean, I do need to change it, I meant it never saw service at the front.
This post was changed a few times, and I forgot to go back and reword certain things. Thanks.
The key word is “handful”. The matchmaker has no context for this, so with all the people buying the soviet mustang it’ll almost be as if they’re mass produced.
And? I don’t really have an issue with it. There’s no real difference compared to other limited-production or one-off vehicles like the XP-50 and La-200, which are widely used in the game as if they were mass-produced. This is intentional. Gaijin and the game don’t really factor in real-world production numbers, so it’s irrelevant in the context of gameplay design.
Believe it or not some of us care about realism, but I can see why that can be forgone in favor of gameplay. However irrelevant it is in gameplay design does not mean it remains relevant in gameplay, though. It’s quite annoying to consistently die to good, powerful fighters in large swaths that you know barely, or in the case of the ho-ri production, never existed. Especially in a game branded as “realistic”
Realism doesn’t always equate to 100% historical accuracy, especially not in the way you’re implying, with restrictions on prototype or limited-production vehicles. Last time I checked, the actual goal of the game is to simulate how each vehicle behaves as realistically as possible within gameplay mechanics, not to recreate exact historical deployment numbers.
To be blunt, this game likely isn’t aiming to be what you’re expecting. It’s not trying to match the level of historical fidelity found in sims like IL-2 Great Battles.
I get where you’re coming from. I’ve felt that way before, too, but I’ve adapted to it over time. It’s never been a major issue for me.
Maximum historical accuracy… this word has lost its meaning when describing the Air Realistic Battles long after Air RB started throwing mixed Allied and Axis teams together regularly, with Pacific maps as the rare exception.
Was flying the Finnish BF-109G2 yesterday, the task was to defend Stalingrad, with a team that includes German planes while USSR was on the other (attacking) side…