We never said this at all.
What we did say was AIM-9L was not planned (L is all aspect J is not) because the Phantoms sit currently on or around the average for their BR (the ideal target for all vehicles).
Giving them an all aspect missile would result in a BR increase. Which in the context of when that answer was given would also mean a rank increase when there was insufficient remaining vehicles on that rank at the time.
regarding that, is there any consideration for one of them to be given 9Ls at some point?
considering both are currently identical for game purposes
Any plans to change the KV-1A’s price now that its going to 4.7 or will it stay its current price. Asking as other 4.7 heavies are about 1.7k and 5.0 heavies are 2.8k GE
I mentioned KV and finland hes run away lol
Hello there!
May I ask how soon we are on the soonometer regarding any development nees (including BR changes)? ^^
Hes run away, i mentioned the KV-1 and he has PTSD from me asking woops, also probably avoiding the potential spam ping
BR change update.
Ah, just as I was asking! Let’s take a look…
smin has the devs decided if the vfm 5 is gonna get its proposed / optional thermals + lws due to it going up in br
Well, what an utter disappointment.
Zero Naval decompression.
M1A1HCs get M829A2, but M1A1 AIM, at the exact same BR, is still limited for some reason to the much worse KEW instead of the equivalent and historical KEW-A2 shell.
Ground “decompression” is still up to just 12.0, barely changing anything across the board…
They even went on to justify Leopard 2A5 being the same br as the Leopard 2A7s because “it’s still one of the best” while skipping the WHOLE POINT, which is that the range in capabilities among the top BR (now 12.0 instead of 11.7, like 2PL since they refused to give it DM53) is STILL TOO LARGE.
Why are a tank and its objective and absolute upgrade the exact same BR?
Baseline M1A2, broken Leclercs, underperforming Merkavas (despite the reload buff they will give it just not to fix its armor), some Challenger 2s at the same BR as the 2A7s and 122s…
Can’t they see? Can’t they see that half 12.0s shouldn’t be at the same BR as the other half of 12.0s? Can’t they see that the difference in capabilities between many 11.7s and 12.0s is too big to be just 0.3 BRs apart? Can’t they see that 12.0 is just not enough?
I saw 13.0 and was happy for a second. ((
Pantsir-S and ItO 90M (all variants):
We agree with your feedback and will raise the Battle Ratings to 12.0.
Oh my god. It’s just a new level of stupidity. ItO lol.
Great to know the 30mm bushmaster tanks were literally ignored lmao what a amazing job.
11km Ito vs 16.5km pantsir also ignoring the 30mm, missiles amount and radar lmao what a joke.
We don’t plan a seperate version currently or plan to change the weaponary for now.
Currently they are all on or just above the average spot for their BR. So it’s not planned.
Well. true to form, the devs ignored the community for most of the BR Change suggestions
@Smin1080p_WT Why is the Su-25SM3 much higher BR than the Su-25T and Su-39 in ARB? It carries 2 R-73’s whereas the 25T/39 can carry 2 R-73’s and 2 R-60M’s.
I meant more giving one of them (say FGR.2 because its more realistic) their historical 9Ls and moving them up in BR to compensate, just to make them unique from each other in terms of Gameplay
Does japan even have DM23 lol
Balance probably the JSDF actually have much better ammo they could use but M735 is literal hell to use imo