Shouldn’t have fumbled that empire then.
Main problem with this, why would casual FPS players join WT infantry. For example BF is easy to get into, why would a person who enjoys modern FPS settings play WT, where they have to grind for weeks or even months through ww2/cold war filler to get to the modern infantry they want to play.
You play BF lately? So far it’s been miss after miss.
There’s also the appeal of playing through various eras of conflict. You start late Interwar, and work your way through WW2, to Cold War, and then Modern. I’d also say that many normal folk would likely consider Cold War modern enough, at least after a certain point. Probably not Korea, but once you start getting to Vietnam, or at least late nam? They’ll probably start considering it modern enough.
And if it is that big of an issue, Gaijin will split up that tree like they did with Naval.
Relatively speaking, War Thunder is also more realistic then a lot of games, which, in a sea of arcade shooters, is always nice. There are milsim games, yes, but they aren’t fast paced, and tend to cheap out on the vehicles, at least in my experience. Games like Tarkov are also a thing, but they tend to be PvPvE extraction shooters without combined arms gameplay.
War Thunder is also a well established brand, which means a lot. May seem small, but there’s a reason Gaijin, in effect, has smashed together like 4 games under 1 title instead of making 3-4 separate titles, and branding is one of them. Your more likely to play a game that has been around for over a decade, been consistently updated, with tens of thousands of players daily then you are a new title.
Just the past few weeks? lol
I am pretty sure this has been a major on-and-off topic for years now. Everytime the idea to buy more weapons from the US is brought up the discussion sparks up again.
BF1 slapped, but yeah I do agree with the others. I hated BFV and 2042 was just meh.
Regardless. I’m personally just waiting for the next BF (which should be coming sometime within the next 2 years I hope) for modern FPS and just use HLL or rising storm for my ww2/vietnam era fps itch.
WT infantry will likely end up similar to naval. A lot of potential and hype initially, but soon everyone will find out that it’s a buggy and balancing mess and it will die out quick and quiet. Don’t think many people from that “untapped fps market” would even reach the modern infantry in the trees lol.
Besides that a grind tree system for infantry is just a disaster waiting to happen.
To be fair, Infantry, besides vehicles involvement, wouldn’t have same disparity (at worst) as BBs vs Cruisers with Coastal being completely sidelined and useless
This is precisely why they shouldn’t be retiring the warthogs, the f35 is advanced but kinda a princess… doesn’t like dust, doesn’t like bad weather, doesn’t like bad runways
And such an advanced aircraft is much less reliable and maintenance friendly in operations, it needs a cheaper simpler complement
While I think then A-10 is superior for COIN operations. I want to know where these rumors come from.
idk, but behind rumors there’s usually some form of truth. And, for example, it seems logical that a flying computer doesn’t like thunderstorms
The answer that I expected. Let’s just make up false narratives and state them as fact.
As much as I am not a fan of the Mcnamara approach to acquisitions aircraft should be based on their preformance not some falsehoods.
just checked, the f35 actually isn’t considered safe to fly during thunderstorm. As for the radar-absorbing paint I’m not sure for the f35 specifically but these paints usually don’t like agressive environments
And, well, there’s no debate on it not being an “off road” jet, at least the f35a isn’t intended at all for field landings
-30% f5c in store. what kind of promotion
Maybe it’s connected to datamined “Moments of Valour: Philippines”
I mean, what’s wrong with this?
Most European nations in War Thunder went straight from Tornados to Eurofighters.
During the same timeframe, U.S made countless F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18 variants.
What are we suppossed to do?
The European nations already got not only the Eurofighters and Rafales, but also numerous “subtree/subnation” vehicles that were implemented with the sole purpose of providing them with additional options they would otherwise not have. F-16s, MiG-29s, JAS-39s…
So I really can’t see where the problem is. If U.S has 10 potential planes available for addition for every European plane there is (even including subtrees/subnations), it’s only natural that U.S will end up getting a larger quantity of planes per update.
True, but there’s a lot we could do to balance things a bit… USA has 3 f16s, 3 f15s, 2 f14s and 3 f18s, why won’t they add more typhoons, more rafales and more gripens?
JEEP (insert reverb)
What “more Typhoons”, “more Rafales” and “more Gripens” exactly…?
Typhoon users will get a later tranche with 2 more hardpoints and better missiles when 5th gen fighters come, and same goes for Rafale.
As I said… U.S just has 10 available options per European counterpart. European nations already got subtrees in order to have more options available. Not having as many options as U.S isn’t a balance or Gaijin issue, it’s a real life one.
JEEP… With a gun >:)
I know it’s not what you’re talking about but I had to lol
with a Tow
with a nuke
(slap a Davey Crockett on the back of a jeep lmao)
EDIT:
Well for example the Rafale could have (and imo should have) come in an earlier standard than the F3 first. Imo it makes no sense that France jumped from Mirages to Rafale F3 without first getting the older standards. That’s like putting a F-15E before the F-15A and F-15C