I dont want to play that game in the slightest. Adhering to the need of all consortium members is what makes the EFT so great. But lets not pretend that tested and ordered brimstones are the same as not tested and not ordered AMK in that regard.
I think germany players are rightfully frustrated seeing that they get screwed by Hensoldts numbers while every 64E gets LDIRCM on a technicality and AMK gets instantly accepted for all EFTs. Based on those 2 examples it really shouldnt be an issue to give germany the ECRS Mk2 as a modification especially if Gaijin goes the one EFT= all EFT route.
1 Like
You frame the problem as having only two viable remedies:
- Add AMK to the German Eurofighter
- Replace ECRS Mk1 with Mk0 or Mk2
This is a textbook false dilemma because the imbalance you describe (radar FoR disparity affecting missile guidance during notching) does not logically require either of those interventions.
Your solutions are broad and discontinuous:
- AMK addresses aerodynamic performance, not radar geometry or missile guidance. = Unjustified Compensation Logic (AMK as a Counterbalance)
- Radar replacement changes hardware tier, making it a different vehicle, not the modeling assumptions that caused the issue.
And please stop it with the emotional framing that weakens your analytical authority…
This argument periodically shifts from technical analysis to grievance signaling, most visibly in:
- “once again getting the short end of the stick”
- “which does not seem to interest gaijin or bug report managers whatsoever”
- The poll option:
“Don’t change anything, the German players don’t deserve to be competitive!!!”
These issues converge into a single structural weakness. You accurately identify a potential modeling imbalance, but then artificially constrain the range of acceptable fixes, propose a compensatory buff without establishing its equivalence to the disadvantage being addressed, and frame the discussion in a manner that invites dismissal as factional advocacy. As a result, even readers who agree that something is “off” can still reasonably reject your proposed remedies without ever needing to engage with the underlying mechanics.
All-in-all this is just laughable.
Mk0 or Mk2 is an alright solution, going with the consortium argument Gaijin handles at least that much should be possible.
6 Likes
Or by the fact that the German Airforce is procuring Mk0 sets under the “Early Embodiment” program until Mk1 development is finished.
Here the shared components of Mk0 and Mk1 help since they can just upgrade the radars to Mk1 later on
1 Like
To the people saying that ef2000 should keep the mk1 to keep variety in the eurofighters, give me one player who wakes up and says “Yeah I’m gonna grind the german typhoon for the MK1 radar and not the better MK2 radar WOOHOO!”…
5 Likes
because they want the German version to be worse, it has to be worse, for some reason
2 Likes
Yeah for some reason germany gets punished for getting a better radar in service earlier than the brits and italians. We have players arguing for just equal fair balance and others cough cough wanting an inbalance. Basically leopard export problem all over again sigh
4 Likes
Me honestly I do be like that
By that logic we could get rid of CR 3s KE round all-together and it’d be left with just the MG…, UK doesn’t have DM53 nor even DM63 in service (lol).
5 Likes
Not giving vehicles things they could use or carry even if the vehicle is under performing. Like giving the Japanese F-104 flares(i talked about this years ago so maybe they’ve added flares in that time to the F-104)
It was something I didn’t like because they can pick and choose when to be historical and when to balance. Like either everything should be historical or everything should be balanced.
Didn’t they already remove ordinance from the German and Italian tornados because they didn’t technically use them but left the British ones?
(I forget what it was, but it was back when they were introduced)
I dont recall. Only difference is that we have British bombs in the form of the Mk13, but thats the only difference in terms of loadout.
I’m trying to remember but it was so long ago. It was during the dev server, all 3 had the same loadouts but the devs removed them after someone posted a photo of I think the Italian version that didn’t have the bombs listed.
Probably the Mk13s vs Mk83s. Only Britain uses the Mk13s on the Tornado. Was a contenious issue IRL for Panavia iirc
We are using it in trials.
Well yes CR3 isn’t in service yet, so neither is it’s intended round (DM63). Why would we have a round in service which no tank currently in service can use?
Which one?
Also trials huh… rules for thee not for me (lol).
3 Likes
Guys can we just stop this bickering with each other it dosnt get us anywhere.
Also stop trying to bait/trigger people.
The Eurofighter community should stand united and help eachother to better the aircraft for all.
My suggestion if they dont accept that the MK 1 has 200x200 search radius then give the German EF the MK 0 that they are supposedly use since 2023 as an interim solution.
12 Likes
the niche playstye of uhh… being able to hold a perfect DL lock on a notch? and how big AMK is depends on how gaijin interprets it, could just be a couple more Gs at high speed which wont make it much better
2 Likes
Yeah, you aren’t even able to notch every missile coming your way in a furball anyways.
AMK as described in this post is definitely a much better boon to have.
MK.0 is a GaA radar tho which would mean worse effective range of detection, so idk if it’s a good trade lmao.
Yes, we should unite and demand that gaijin correctly develop the Typhoon. Regarding the mk1 and mk2, I think mk1 can be stronger than mk2 in other aspects to balance the missing 10° search angle, and the weapons and AMK that the Typhoon can carry should be shared by all Typhoons.
4 Likes