But you just said:
Implying that theoretical matchups aren’t okay.
But now you are saying that they are?
did you change your mind or did i misunderstand something somewhere?
that is the only option the F-117 has in air battles though. what else could it do?
And in CAS its currently BR 10.0 in DEV so probably closer to what you would want anyway.
There is no need to put the only base models of the MiG-15 in the game in a theoretical matchup, where it’s very outdated and used by some 3rd world country to fight F-117s, if it has extensive usage history in the Korean War.
It’s obvious, you just try really hard to pretend it’s not.
You can add another MiG-15 variant at some high BR, if you want to feature the fact that North Korea uses them to this day, but that’s no excuse to ruin the Korean War experience.
V
Make base bombing have a bigger impact on the battle. Add other targets to bomb than just a “base”.
Make bombing an interesting and nuanced part of gameplay, instead of a braindead way to grind that doesn’t have any impact on the battle.
They should just add countermeasures man at least x60! Since it can barely defend itself, those of you who disagree with me proof that Japan operates the F-16A Block 15.
No one will play it.
If you want historical re-enactments, there are some other game for that.
Making air fields bombable again would help a lot. Maybe port over the sim air fields to air rb.
It didnt carry them so no. And stating a wrong choice doesnt make another wrong choice correct.
I think it will be like the su25 and a10. 95% of its use will be in ground rb.
It will be less effective than those planes but that is probably for the best.
No, they should model the IR signature properly. It is way too easy to lock this thing from any angle
Is an SU-34 vs F-14 historically realistic?
I know. I don’t think it makes much sense to do it, but if the other guy insists…
It’s not a historical re-enactment, but basic common sense that a MiG-15 shouldn’t see half of the enemy team in F-117s every single game.
For example. There are many other possibilities.
No and I don’t think Su-34 should be added already, when there are other planes waiting to be added. Su-34 could wait.
I also don’t think rushing with new jets like that in general is a good idea. For example the jump from F-16A Block 15 straight to F-16C Block 50 or from MiG-29 9-12 straight to MiG-29SMT 9-19 with nothing in between. Jumping from the 70s-80s straight to 2000s guarantees compression.
F-117 at 8.7 is a different kind of stupid though. It’s absolutely ridiculous.
I don’t care what you think my point is WT has never used historical MM and never will cause if you do. You will have F-15As vs MIG-21BIS.
Guys, what do you think about this?
I like the idea of giving the F-117 2x AIM-9s, it seems this was technically possible and the reason behind the lowering trapeze weapon mounts in the first place
(This is from Paul Crickmore’s book on the F-117)
I’m going to be skeptical of a source that says an radarless aircraft could use AIM-7s
I’m not advocating here for historical MM, I want basic common sense.
No no, it doesn’t say it could use the AIM-7. It says it could haul AIM-7, two different things. My guess is they wanted the option to if a radar solution came down the road
I would give it Aim-9Bs (perhaps Aim-9Ds) but I wouldn’t increase it’s BR. If you give it better weaponry it will be moved up to a BR where it would be completely useless, even as a bomber. You would have to give it counter-measures to move it up any more, and even then it would be no-where near as useful as the A-10s.
Why would you haul an AIM-7?
They wanted the option to carry it inside the bay just in case they figured out a way to mount radar further down the road.
Turns out they never did, but they didn’t know that when they started out.
The sidewinder however doesn’t need the radar, and it was test fired
Call me crazy but I’d like to see it with 9L or 9M just so it could go to a BR where stealth and radar weaponry is relevant
Yeah how does one ground test fire an AIM9?
Use your imagination, lol
@Smin1080p_WT
Can we expect to see a functional emergancy arrestor hook upon release for the aircraft and functional parachute? With it resetting the state of the panel like parachutes do ingame currently for both? If so it would be a major boost to it’s realism. (I understand currently hooks are only active upon approach for aircraft carriers, but it would be great as an inbetween until airfield arrestor systems are added). (For reference I found the photo on google images since I already was aware of it having one).
Ok now were are moving away from historical to common sense cool.
Common sense dictates the 117 should be 8.7
