I disagree; Magic II and AAM-3 should be given their improved countermeasure resistance. Even in a semi-nerfed state for AAM-3 (as IR/UV seeker would be almost impossible to decoy; making it function like Type 81C SAMs with visual contrast channel + IR channel would be a nice fitting buff). Letting some planes just be immune to IR missiles is bad game design with the extremely exaggerated multipath interference on SARH missiles.
There is actually a bias here. Not the russian bias you expect, but confirmation bias.
What do you mean by that?
Evidence?
my english not enought what i mean there but will try.
kv1 bias? yes but only kv1b and kv1c. same hull, russian hull penable, same german hull not penable.
2 years ago panzer 3 cant pen or kill crew kv1 russians, now they are. but they cant german kv1.
for years everyone say about russian bias. never talk about german bias.
IS1 can die one shot, german shells kill one shot IS series, %60-80 area of IS1 have one shot die potential to german. but tiger have only %10 area of tank to die one shot.
open ptotection analys and click penable area (green area on tank)
Which soviet KV-1 you are talking about?
They can’t easily pen the german KV-1B/C, because the B has addon armor, and the C has the thicker cast turret with more base armor, and a volumetric hell mantlet.
Just like it has to any other nation’s tanks that have ~110mm pen APHE. Or even just the good old 75mm M61 in the cupola.
The only part that has armor is the mantlet on it. And maybe the lower plate on the E variant.
You’re not
Then maybe explain it.
It has been explained to you multiple times, you’re just not getting it. It’s fine, not everyone has to understand everything.
Of course not imagine that Gajin would accept these classified military documents then the company would sued for espionage for foreign country.
1 Like
I understand where you are going at but with some planes where they have near infinite counter measures then yes I absolutely agree that a buff to flare resistance on all the missiles that need it would be really nice, but what about when planes don’t have 640 counter measures? the flanker is a big plane with 2 big engines and less than a hundred counter measures, adding some of those buffs would just guarantee the death of a flanker when certain IR missiles are fired at it, I do think I’m understanding you partially wrong in that maybe you meant for it to get intermediary buffs instead of go straight to it’s full capability in which case I fully agree.
sorry for slow reply I was asleep lmfao
Yes, at the very least it is much less efficient at guiding due to constant overshoots and over-corrections (in addition to the possibility that the Soviets needed to lower it’s maximum G because the rapid changes outputted Bang-Bang controller could break the missile or its fins apart at G’s comparable to the Stinger and Mistral).
The thing is that their argument was that purely due to the similar fin shape of the Igla, Mistral, and Stinger they must all have the same G limits while ignoring that they literally use different guidance technologies that will drastically affect the performance of the missiles.
It’s like saying the US M4A1 or the French M4A1 can’t have a coaxial machine gun that has +22 degrees vertical elevation and ±60 degrees horizontal traverse because the Soviet T-34 1940’s coaxial uses a hull mount and is therefore limited by it. They’re just straight up different technologies.
2 Likes
I mean unfortunately aircraft with low CM counts will just get bonked by the “gen 1” flare resistant missiles anyway. Making AAM-3 and Magic II better won’t really change that. In cases like this, the tactic is to “jam the WEZ” by basically being too close and too far off their nose for the weapon to track/pull. That’ll become the only counter to the eventual addition of IIR missiles.
Also yes, for AAM-3 the flare rejection should be an intermediate buff between reality and what is in-game now.
1 Like
Corruption, tax evasion and money laundering do not exist because you cannot prove it.
Makes sense.
Okay. Tho this is more likely a standardization thing i think. IIRC i listened to a vid about it (maybe made by EuropeanCanadian, or someone else, idk).
This is the same, or at least very similar to the tank ammo pen model. They use a formula to calculate the penetration, and not documents.
This is actually a very good counter for russian bias. I saw a german report, stating, that the Tiger’s upper plate can be penetrated by soviet 76.2mm guns. In game they can’t at any range.
Another thing is, that soviet autocannons can only use a single top belt, while NATO ones can have all of their belts filled with their best shells.
NATO ones also start with either HVAP, or APDS belts, while USSR starts with AP.
EDIT:
Another example is solidshot/APCR not behaving realistically. It negatively affects every nation in the game, and is not benefitial to USSR.
1 Like
Yeah, because nobody got sentenced for those crimes…
What you just said is a fallacy, called “argument from ignorance”.
Calm down, its all good man!
The USSR would disagree with that.
Why would russians upgun the T-34 to 85mm gun then?
I don’t speak czeck/slovak (i don’t know vhick one it is), so could you maybe translate it?
This is the false dilemma fallacy. Nice try, but you failed.
You know, the 6pdr could pen a Tiger, so why would the brits get the 17 dpr?
Or, not lonag after, why would they change the 17 dpr in the Centurions basically right after they entered production?
The answer is, that with the soviets, the 85mm had better anti armor capability, as well as better HE shells, both are important factors.
Same goes for the brits.
Yep, and? With their testing, it could not pen it. The german tests tell otherwise. So what now?