And ?
Having worse A2A is a clear con, regardless of what vehicle we’re talking about.
In GRB you won’t have dozens of ARHs going around at the same time like in ARB, so defeating them becomes much simpler from the sensory overload perspective.
SU-34 moves up to 13.0 while Gr4 stays at 12.3.
I think you have compression issues here which is obviously the case as they’ve squeezed 14.0 trees into 13.0 at maximum.
The only tree you have experience with and yet you don’t have a single game in an F14/15/16/18.
And the games you have on lower tier planes are mostly in arcade, not judging, it’s just a fact.
You tried to bring nations into this while I was clearly talking about cons of specific vehicles.
You wrote a whole wall of non-information for nothing in hopes to dodge my question.
Have you considered that there are modes (that aren’t custom battles, I’ll go get screenshots from the mod page if you doubt me) where stats are not recorded, anyway how exactly is this at all actually relevant to anything that was put forward, very little that was put forward was subjective.
I feel arcade has actual options and is strictly less of a TDM, and significantly less op ahyper-fighter biased modes in comparison ARB thus more evenly balanced. Air Conquest is actually far closer in feel to RB-EC with the fact that it’s not got respawns disabled means that teams don’t fold instantly sometimes. Sure its a shame with the limited round timer. but you can get around that pretty easily.
Nowhere is it actually specified that any one particular mode is relevant to the topic at hand. I can fairly easily point to a multitude metrics and reports to back my arguments, could you say the same?
Such as? those that the “Su-x” might face as a contemporary and reside in the US tree?
That’s not what was asked. Again say it with me now.
Where do the advantages lie for other nations?
None of the previously specified US airframes have that much of an edge in either A2A or A2G respects, outside the narrow Static AI Target set, which is not what the KH-38’s advantages lie. also it’s not even relevant in some modes since they lack static AI targets, entirely.
Basically; non-specific, showroom-floor tier notional Mockups probably did exist for the Thermal seeker. But it falls well short of requisite of a prototype. Let alone a flight tested item, or it otherwise mounted to any aircraft. As is precedent for most other additions.
Such was already deemed to be true a good 1500 posts ago as well, with a majority of the recent posts just people strawmanning about the missile or trying to make arguments via other equipment to justify a unrealized piece of equipment being added.
It boggles the mind that Gaijin a) failed so utterly in adding the thing in the first place and b) failed to act and made it worse in the time since it was introduced.
U were so surprised that one dude dont know any cons of su34 and su25 yet when i asked u what are the cons u say this lmao. Jeez… lemme rephrase it for u yet again.
me when the thread still hasnt shown that the missile is real and is just people saying “because X was OP for Y time Z should be allowed to be OP” because reparations or cope or something
Can people actually discuss that there is only maybe a handful of photos and all only of a mockup dummy. nothing further at all nor any remainants of a MT found in places of combat you would anticipate it to have made a debut in.