Yea I just can’t see how Poland would work as a indi tree but Czechoslovakia I totally can.
Poland can give the Czechs what they are lacking while the Czechs being in Poland just takes away from what the Czech have
5 Likes
I think its quite the opposite. I can’t see a Czech tree working but Poland absolutely can. Its really the Czechs filling in the blanks that Poland can’t.
At any ranks that Poland has unique vehicles the Czechoslovaks too, with the point by Deathmisser being that Czechoslovakia arguably has more at the ranks that Poland is weaker at when it comes to ground.
Of note though is that Poland arguably has a better jet era in air going for it, with them having some distinct looking modifications of MiG aircraft that the Czechoslovaks lack.
Personally I wouldn’t say any is really superior over the other, though I would argue that Poland is the better host nation due to them having a navy, which is something Czechoslovakia would lack beyond some river monitors.
I wouldn’t like to see either party being subservient though and would much rather see it function as a proper shared tree. We don’t have such a thing in game yet though (arguably with China but it’s a relative stretch) so we’ll have to see.
1 Like
They’ll be a little stronger at rank I and II, but after that Poland is just way better as an option, for all three branches.
Would Turkey be an Israel type tree though? It existed throughout ww2 and personally I’d enjoy having a Turkish Fw 190 and PZL 24.
Turkey with Egypt sub-tree when?
I was using what I have seen here for tech-tree proposals.
and the Turkey one is Isreail style.
Gaijin needs to make Multipathing actually historical and not some “Get out of jail free card”.
While true, DCS is not a good indicator of performance and has been shown to be worse that WTs radar modelling.
4 Likes
whatever you say bud
Heatblur is the ones who developed the Tomcat for DCS not DCS itself so your logic is out the window
And Heatblur is still stuck within the confines of EDs simulation. ED in particular are in charge of all ordnance modeling. They do not simulate many of the aspects of radar which are critical to weapon employment.
2 Likes
I also believe they don’t do the CWS seeker errors like Sparrows going for a non locked target because they have a bigger DP shift in the wider radar cone around it.
Hey guys, for those interested in Chinese IFV’s, one of my suggestions was just posted, so feel free to take a look!
3 Likes
Thats interesting. Its up to Gaijin if and how they want to do it, but as Israel was created in 1948 the tier 4 onwards method works, as it would for the Koreas. Turkey existed during ww2 so shouldn’t use the same method IMO. But its debatable and thats just my stance.
In terms of air Turkey brings little to the table besides the fifth gen KAAN and PZL.24 until Poland arrives. An Egypt sub-tree could at least bring the HA-200, HA-300 to pad out the mid tiers with something unique. Both used a wonderful mix of tech though, even using some axis aircraft like G.55s, He 111s and Fw 190s, which not many copy paste nations did. I have no actual reasons for why Egypt should be a sub-tree of Turkey tho, besides them both being Islamic. Did someone say Iran sub-tree?
If they don’t put thermals on the 292, there’s no point in it going beyond 10.0, 10.3 maximum.
Yeah but it had full K-5, a rooftop MG, smoke grenades, and an APS that could kill almost any incoming low velocity ordnance.
It’s not useless, it’s just not entirely helpful.
Having the best AP shell in the game and better mobility than something like the T-80B means that it should be no lower than 10.7.
Does it have better mobility than the T80B?
Its engine has 150hp more than that of the T-80B, though, thinking of it now, I don’t know how heavy the 292 is, so I may be wrong.
Had it stop a heil spamming its missiles at me just to die to a MQ1 from behind
1 Like
i doubt the weight increase is serious enough to be detrimental to mobility