I mean Gaijin 100% know what they do and russia doesnt even scratch the 50% winrate so obviously they need their little selective additions
1 Like
it’s just 90% of the matches filled with Click-baits and UE1 noobs → affect the nations WR → Devs saw the stats → panic unrealistic buff → We are right here → Rebalance (not so much) → the cycle continue.
Sometimes I feel like they are just really caught off guard with how strong something is performing, but other times they seem to know in advance but go ahead anyway.
And this doesn’t only apply to Russia, the M1 and IPM1 releases are also a perfect example of this.
1 Like
just ignore the unbalance BR and this time we have nowhere to play as a fun BR
The BMPT hordes gaslighted me just how it is better just to non pen the T-tanks and eating LMUR, KH38 on daily basis.
I genuinely really go in every match and fight for the cap/points for the team.
The BMPT is such a crazy example for this. We knew from the PUMA how broken autocannon vehicles with unmanned turrets can be and they gave it 12.0+ protection and put it at 10.3
3 Likes
CRV Boxer 2 unplayable → one shot (25mm and above) anywhere to the turret → kills 2 gunner while the thing only has 3 crew members - I grinded the Boxer 2 event in the middle of the BMPT infestation just to get a cardboard IFV.
1 Like
They were in the bug report that prompted that change?
You should know exactly why Gaijin changed MICA and nothing else, it’s their standard operating procedure to only work on things that are A- bug reported as erroneous, B- not making money, or C- actually breaking the balance of the game so much that multiple BRs are unplayable
Additionally if MICA was changed according to the bug report totally instead of the half measure it’d use J band radar seeker which some RWRs at top tier back then could not detect (try notching a fast missile that doesn’t even show up on your RWR)
ekhem… 16 vs 8 still gets you 8 positive kill while with 16 you can get half that because of the lofting mechanic and the damage they deal…
I think 1400 hours is enough. Clueless guy.
1400 hours of barely any playtime, in fact ur not even level 100
and casually enough your most played vehicle, is just a below 300 matches
in fact you have 342 hours of playtime in ground reallistic
Looking at winrates from 4.7 and up they kind of are, and considering your name is " МИГ-25ПД" that is literally bias
so it’s bias because i like design and history of a plane ? ok i gues
well yeah, and the winrates also play a role
Your post is indirectly claiming AH-64E can’t use 16x AGM-179s cause photographs only shot it one either side, but not all at once…
AH-64Es have the same over-performing LDIRCM as Mi-28NM with double the missiles per sortie.
There is no evidence Su-27SM2/3 cannot use the double pylons that were developed for the Flanker series of aircraft.
Not only that, but with MRMLs on F-15C GE, the precedent has changed that can even allow R-77 dual pylons on Su-30MKI if it gets introduced to War Thunder, despite it being older than one of the Su-30s listed in the R-77 dual pylon brochure.
When have AH-64Es and Z-10ME ever been “Slavik”?
Please do show us single photo or document that shows current SU-27SM2/SU-30’s are compatible with double racks.
I’m waiting.
@Panther2995
I don’t need to, because I’m not making a claim.
I cited the R-77 dual rack brochure including a non-vectoring Su-30, which is older than all the Flankers that have it in-game.
Su-30MKM has the rack as well, but it’s the 2019 upgrade.
Su-27SM2/3 [whichever it is cause I forget which one adds the engines] is also another upgrade, which I make no claim on. All I’m doing is pointing out that it’s a Flanker, received upgrades, and is after other Flankers cleared for use.
Proving Su-27SM2/3 one way or the other doesn’t interest me, because F-15C GE has MRMLs, which is the equivalent of giving double-rack R-77s to Su-30MKI.
Please do show us that brochure.
Unlike double racks SU27SM family actually recieved upgraded engines.
F-15C GE has been seen with MRML’s unlike those Flankers.
If you can find single photo that shows those Flankers were equipped with double racks I will retreat my statement.
@Panther2995
There have been no photos shared to me of F-15C GEs with MRMLs, only variants after GE, such as the 2017 Boeing Showcase, which was a future variant.
It was still based on F-15C platform iirc which is the main selling point in this case.
On other hand I haven’t seen a single Su-27/30’s with double racks even as mockup and iirc the main reason why they cannot equip is the gap between engine intakes are not big enough to fit double racks compare to Su-35.
However my point still stands, if you can find a single photo that shows current Su-27SM/30SM is equipped with double racks I will retreat my statement.
2 Likes
It’s not a problem. Su-27/30 with twin R-77 pylon that can’t be installed on them because it’s larger than place between engines.
Also Rafale F3 that use additional pylon from R4.
2 Likes