Definitely not needed, ROC is fine where it is.
Of course, loot captured in direct engagements and acquired after surrender are exceptions, and we have many other cases as well (Germany, France and the USSR for example). This is very different from trade and testing, and I don’t think Japan could have the same treatment as Sweden gets for T80U and AH64a, especially considering the large number of Chinese players in the game
1 Like
Yes it is, its the way it also worked in the F-4’s equipt with VTAS I & II. depending on switchology the Seeker / Antenna is slewed based on Helmet LoS.
VTAS
from
4 Likes
While that is true, people insist for whatever reason that Japan must have a sub-tree, and Thailand is one of the better candidates for that. So if Thailand were to be chosen for that then the VT-4 being placed in the Japanese tree is something that the Chinese will have to cope and seethe about. Of course there’s also South Korea for obvious reasons, but for the same reasons that runs into the same problem. Indonesia and the Philippines would cause much less of an issue, but what would be the point of adding them?
No matter what they choose, one sect of the Asian player base will be upset.
2 Likes
it seems nobody in Asia likes the Japanese?
so they get only one smol boat
1 Like
This is why I mentioned only carefully selecting vehicles across ASEAN to fill holes, not putting an entire line just because GJ wants a new line.
JHMCS can slave F-16 radar
Spoiler
You of all people should be aware that both nations have, and are still working on compensating for those wrongdoings. Still not enough to some, but it’s getting there.
There is a more pressing -and current- issue at hand nowadays anyways that concerns the modern-day ASEAN people.
I don’t want to dwell on such a topic, but modern-day collaborators are aplenty.
Getting back on track, a simple solution would be to plug the holes in the Japanese tech-tree with ASEAN vehicles, but avoid Chinese ones altogether.
russian MBTs are reliant on hull armor given their lack of versatility (i,e. significantly worse mobility, cramped interiors, dangerous ammo and fuel placement, and limited gun arc).
With one penetrating hit, even a poorly aimed one, a russian tank dies (except with the BS bias buff that negates spalling at times)
while when you shoot a NATO MBT with poor aim, the chances are high that it will duck back into cover or return fire killing you.
We don’t want point and click gameplay. Encourage careful gameplay through aiming.
Fuel tanks reduce spalling, which is on all ground vehicles.
Armor behind fuel tanks spall, such as on T-34 & Abrams.
except that T-72s and T-80s often die to fuel explosions
F-16 should be able to slave its radar by using HMD.
You know, this is why proof-reading is important, cause reflexes can betray the mind.
İf this is the case you should read more then.
Since your reflexes betrayed you countless time in many discussion buddy.
5 Likes
the problem with proof reading when you’re discussing mostly Military restricted topics is that there is usually little Legal reliable information available
See
The implementation on the Dev server is technically backwards of what it should be (without further evidence), where it can only slave the radar, which then cues SEAM and seeker slaving and subsequent target lock-on.
1 Like
He said “Guessing R-27ER’s” are getting removed…", I think that’s just his guess.
the ERs just need a rework, don’t they have 2 time or 3 times the actual boost they had?
That leak list with the M109A1 also has the T-90M, and is starting to feel true. I remember seeing assets for both T-90M and T-90M Obr. 2020, could we be getting two of them?
2 Likes
I don’t actually know, I’d have to do some diving, and I’m not sure even then I could source it.