The entire topic we’ve been on is referring to the F-16s at 12.7 receiving AIM-120s so that they go to 13.3 and some users saying they should also receive 9Ms. Also, meaning, in addition to the 120s.
Don’t think I got mad
Considering it would just become the best 13.3 overall, yeah
So 4x amraam and 2x 9m? or did you mean 2x amraam and 2x 9m? or did u mean 2x amraam and 4x 9m?
Because to me that sounded like you referring to the simple fact it would then only have 4x amraams… which is NATURAL because to even put 9Ms on the aircraft you have to replace amraam slots…
Your difference in kills/battles between F-15E and Su-30SM is only 0.5. Yeah, plane with “more and better” missiles is barely any better in our own stats than F-15E, with “worse”(actually handheld and overbuffed) missiles.
If you could properly analyze you’d understand what sort of player I am and why I despise top-tier.
even if we’re being realistic, all ur asking is for a servicable aircraft to be made the best at its br and there isnt really a good enough reason for it
No, I’m asking for it to be bearable at 13.3. 4x 120 and 2x 9L on a 13.3 with 12.7 radar and electronics? Is that really OP?
Plus I don’t know your whole deal with compression, I’d say aside from a few specific cases top tier isn’t that compressed. It is mainly 8.0 to 10.0 that really suffers
and I’m arguing it already is, and in fact would already be on the better end of 13.3
this doesnt mean anything, you can’t assign a BR to a piece of equipment, what u can do is look at how good something is at its BR and the F-16’s avionics at 13.3 are not bad in the slightest and lean towards good.
You’ve got Ground Battles, or Arcade if you like. Sorry, but anything calling itself an Air Realistic Battle that includes a situation where an A-10 shoots down a 1953 aircraft with AIM-9L missiles is completely detached from any conceivable reality.
If that’s the kind of game you want to play, fine—but then please, no one here should ever argue again that aircraft in the game don’t match their documented performance. The moment all-aspect missiles are shooting down MiG-19s, any debate about matching aircraft stats to documentation becomes meaningless - at that point, you’re basically playing a phantasy arcade game, where the only things missing are dragons and magic orbs.
Dozens of posts about APFSDS m900 for AGS and so far 0 reactions from developers
I would like to ask the developers how, in their opinion, we should play with 392 mm armor penetration at level 11.7, if this penetration was not even enough at 11.3.
Just think about what you talking… The Pak PUMA got pushed up to 4.7 cause of the gun… it have no armor… no stabilizer
The M-51 both variant have more than capable gun to deal with anything that encounters it actually should be in 7.0 with the 400 mm pen on all angle…
Jagdtiger, RB, 6.7 → 6.3
Reason: it has allready poor mobility and now even less after the bug reports which btw just prove the values for the Tiger, not the Jagdtiger…
Edit: might consider the 12,8/8,8 cm Pzgt. TS which is allready in game, just on the Maus, in the end its the same gun
Reasoning:
The Merkava Mk.2D is essentially a CM11(9.3 tank) with a worse reload and has no business in 10.3
The merkava has slightly better armor but mobility and reload is very bad.
If you really want to push the Merkava up in br then you should at least give it a 5 second reload.
In 10.0 we have tanks like the CCVL with infinitely better mobility and a 5 second autoloader…
If you genuinely cant leave it in 10.0 then at least put it up in rank where it belongs. Rank VII. Thats where it should be… Even at 10.0 it should be there…
