Next Major Update - Rumor Round-Up & Discussion (Part 2)

Game Discussion General Discussion
1802

and the Irony as always, if we had the Tornado we have now

  • Better, though still not finished FM
  • lower MP
  • with better decompression
  • (and the split CMs on the IDS)

Id probably would have been content that year. The problem was the Tornado IDS and ADV were god-aweful until a year/ year & a half after their introduction. Long after we finally got an F-16/Mig-29 equivalent. The Tonka we had was aweful and would have barely been 11.0/11.3 worthy if added right now. Im currently somewhat advocating for maybe a BR increase for th F3 with the right buffs

1803

I don’t think the US necessarily needs a plane, but yeah everyone who complains about not getting (more) Hornets is either a Hornet fan or an idiot.

1804

Yeah… Which is my biggest issue with both the Sub-TTs and generally the order in which they add ground (and maybe any tree actually) vehicles regardless of sub-TTs (though the entire point of Sub-TTs is apparently to fill holes the domestic TT cant fill… but anyway)

They seem to add additions randomly. Rather than prioritizing a problem area. Even if every other update added something specifically targeted to patch a problem area for every TT, the game would be so much healthier for it

1 Like
1805

The f 18 c early worth to buy it for cas in Germany??

1806

I think the teaser will be late night

1807

There is so many good top teirs we could get as well

1808

Just a note the Indian T90 is the “original” of the 2 chronologically speaking in terms of IRL production and adoption.

Also, I could be wrong, doesnt it also have a pretty significantly different model?

1809

no

1810

yeah, despite what a lot of people seem to think. We have a really healthy set of domstic options. The only “holes” we really have imo, is for the air and thats a supersonic fighter for 10.3/10.7 and a dogfighter for 12.7 ish.

1811

Its alright, definitely your best CAS jet for its BR

1812

image

1 Like
1813

It is still at its core a T-90 at a BR where we actually have some very good MBTs already.

Not only were there far more intersting MBT options than a T-90. Like the Challenger 1 Falcon from Jordan or a Chieftain 2000, etc etc. But back then we didnt even have the DW. So any light tank/IFV would have been far more valuable for the TT than any MBT as an SQV. Especially when you consider it was originally meant to come with a shell that would have made it 11.0. Thankfully they realised that was a stupid idea and nerfed it so it could be 10.7. But still.

Out of all the BRs where an additional MBT would have been useful… 10.7 really wasnt it

1814

It was 65 to 73 and then 73 to 79v4, standard AESA 79 isn’t compatible with legacy hornets.
Have the new radars been delivered and installed yet though?

1815

I mean it looks cooler with the track armor on the side of the turret. the II(p)'s turret always felt way to naked imo.

1 Like
1816

yeah i like it

1 Like
1817

and the turret looks cleaner

1 Like
1818

That and representing another nation not fit for a full independent tree (by Gaijin standards)

But honestly I feel like they aren’t doing either of these things right

2 Likes
1819

lol

1820

Okay, so say those issues, not that its a C&P when it arguably isnt lol.

1821

Yeah. I agree.

As much as I dont think Britian needs any Sub-TT for its air tree. Id take domestically produced SA stuff like the Cheatah over another Mig-21 or a Mig-29/Su-30

1 Like