bruh f104 is complete useless and spanked on air ab 9.7 especially when uptiered to aim9c f8e that you dont have any chances against on high alt, do you even play this game? and isnt it already 9.7? why britain got lightning which are → better and on 9.3, ussr has yaks 38 at 9.3 with r60? have you even noticed how us tree regarding jets is underpowered? why you want to make it even worse?
id love to have on 9.3 american f104 on arcade air battles as a spare plane to my av8a and upcoming f106a delta dart, and no, on 9.7 where there very good and reliable missiles are dealing the cards and countermeasures are stopping to be a luxury, high performance, aim9b and vulcans are nothing compared to 18g, 20g or even 30g missiles that flies there dense (edit) i just understood ARB means Air Realistic Battles, but i mean in Air Arcade Battles, but, even still, on air ab f104a and f104c completely dont make any sense
Brother, if i can play the F-104s.ASA at 12.0 you can manage against… 9c of all things? Say you have a skill issue without saying you have a skill issue lol.
Oh, u play arcade? I tried it once, i thought better of myself than to play it again.
i mean F-104A and F-104C which are both on 9.7 in us tree in AAB, on the same br is F8U-2 which has much more dangerous missiles and is also supersonic, but i’d love to the f104a and c variant to make any sense of use them, their aim9b on 9.7 are a bad joke, and high performance is kind of useless when good missiles are flying everywhere add to that you dont have any cm to counter that, remember, in british tree there is lightning on 9.3 with much better red top missiles and performs similarly in terms of performance, climb ratio etc. it has even smaller turn radius and in ussr is Yak-38 which has 30G R-60 missiles and also good perfomance just no countermeasures, also on 9.3 they all exceed F104A and F104C but are… 0.3 lower, does it makes sense?
Unreal that the strike eagles aren’t going up to 14.3, why on Earth do they need to stay at 14.0? Increase the BR of the F-15E/I to 14.3.
2 Likes
im curious how you counter AIM-9C SARH 18G missile on a → HEADON with a plane that has no countermeasures good luck with it
Ehh, its just as capable and comparable as the HSTV-L and Puma but only those get moved up. It should have gone up when its first stage ammo was expanded to include every round in the thing.
Also dont assume I just mean people on the forum and only on the forum. A lot of people outside this place have made similiar calls.
Just curious when this is going to get closed and reviewed, contemplating adding a couple more vehicles but not sure on it.
Do they need to go up because of the C-5s? I thought, at least according to the EU fanboys, the Typhoon/Rafale/Eurofighters are/were king?
Vehicle: Challenger 3 (TD)
Gamemode: All
Change: Reduce reload to 5 seconds
Reason: The Challenger 3 (TD) should be a Glass Canon version of the Challenger 2s, but due to its lower RoF, it is downgrade over the Challenger 2s even in this regard. Increasing its reload rate would make it a meaningful and worthwhile addition to a line-up and give some reason to actually play it over the Challenger 2s. Comprable tanks such as the Ariete and Abrams recieved 5 second reloads with similar shells and both have traits that put them above the Challenger 3 (TD) in terms of survivability and/or mobility.
6 Likes
Yeah usually it’s just the engine that gets crippled then I die.
No, the C-5s are a sidegrade at best, they need to go up because they have 8 AMRAAMs, a ton of CMs, good radar, and more than thrust than the Saturn V. The Eurofighter and the Strike Eagle aren’t very different in game, except the F-15 gets 2 more AMRAAMs.
1 Like
I completely agree, there is no reason for the “Challenger 3” to be a downgrade compared to the other Challengers
1 Like
the extra armor was common practice among tankers in ww2, what we have in WT compared to historical photos is on the lower end of effectiveness as well as amount, commonly they used a crap load of tracks, or they would do, as shown in photos, cannibalize Sherman hulls and weld them onto theres, this method is what Eisenhower supported for additional armor due to the other methods being a bit heavy with not much protection against tanks/AT emplacement’s
And they need to go up to help with decompressing 13.0, instead of 13.7 for some reason.
T-80U, UM2, UD, UE-1, UD-1, and BVM
All stay their current Brs, but reloads buffed to 6.0 secs to be historically accurate.
Reason: every tank at top tier loads at 5.0 secs or faster now, meaning the T-80U’s are a bit underwhelming.
The Cyclogram data, and video evidence support that these loaders can load even faster without issue, but are set to 6.0 secs to be always reliable.
Video of the loader in question:
@aDSD anything I missed, that you can add to?
Is the Eurofighter and company not faster, more maneuverable, able to super cruise better (or at all), pull harder, and doesn’t the Rafale have an AESA radar? I dont have any of them but the F-15E and Rafale so this is from a genuine curiosity. My understanding is that the F-15E is more simply a missile bus. It throws missiles and then runs. Whereas the EF and Co are more thoroughbred dogfighters. Which to me, makes sense they would go up because they get the same missiles as the F-15E while also being far more maneuverable.
I have no foot in your lil debate going on, but just want to say that the Ayit will still be great at 9.7. Love that thing.
Yeah, I hope they implement these asap. It’s clear the discussions in this topic are leading to nothing. They’ve made their mind up.
Thats a historical change and this is the wrong place to post that here, please find an appropriate thread.