Gaijin made NATO tanks not turn as well as they should, therefore it’s Russian bias, especially since half of those NATO tanks are usually on on side and half on the other.
Don’t get me wrong, I rarely advocate for NATO tanks, but the Click-Bait saga has convinced me that they are likely going to be my teammates often, and so ALL tanks need to be relatively capable compared to any other tank.
It’s not a Russian bias issue, it’s a gaijin needing to work out their 13 year old code. Like with most patches, things are slowly changed, I am sure they will change it at some point.
Also, be grateful that this isn’t a full fidelity sim. It appears as of recent, that many Leopards have to return to repair depots in the rear as tracks do not tension properly and have been breaking after only 1000km of combat usage (well below the 10000km claim).
The problem with them isn’t that they op is that almost every one of their trees is good where another nations usually have something sub par after playing them a bit i don’t think they are op in air or ground (i can’t say naval cause i don’t play naval)
why they would not give amraams to the SAAF Gripen if its part of the usable armament?, guys can you understand pls that this modern jets can use a lot of modern missiles the JAS-39C is capable of using and firing all NATO missile and ground ordinance soo…, if the jet is capable of that i see no problem adding amraams to it.
I’ve probably played more top tier USSR than most players. My opinion on the bias is based on my experiences in game and the way the developers act and what they say. I’m sorry if you think it’s offensive for me to accuse them of bias. It could be unconscious bias. But you’re implying we should take everything they say as gospel.
Last year, their knee-jerk reaction to the steam bomb was a snarky letter from one of the executives. After that they had to walk it back a bit, and eventually conceded by giving the players the most substantial improvements to the game in its decade long history. If GJN is always right, why did they need a steam bomb to spur them into action?
as it current fills a gap that we are missing to give it AMRAAMs it will no longer fill that gap but fill another one and then we a left without a good 12.3 fighter that why i don’t think the SAAF one will receive AMRAAMS as its whole loadout is already fictional and we don’t need it to go up in br so we lose a fighter in a Br that we needed
There is always more modern variants of the Mirage 2000D-R1 (2000D-R2 and 2000D RMV at least), now dunno if Gaijin gonna work on them or not.
For giving an idea about what could bring the Mirage 2000D-R2:
Integration of MAWS with the aircraft (almost all others Mirages2000s should have it already),
Damocles third generation targeting pods,
Twin bomb racks for guided bombs on the wing.,
Ability to use Apache missile (Would have little to no effect in-game as it is an anti-runway cruise missile),
Addition of AASM-Hammer.
Not sure about everything new added on the RMV, i would guess MICAs at least.
i disagree i totally see the devs adding AMRAAM to it because is part of the standard weapons that the JAS-39C can use IRL. and i can tell you right now that your tough is not correct.
wrong is not unrealistic is realistic and a give you my point of why this is realistic. a lot of jets from now can use a lot of NATO armament soo… you would see a lot of jets using armament that could use no matter if they didnt use it in service. the jet is capable of that.
yes because it can use it!!! thats the point tho!! the JAS-39C is compatible with all NATO armament haha how is this unrealistic? if the jet is capable of that.
