Has anyone seen that the fgr.2 uses forward looking cameras and even a Q-band sideways looking radar? Could come in handy if we get the Martel on it
1 Like
Smin ill be honest. In ARB the F-84 isnt a good enough replacement for the R2Y2’s. Sure its a fine replacement for GRB but the gane isnt just the ground mode
The R2Y2 is also grossly over BR’d in air modes. Yall need to quite using legacy stats to balance stuff because it results in stuff being stuck at a BR where they are near useless resulting in people not playing it thus the stats still looking “good” years later
Furthermore, if yall want to treat the R2Y2’s as a family of Strike Aircraft, then they need to be labelled as such instead of calling them Fighters
I just find it sad 3 vehicles are being removed and we get 1 in return.
Not only that. But at rank V and above Japan only has 7 unique vehicles, from which 3 are being removed right now, leaving only 4 unique vehicles.
There arent probably going to be any replacements for them, since we have the F-84 at the same br’ish.
Not only that, but the vehicles that are going to be added, are most likely going to be full C&P from other nations, which also dont get the 4x cannons like the R2Y2’s have.
1 Like
Copy and paste isnt an issue especially if there arent any other available options. With the case kf the R2Y2 they have it pretty clearly labelled as a fighter and not a strike aircraft so for air modes replacing it with a vehicle of entirely different function isnt good and is extemely lazy. It would be better to either add a fighter in its place or do the minimum and make the R2Y2’s strike aircraft
1 Like
In that case, it would be possible to remove the A-7E and AV-8S Late from the fighter line, and add them to the line of naval aviation, where the R2Y2 is now? Since these are naval aviation aircraft, not fighter aircraft, especially Japanese ones
Spoiler
6 Likes
That would be cool
Good point, Thai CAS can be continued under the B7A2 branch.
Edit: sorry for the wrong reply
Well it does use a very similar naming system
2S38 is not OP no matter how many times people try to prove it, at 10.3 is currently balanced.
1 Like
compare it to the other autocannon vehicles at 10.3 and you see it does compare a good bit better then those. It is a strong ground vehicle and additionaly excels at anti air capability to a degree none of the other 10.3 autocannon vehciles is capable of
2 Likes
Most IFVs at 10.3 are worse than every other vehicle at 10.3, in fact at high tier I would argue IFVs are the worst vehicle type. And the 2S38 is not an IFV.
If we examine its capabilities and compare them to actually good 10.3 vehicles, it’s balanced. The only thing it has going for it is a decent penetration in terms of its light tank capability. Mobility is mediocre, survivability is perhaps the worst of any non open topped ground vehicle, and the dart doesn’t spall very much.
I cant exactly say how good or bad it is since I dont play it, it only becomes a trouble when I tried to get cocky
Though I still do not understand how identical vehicles end up at different battle ratings. How can their “effeciency” be different when they perform identically
1 Like
It’s almost like they count a vehicle with 100 players, the same as one with 10.
Ignoring the fact a different in number of players I’m exist and in turn doesn’t factor it in.
The only time you can ever get into an engagement with a 2S38 in an MBT is if you ignore every single advantage you have and charge at it. So the 2S38 is a bit of a skill equalizer in that regard.
Anybody who makes rage posts about the vehicle are just flaunting their lack of skill. They’re such a non issue at top tier it’s kinda funny.
In fact I usually just rush them even in NATO MBTs (BTW, a very bad idea and why most noobs die to them), and I still kill them because the dart usually can’t kill in hit.
There is that as well. But even examples where that shouldnt be an issue, it just doesnt make sense.
For example in the Italian Tree, the Tornado A200 being 11.3 and Tornado A200A being 11.7.
100% identical airframes, 100% identical performance in ARB/ASB, no issue of bad pay-to-play players like you definetly get with the WTD61 and may get with the MFG and yet are somehow “different effeciency levels” if anything the A200 should be WAY higher “effeciency” than the A200A because its a lower BR.
And where you have 2 identical vehicles on 2 different trees like the B-26B and B-26C, I dont understand why individual nations are used and not an average of both/all nations with that vehicle, because whilst some nations have more bad players than others, a vehicles performance should be balanced based upon an average of the playerbase and avoids good players abusing the lower BR of a vehicle by playing it another tree
3 Likes
so what you are saying is that puma and co rather should go down in br then to raise the br of the 2s38
No one is debating whether 2S38 is an-issue at Top Tier ot not.
The criticised issue is, precisely, that the thing is currently facing 9.3s, not Top Tier, where it belongs.
2 Likes