Sons of Attila - Rumor Round-Up and Discussion (Part 2)

Game Discussion General Discussion
8109

Nobody expected the AJ either, and that was arguably received far worse that an armament limited XF-2B would have.

Thing is, it did. Not only did it mount Sparrows on all pylons, including the outer two, but also had pylons mounted on the gear doors and even had firing tests from them.

Spoiler

Weapons2
aae
72-01567

While replacing it with a subtree is an option now, that is exactly what you think Gaijin wouldn’t do. They are limiting a vehicle to change it later. Meanwhile you’re saying limiting armament is impossible for an XF-2B.

And stop repeating this all the time, AESA is not in the game, the XF-2B could easily be introduced with current PD mechanics until that changes. This would be exactly the same as british Phantoms not having their PD radar until that was added to the game a few updates later, or even the first F-4s lacking sparrows completely leaving the hardpoints completely empty, until SARH missiles were added.

So why add a vehicle to replace later with just as much, if not more limits compared to the actual design than an XF-2B would have had, just to never change these and completely replace it later? Your points simply don’t add up.

6 Likes
8110

4x AIM-9Ls with no other missiles, 12.0, incorrectly functioning radar, and a new precedent set for adding vehicles.
Nah, that’d be worse. Especially since it wouldn’t get sparrows until after F-15J’s BR if ever.
Replacing it with a sub tree has been an option since last year; and as stated previously no other jet in WT has missing armament from pylons.

Intentionally wanting an incorrect radar, thus an incorrect vehicle, is insulting to the F-2.
The British Phantoms are 2019, not 2023.
You can’t beg for 2019 standards to return and expect that to go well.

1 Like
8111

This is such an awful take, with PD radar it would get at least 2 Sparrows, if not all 4. The radar would also not stay incorrect, just for as long as AESA isn’t implemented in the game. There is no new precedent either, as this exact thing was done before.

What about it would only have ot Sparrows so late when the radar performs as PD? The fact that it has 4? There are already F-16s woth sparrows, this wouldn’t be any different. If anything the XF-2 is a slower, more agile plane, a faster F-16 could make better use of Sparrows unless it had AESA, which once again isn’t in game.

Armament is missing all the time, I literally provided proof for the YF-16, which is not only the plane the F-16AJ was based on, but also had certain armament, such as TV vuided bombs and two additional sparrows advertised in the brochure. No matter why it is not in game, it isn’t, showing Gaijin does sometimes not add full armament.

Another example is AIM-120 for the F-16C. They’re not in game yet, but neither is AESA. And the EJ Kai also used exclusively F and M model Sparrows, yet it has no Ms and ahistorical Es. This is likely to have more of a grind, but regardless is an example for differing armament between game and reality.

Is it really insulting to have this beautiful aircraft with all of the capabilities that are already in game, knowing it will receive everything it is missing as soon as it’s added and balanced? Would you rather be at risk of having it added as late as the F-1, way after its time would have been?

There are no standards. Gaijin makes decisions, that’s it. They removed the Panther II in 2019 because it’s an ahistorical mix of multiple projects, then recently added the F-16AJ as an ahistorical mix of multiple proposals in 2023. Not because that’s the rule now, but because they said so.

8 Likes
8112

The precedent is well known to be fill all pylons and make the radar as accurate as possible on release.
Why do you think the only inaccurate radar in the last year was Sea Harrier? Even then it was only missing IFF, not an entire mode.
AIM-120s on F-16C share the same pylons as AIM-9s, no missing armament from pylons.
There’s no threat of F-2 being added as late as F-1, and F-1 was still fine on release.
And no, they removed the Panther 2 cause the 88 in that turret never existed.
F-16AJ, or YF-16 Japan Demonstrator, is not a mix of multiple proposals, and it’s better than having nothing until F-15J.

8113

So when’re we expecting the update? Tuesday?

8114

Apologies, I read it as an argument, that’s on me. I agree that the last thing Britain needs is more MBTs, IFVs and other light fighting vehicles are a much more pressing matter.

2 Likes
8115

Well, tornado f3 dropped with the F14 radar and then was given the useless Stage W radar before getting the usable Stage 2G last major update and the FRS1 had actually quite a bit wrong with the radar itself was a lot more than just no IFF

8116

You are right about that, the F-16AJ is NOT a mix of multiple proposals, it’s actually entirely fictional and currently it does not represent the proposed aircraft
(Not that the AJ ever existed but that’s beside the point)

2 Likes
8117

I’m not gonna comment on the rest, since I already made my point clear and we derailed this thread more than enough, but this just won’t sit right with me.

