I’m talking about an official response. Much like with the turret baskets.
Ye i work in IT and the last thing i want to do is talk about my work with end users hahha
We have some additional clarifications to come on a number of subjects.
7 Likes
Mölders is the sister ship of the in-game Lütjens. Basically a 1:1. I do not see a reason for it to be added outside of the next ship event. Especially since germany already received a bluewater prem at 6.0 (ik that Lütjens is 5.3)
It will be greatly appreciated thank you.
3 Likes
One more question, The bug report for L27A1 and DM53 to have anti ERA capability like the new US dart ware accepted. Are they planned to also come this update or at a later date?
smin theoretically if the challengers performance after this update were to tank (no pun intended) would its multiple 3 year old reports possibly get slighlty more prioritised?
2 Likes
bad premium ship ( which worser than tt version ) vs second good ship to tt which naval players want
We will have to see what Gaijin has planned for this vehicle. I personally don’t expect it to come this update tho.
we’ll see
uS got a lolpen round specifically for ERA and SUDDENLY gaijin remembered that relikt should actually be slightly more powerful.
2 Likes
Is there any particular reason why the SU-25T doesn’t get the KH-25MPU while the SU-39 does?
1 Like
Wild considering the 11.3 Gr1 has to be played with the 11.7 ground lineup which more often than not sees 12.0 games and consequently Pantsir’s that completely nullify it.
Hell even the 12.3 Gr4 is completely useless vs the 12.0 pantsir let alone the SMSV it has to face…
Will the brits at least get something with ARMs below 12.3?
2 Likes
They weren’t flagged as “not enough info”? If so they probably will get the m735 treatment. Eg left in limbo for the coming years.
1 Like
@Smin1080p_WT Since its known that F-14B and F-14D are unable to provide datalink for missiles such as AIM-7P, would it be possible to reopen these reports below as suggestions for AIM-7P that lacks DL functionality but retains IOG?
That way we could keep both F-14B and F-14D equal in armament while giving them an extra edge in air to air.
I’m glad you can answer my question. Just now, the DEV updated, and the data of ALARM has been improved (doubtful). I tried it out at the test field, and now this missile can’t even outfly the aircraft itself when targeting a slightly distant target. Besides, it can hardly hit any target now, and there is a high-trajectory phenomenon at any distance. Is this missile really worth such a high BR？
money
Why does the GBU-39 and 53 have a release limit of mach 1.1?
1 Like
Because the source they used to make it unlimited said that they can be released in supersonic speeds (not specified which supersonic speeds if there is a limit etc) but than they suddenly became more effective so they were like nah cant have that, Mach 1.1 is also supersonic, fight me.
2 Likes
The reasoning (and I’m not kidding here): “Mach 1.1 is also a supersonic release”
The sensible thing to do would’ve been to slap a Mach 1.4 limit on both GBU-39/53, same as the other Mach 1.4-limited munitions USA has. It would still be a supersonic release while remaining consistent with previously established limits.
What really made me genuinely stare at the screen in disbelief was the follow-on sentence: “The report cannot be accepted without precise data on the maximum release speed”. Which, fair enough, isn’t an unreasonable requirement. What I don’t understand is why the change was made in the first place if precise data on the maximum release speed was unavailable. If there wasn’t sufficient data to establish a maximum release speed, what was the basis for settling on Mach 1.1 specifically?
Whatever happened to the usual process of:
add thing → players submit bug reports with sources → BRMs/developers review them → developers make changes if and where appropriate?
3 Likes