And even when the argument of “But not an option because of AMRAAMs”
Where the hell is the Harrier Gr9A
Renown and Barham coming as event ships when we’d been asking for a new TT 7.0 for ages was also rather annoying
3 Likes
I just want the revenge class addressed, when it happened with Italy they got it the very next update, this will be the 2nd update without a british revenge class added now
2 Likes
Yeah…Im on the fence.
We did get Rodney and Warspite. So its nearly forgivable.
But if we get an update with no naval addition at all… Then there is going to be a reckoning
(though I am actually more pissed that Warspite and Renown continue to be denied HE-VT for their secondaries but multiple US BBs with heavier AAA get HE-VT)
Tbh for me it isnt something im willing to let go, yeah we got warspite and rodney but at the same time the most modernised british battleship in the game is currently sitting in someone elses tech tree
Yeah this is true.
Would it be the end of the world if Britain got 2x BBs in the same update?
I honestly dont think it would matter.
But If I had to choose between an R-Class and a Late-refit KGV. I think KGV would win
2 Likes
no
1 Like
Idk, im personally not touching the russian tech tree until an r is added to Britain, haven’t since it was added
I wouldnt do that anyway.
But yeah, it is annoying
I was actually planning on grinding the russian tree with murmansk before they added the r class
I enjoy Naval more than ground and have been tempted to grind another naval tree, but I just cant bring myself to do it.
I haven’t played a single russian vehicle in nearly 6 months now
1 Like
Hahaha
And its gonna stay that way until an r class is added, originally i didn’t play anything russian designed in any tech tree but warspite made other trees ok but russian tree no
1 Like
yes, having your stuff added to other tree first is pretty infuriating. AV-8B+ all over again
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
M4A3E2 Jumbo and M4/T26 are essentially the same tank. /s
They aren’t
@Morvran
Those Chieftains should be tech tree, as they fill holes.
Challenger 1 wouldn’t fill a hole, and it’s also far more difficult to research and would elongate the development time for a squadron vehicle, it also came after T-90S was chosen.
Then you have bad-faith arguments of “Gaijin doesn’t care about Britain cause they don’t have a squadron vehicle.” cause the Challenger Falcon takes an extra year over researching a vehicle that has plenty of English-language export documentation.
Stop implying Challenger 3 is copy-paste by calling unique vehicles what they aren’t.
Oh, and yes, 1 year is indeed faster than 3+ years which was the alternative.
I’m here stuck defending the British tech tree and Italian tech tree.
@Mitchverr
Hawk would’ve slowed down development for other vehicles, which could’ve caused one more major update without Typhoons.
Also your post calling SAAB liars is just sad.
1 Like
T-90a and t-90s actually are the same, a is a variant of the export s model of the t-90, a is literally the s adopted into russian army service
2 Likes
