Whilst you are are joking, I’m not. But you are unfortunately correct that this won’t come on account of the need for:
etc.
Fujian in the plans for this year, as well as more modern aircraft carriers (Nimitz) for the Blues. And in general, the current set of ships is temporary; the plan is to have a separate fleet for each era, say, the 2020s, the 1980s-90s, and the 1970s-60s.
for example nothing
Thanks for the explanation. I’m REALLY happy to hear that, and I hope these changes solve the airfield defense imbalance.
One point I wanted to clarify is that my comment about the “Iron Dome” meta wasn’t only about Escalation.
What I mean is the overall missile interception mechanics across War Thunder. Right now, both SAM systems and air-to-air missiles seem far too effective at intercepting incoming missiles. It is becoming increasingly common to see missiles consistently destroying other missiles, regardless of the game mode.
In my opinion, successful missile interceptions should happen, but they shouldn’t be the expected outcome in almost every engagement. At the moment, it often feels like modern missile combat revolves around missiles intercepting other missiles rather than forcing aircraft to defend, maneuver, or use proper countermeasures.
I mainly play Simulator Battles, and from that perspective it can be very frustrating when almost every missile you fire is intercepted before it reaches the target, while defensive tactics such as notching, maneuvering, and proper missile evasion become less important. It removes a lot of the skill and decision making that should be part of modern air combat.
That said, I’m really looking forward to testing all of the new changes you’ve described.
BVV_d I love you.
Give me Fujian and my life is yours.
How about ESM for Gripen and Rafale to permit them to engage in DEAD through the methologies available to them IRL? Or any tree that uses alternative methods to engage in DEAD without ARMs.
Or Exocet, to engage these new maritime targets this comment here espouses. Or RBS 15, for the same reason. Or whatever abomination the EFT carries for the same role.
need more ARMS/ASHM´s…
and my SD-10A nerf to be accepted
bvvd please bless me with a type 90 fuji im desperate
Not in this round, sorry.
speaking on the fujian, is the j-15t’s catobar bug close to being fixed? its still quite persistent problem when taking off from carriers.
also maybe an update on pl-12’s problems?
This is long overdue in ASB too
Would it be practical or possible to add some high value targets outside of active combat zones to force the concentration of OPFOR’s to disperse and address threats that can affect outcomes and use more of the vast map?
I believe this would increase immersion and simultaneously improve performance if implemented.
Also it would create a niche for the high speed tactical strike role in addition to the many roles already in NE.
Thank you.
the drama is strong with this one.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
if u guys are going to rip-off the nuclear option game, maybe hire the developer of the game to balance this xD
Does the matchmaker work same as RB? for example if i use a 13.7 aircraft and get uptiered into 14.7 lobby will i see max 8 players with 14.7 aircraft? thanks.
Have you considered adding Type 03 as a pair for SAMP/T to provide long range capabilities to match “red” side? Range wise it is comparible to BUK M3.
For ships too? (Eg. Albatros)