Thank you!
If they didn’t carry it or couldn’t carry it then they shouldn’t carry it in game. There is a fair case for the phantom II, for obvious reasons, but tornado is a stretch
So, again not really aimed at you… but we had an incident yesterday and that user is gone now… so, yeah…
Tornado probably not, but Harrier Gr3 (Especially as the Harrier Gr1 is one of two aircraft with Napalm currently), Jaguar Gr1 (and maybe GR1A), Hunter FGA9 and Phantom FGR2 are all definetly ones that need to be considered for it
1 Like
Harrier yeah, idk about Hunter and jag, phantom yeah
Ah, fair enough. Was the only “restricted” looking document I’ve seen recently. So I wondered.
Spoiler
1 Like
Hunter, there is apparently a video clip of one dropping napalm or something. The fiddly bit comes from the fact we have the Rhodesian Hunter FGA9 and the Hunter FGA9 in that clip being from a different nation or something.
Jag and Phantom would fall under the right to use it, and may have very well trained to have used it, but proving that either actually dropped one is another matter. Though Phantom could get it just on the virtue of being a Phantom.
2 Likes
This is partly why I don’t argue about top tier stuff the other half is I don’t know enough to argue about lol
Though saying that Pacifica where would you like to see the Australian Hornet the UK tree or the US ?
Nice. Did UK use same napalm bombs as US? Phantom being a phantom is what I had in mind as well, but if they aren’t the same type of napalm bombs that could affect it
I have absolutely no idea. British Weapon system thread just lists “100 gal napalm tank”
:D
But its possible?
Its an area im not well versed in
Yes!
2 Likes
A very diplomatic answer :P
3 Likes
Yes to whom xD lmao
1 Like
He clearly meant the UK tree : P
/j
^^
1 Like
The buccaneer used the “100 Gal No 1 Mk 1 Fire bomb” as per the Buc S2 aircrew manual. But the Harrier Gr1 uses the Mk77 in game. So… Shrug
Yeah never heard of buc one. But mk 77 is one of ours (Navy one), might be worth checking if US Navy phantoms carried them so you have justification for them on a British one
I suppose this might not be the best place to post this, but has anyone payed attention to EU regulations lately? There’s a new one:
Commission and national authorities take action to protect children from harmful practices in video games
This boils down to several points for War Thunder:
- Games Must Show Real-World Prices:
Spoiler
Currently, in War Thunder, European players in the EU purchase Gaijin Coins (the premium currency) with real money, and then convert those into Golden Eagles for in-game purchases. Or we purcase GE directly with Euros. For example, you might buy 2500 Gaijin Coins for €16,50 or 16,50 GJN (since the exchange rate is 1:1). However, this can still be a little unclear to players at first glance. If the EU regulation was enforced, the game would need to show a clearer breakdown, like: “1500 Gaijin Coins = €6,60” or “150 Golden Eagles = €0,99,” alongside the in-game prices of items. This would make it crystal clear how much real-world money you’re spending. Luckily Gaijin does this already for the most part.
I personally still use my spreadsheet to calculate how much I’m spending in GE:
- No More Multiple Premium Currencies:
Spoiler
Right now, War Thunder has two distinct currencies for premium purchases: Gaijin Coins (used to buy Golden Eagles) and Golden Eagles (which are used to unlock premium content). If the EU regulation were in place, the game might have to consolidate both into one unified currency. Instead of buying Gaijin Coins and then converting them to Golden Eagles, you might just have a single currency (maybe only Gaijincoins?) that directly translates to real-world money without any conversion step. This would simplify the economy, as players would only need to focus on one currency.
- Ban on Mismatched Bundles: (has now been handled with a custom amount purchase-able in the store: Gaijin.Net Store )
Spoiler
War Thunder often sells bundles of Golden Eagles in amounts that don’t align exactly with the cost of in-game items. For example, if a premium vehicle costs 8,560 Golden Eagles (like the Dutch Sea Hawk), the smallest fitting bundle available might be 10000 Golden Eagles for €49,50, leaving you with an extra 1,440 Golden Eagles that you don’t need, effectively forcing you to overpay for the exact amount you need. If this regulation were enforced, War Thunder would be required to offer bundles where you could buy exactly 8,560 Golden Eagles for €42,37, or whatever matches the item price exactly, eliminating excess spending.
- Clear and Honest Descriptions: (has also been changed, see below)
Spoiler
With the current War Thunder premium items, it’s often unclear exactly what players are getting, especially with bundled offers. For example, a bundle might offer Golden Eagles, a premium vehicle, and some premium time, but without an explanation of how each item benefits your gameplay or what the total value of the bundle is. If the regulations were enforced, War Thunder would be required to list a detailed breakdown of each item, its value, and how it affects your gameplay (for example, “1,000 Golden Eagles = €6,60 for purchasing premium vehicles, 15-day premium account for increased XP, etc.”).
More honest and clear descriptions have been added now, like ex.g.:
- Refund Transparency:
Spoiler
In War Thunder, if you purchase something like a premium vehicle or a premium account with Golden Eagles, it’s often difficult to know exactly what your refund rights are, especially if you bought a non-refundable item. If this regulation were enforced, War Thunder would have to make it clear that purchases can be refunded within a X-day period, unless marked as non-refundable: https://support.gaijin.net/hc/en-us/articles/12580041987217-FAQ-Premium-Shop
- No Manipulative Legal Language:
Spoiler
Sometimes, terms and conditions in War Thunder may have confusing language that could mislead players into thinking they have fewer rights when it comes to refunds, transactions, or in-game purchases. The EU regulation would require the game to simplify and clarify these terms, making it clear that all transactions are subject to EU consumer protection laws and cannot hide behind vague disclaimers like “purchases are final,” unless specific items are explicitly marked as non-refundable.
- Protecting Vulnerable Players:
Spoiler
War Thunder has various ways of monetizing that could potentially exploit vulnerable players, especially in the case of young players who may not fully understand the financial consequences of their actions. For instance, the game offers enticing discounts on premium vehicles and premium account during certain events, which might encourage players to spend large amounts of money on in-game items they don’t necessarily need. The EU regulations would ensure that War Thunder doesn’t use predatory tactics like time-limited offers or rewards that encourage over-spending, especially targeting younger or vulnerable players who might be unaware of the potential consequences.
For now these are just reccomendations not written into law, but any game company could be investigated and subsequently sued if found practicing exploitive sales practices, like what is now happening with League of Legends and has happened to Star Stable Online.
16 Likes
It’ll be interesting to see how Gaijin adapts to the regulations. The regulations themselves are ultimately a good thing, so I hope Gaijin follows them in good faith. They have a lot to lose if they don’t.
5 Likes