quasi-LOAL and LOAL are greatly different, especially in this game (you know like not even being in LOS of your target)
But one of the most greatly affected. Your nerf is based on a biased mechanic implementation. That’s all there is to it.
realistic would be :
KH38 ML (limited F&F with laser adjustments)
Mavericks (LOBL F&F)
Brimstone (LOAL)
Hammer Laser (Limited F&F with laser adjustments) and HAMMER IR (LOAL on semi-mobile and slow targets)
They can, but not 3rd gen. Not like the missile has any documentation of it being used anywhere, only some brochures and models. IR sensors are not exactly cheap, especially when increasing the pixel count and sensitivity.
There’s also some slight economical differences between then and now, but i won’t get into it, off topic
afther gaijin added the turret basket all time my turret ring and engine is destoryed and no chance to survive … but one question only abrams and leopard 2 have turret basket?
I was talking about IR version.
IR Hammer with fully functional LOAL mechanic would still benefit from the increased (fictional) seeker range, so it being a clear advantage is pretty obvious.
Also, just because your weapon gets nerfed in some way doesn’t mean you’re eligible for other buffs.
That’s like you get nerfed in some way and you ask: “B-b-but where is my regenerative steering ?”
We are talking IRL vs in game performance. The devs choices, nerfs or buffs have little importance here. Russia shouldn’t get any compensation for the KH38 removal too, especially since LMUR addition (which at least exists)
I don’t disagree, and it should be nerfed all right (assuming KH38 gets removed as well, for balance and realistic considerations).
I will also re-iterate my invitation, if you are willing to do so of course
Nor should IR Hammer get any compensation for fixing it’s comically overperforming seeker.
Asking for a completely new mechanic just because one part of your missile has been nerfed (legitimately) doesn’t hold water.
Once 38MT is proven to be fake then removing it could be a possible option to ask for.
On the other hand, 1.5km lock range on the Hammer is pretty much set in stone at the moment.
Thought you were being sarcastic about that.
I think it’s really unrealistic that manually loaded tanks with two crew left can reload and turn their turrets at the same time. One guy constantly jumping from the gunner’s seat to loader’s would drastically increase the reload times as well.
One simple mechanic that would seriously cripple vast majority of western tanks found at top tier.
You can’t prove something doesn’t exist. You skipped science classes ?
An impact that cripples half of western tanks when 2 crew members are sent to sleep, such wow (Let’s not forget Type 10 and Leclerc existence, as well as a potential KF-51 addition)
Meanwhile :
A missile not proven to exist serves as best in class for CAS in a certain nation
DIRCM and rotor return not being modelled properly serving as force fields for helicopters (and who mainly uses helis for CAS ?)
T-series caroussel eating spall like there’s no tomorrow, and somehow not generating any when hit
Anti ERA tip not being modelled on some top end ammunition
the US not even having access to its last APFSDS (A3, A4), France not having Shard, Germany not having DM63 and 73 (and no, VACUUM is not yet proven to be compatible with anything other than t-14)
The manpads article (we believe lmao)
The spall liner addition (merely avoided being added only to russia because everyone rightfully complained)
Relikt ERA somehow having 200mm of efficiency against kinetic round and 100 more mm against chemical rounds compared to the absolute blocks on western MBTs while being paper thin, because of course it makes sense
LOAL ground to ground missiles not being modelled
Western ATGM loft being too low, ending up in the turret mask or gun instead of the turret top. Coding or technical issue maybe ? Nope, LMUR can loft all right