same with 2S6
unless you are driving it will hit you
You are being disingenuous if you think the 2S6 missile is anywhere close to the VT1 kinetically lmao
3 Likes
They do. Fire a HARM at them from long range, and if they don’t just outright intercept it, they will switch the radar off.
They both have the same amount of radar units. The S-300 sites have a dedicated search radar and a track radar that can still function as a search radar if the dedicated search radar is destroyed. The SAMP/T sites have 2 search radars, and no track radar because they use fox-3 missiles and don’t need it.
Same, i’ve played a fair amount of both sides now (with jets from china, israel and russia) and have had far more success fighting russia since the S-300s are practically a 1-2 missile kill per site, especially with YJ-91As, compared to type 03s, which aren’t remotely as scary but intercept about 70% of ky KH-31PDs, which feels vastly underwhelming for a mach 4 missile coming in at a steep AoA.
Furthermore the tunguska is more sluggish and easier to play around than the ITO, and it’s possible to straight up ignore them while playing a nation with good multirole loadouts (eg LS-250 IRs and LD-10s) since you drop your bombs then rifle off an ARM or two provided you’re within engagement distance.
In terms of medium range SAMs, i’ve rarely died to either BUK or SAMPT but the Asters seem to follow you for a ridiculous amount of time, and when paired with the fact that they turn their radar off the millisecond they fire at you, leads to an unrewarding gameplay loop for Russia, and felt signifigantly more challenging than when I was playing chinese and US/French jets VIA israel.
Team composition is horrible at both sides due to the Su-30MKK spam below 14.7 so it’s a mixed bag.
Overall my biggest gripes are with the sheer amount of SHORAD systems, and crappy spotting which leads to sudden and unexpected encounters with extremely lethal SAMs, which often do not even turn their radars on so you just catch a VT1 without any warning… which is unpleasant.
2 Likes
They really need better dispersion on the ground battlespace. Everything on the ground is so tightly packed together. When intercepting convoys you shouldn’t need to worry about running into a depot unless it’s immediately after leaving the AO. Not to mention convoy SHORAD should NOT be able to fire on the move. Additionally to have a more even ticket loss, SAM sites should be layered circular around airfields, not in a straight line across the front and back.
3 Likes
Halving them and placing them in more strategically relevant locations would make more sense, while I think long range radar targets like EWR should be increased (especially when theyre functional soon) that just gives more stuff to kill for SEAD oriented players
I never thought graphics quality would actually affect the terrain like that. Is that why convoys drive underground?
Yes. This is why we at WT Vets highly recommend that you start on potato graphics; once you can visualize the ground terrain, you can go to higher graphics.
You will actually be able to tell what is the ground and what is artificial, and adjust accordingly. It’s funny when people claim you are a hacker, but it is them who never played potato before, so they think the ground is solid when it is not.
On maps with snow or sand, my goodness
Not really, people tend to get angry about ULQ since it’s technically a non-gameplay advantage, and trivialises stuff like foliage in GRB.
99% of people who cry wolf with hackusations should be disregarded, but the fact that ULQ offers tangible benefits shouldn’t really be tied to that as it’s a seperate issue.
I agre when I take off airport and look with my targeting pod like target 40-50km away I see the target and after few seconds hills and forset load up and then I realise its behind hill…so yeah not suprised you can be underground SPPA will still hit you, you can hide behind hill, doesnt matter…
“It’s funny when people claim you are a hacker, but it is them who never played potato before, so they think the ground is solid when it is not.” It’s meant to be read all together, not separately.