If you fix it, fix it completely, you can’t really pick what you want to fix or not, especially if your argument is about it being “fictionnal” and “unrealistic”. A Rafale having to come 1.5km away from its target to fire a 15-70 km range missile seems even more fictionnal X)
It is fictionnal in its current state, but not really overperforming depending on the scenario. Rendering it “realistic” would be taking some capabilities away from the missile, but also giving some in other areas
And let me tell you, a realistic hammer would be not fun to face in any kind of SPAA (especially the multiple vehicles ones)
Yes you can, especially if mechanics you want to add aren’t even in the game yet.
Who said that would happen ?
You would be able to fire that missile in POINT lock from as far away as you can today, but the only difference would be in the TRACK range, which would come down to 1.5km.
Seeker is clearly overperforming.
Due to the game’s limitation, using GNSS and IR together isn’t modelled, which is true for all applicable missiles.
Glad we can agree our 2nd best AGM in the game is now proven to be a work of fiction.
Please don’t use that argument ever again, it’s absurd.
38MT would also be able to use GNSS + IR.
Yes, they should come and tell us how they feel being stuck with basic Brimstones while certain UFO gets a fictional AGM that’s much better than their one.
If Russia has to buy 2nd gen thermal from a random french company for tank sights but can somehow mass produce 3rd gen IR seekers for a consumable weaponry, i’m afraid we are not bound by the same rules of common sense, logic, and physics
This isn’t a matter that can be disagreed in a serious fashion.
That’s like giving 2A7V a 10 000HP engine just because the 2A7V exists.
Or giving M829A2 like 3200mm of penetration because round itself exists.
Or giving MiG-29 some lunatic FM just because the plane itself exists.