The F-16J proposal was a basic F-16A of the time, this was denied.
The YF-16A was the aircraft shown to Japan, but also used for unrelated tests of various systems at the time.
The F-16AJ proposal was based on some of the things tested with the YF-16A to bring it closer to the F-15 and F-14 and hopefully make Japan pick it, it was still rejected.

The aircraft in game shares the same airframe with the F-16A, like the F-16J would have. It carries Spqrrows on the inner AAM pylons like the YF-16 tested at the time and like they were proposed for the F-16AJ. It also carries Mavericks, as advertised in the AJ brochure. The airframe is not the YF-16s, and with it not the AJs. The aircraft is missing TV guided bombs advertised in the brochure. The aircraft is missing two of the pylons in tbe brochure, along with the armament these would have carried. The aircraft also lacks a lot of armament that was not only carried by the YF-16, but also shown on pictures in the brochure.

As it stands it is a mix of the F-16J and F-16AJ, and if we consider camos it also has a camo found on promotional images of the later FS-X based on the SX-3, as well as an XF-2A and F-2A camouflage.

Not just that, but Gaijin themselves have stated it is a made up design, representing what they think Japans F-16 could have looked like had they accepted the F-16 into service.

It is absolutely a mix of multiple proposals. But I agree it’s better than nothing, I would have personally preferred an earlier XF-2B, or a Thai F-16, but this works. If only it was at least the actual AJ.

8 Likes
8118

Some interesting additions in the new vehicle statcard images:

A6M5(PRC) returns once again
a6m5_zero_china

The unimplemented Vought O3U and Fairey 3f have the new statcard pictures, along w/ the other catapult floatplanes
o3u_1fairey_3f_mk3b

Alternate( separate ?) P-38G statcard image " metal " variation
p-38g_metal

Romanian Pz.35(t) reappears once more
germ_pzkpfw_35t_romania_mare

As have the Tencent-server CN-techtree BT-5 nd Ha-Go
cn_bt_5cn_type_95_ha_go

The J35J statcard has been removed :(

Spoiler

You’ve probably all seen the Yak-28b image by now, but there 's further evidence that these are rendered direct from the game rather than having someone create them:

Loire 130 image lacks textures apart from crew and bombs
loire_130

USSR Hampden is not fully viewable in the vignette, it may be the only vehicle in that position
hp52_hampden_tbmk1_ussr_utk1

I’ll check through statcard flags next, see if there 's any new/unimplemented additions there too.

9 Likes
8119

Dunno, for me it looks like a Marder hull (Ger) and a T-90 (Rus).

Correct placement would be Tam for Ger (as it is) and the T-90 for Russia (unfortnately added to GB). This will kill off alot immersion and might water down tech trees alot.

In case Argentinia would ever become an own ingame nation, they should have the TAM. In case the same happens with India, they should have their T90 as well. As long as they’re not ingame, the tech should go the countries where the tech is originating from.

Should be like this for every vehicle. This whole subtree nonsense, which is spreading all kinds of vehicles wildly around, so they end up in highly questionable tech trees…well… thats nuts.

3 Likes
8120

So, agree with that. Ifv at least need for Britain.

8121

Is that the moment when Bri’ish ask for KF-41 because Australia considered it and since Australia is Commonwealth that surely would be an option? ^^

1 Like
8122

They’d get Ajax instead, just like Germany gets PUMA.

1 Like
8123

So there aren’t any new national flags for the new-style statcards, and the unused ones from before haven’t been carried over apart from the Philippines and Ukraine.

I did get sidetracked and found the CIWS selection buttons have been carried over from WT Mobile though.
autogun_state_fire_at_willautogun_state_rocket_targets

So that 's interesting.

4 Likes
8124

Those were used on the Harpy in the 2077 event

1 Like
8125

One would hope so once it enters service.

8126

Would be funny if we got it, (especially if it was before Germany) but there are definetly better options. We arent that desperate on choices

1 Like
8127

No one is asking for the KF-41 in the British tree.

People want British IFVs instead of 100 more MBTs.

And the KF-41 still doesn’t belong in the German tree.

4 Likes
8128

Of course it does. A German IFV sold and exported to Hungary totally belongs to German TT.

(Not to Italy)

2 Likes