You still haven’t told me why did you change your perspective on balancing and suddenly started looking at the big picture when I brought up all-aspect missiles ?
They sure do look like something overpowered when compared to shitty rear-aspect ones that can be dodged by not flying straight.
To answer your question, SM3 and SU-34 need something to stand out at their BRs.
And no, they cannot drop in BR.
like saying"F-15 Raptor"
i sure do love my EF2000 Peashooter
why not? its almost as if BR if for balancing if they lose the MT they can go down in BR or are you scared that if they lose their crutch they might not go down in br? or maybe then the comparisons of the Su34 to the Tornado Gr.4 will be more accurate
Ok
Because they were obviously added to fill the lineup at a current BR ?
@maguumo
I do remember times when G-LYNX was super low (something like 10.0) and was mauling everything on the ground. Your best counter for that AA wise was like a basic IR SAM that couldn’t reach past 3km of range. Sounds like an amazing counter to a helicopter with Hellfires and thermals.
that isnt a very solid argument, there are plenty of things originally added to fill line ups that have moved down or up in BR, look at the falcon was originally Britain’s 7.7 SPAA now sits 8.3 leaving 7.7 with no SPAA
or look at the repairer it came in at 10.0 clearly for the 10.3 line up now its 9.7 where britain has one other tank long story short the Su25SM3 and Su34 can go down in br and if it really matters that much just run them anyway, it will be a bit harder to get kills but if your a good pilot you should be fine
Looks inside the Kh-38MT thread
The rusmains are still delusionaly believing the missile is balanced and that Russia must have it otherwise they suffer.
At this point just add the MMw Brimstone and make them taste their own medicine geez (reminder they always defend things like these when they pretty much alone get to have them, but once others receive them too, it’s suddenly crying about unfairness).
you know there was Saclos SPAA at that BR when the G-lynx was add right? from checking both Rolland 1 and Tunguska were out and at the same BR it was hardly beyond SPAA range, do I think the G-lynx was strong back then? yeah it was but hardly OP the way you describe it
I didn’t. If you read my prior post, I said
Kh-38MT needs to be removed entirely and replaced because there’s no really good way on balancing it.
It’s way too strong where giving a “poor” platform is not enough. a “poor” platform is not going to change the fact that you can launch 4 agms that are nearly impossible to counter.
“But muh A-10C”, Yeah, you can move it up in BR if it’s causing problems. Can you move the SM3 if it’s causing problems? No you cannot. It’s already at top tier. Moving it up is not gonna change anything…
While we’re at it lets give the A-10C 16mmv JAGM-F because it doesn’t stand out at it’s BR.
That’s not an excuse nor reason give it to kh38s. The Kh59 will be a good replacement. It’ll still be good but not overpowered. And there’s nothing wrong with having the SM3 or Su34 lower.
You must be against any changes that raises a vehicle’s BR because it’ll ruin a lineup.
Man, you really are grasping for straws.
Ironically back then it was a very mid (even subpar) helicopter. Top BR was iirc ~10.7, meaning the G-Lynx would always see something with SACLOS guidance. It’s only “OP” nowdays cus it can get downtiers to where it sees MANPAD SPAA’s instead and it outranges them.
Made good because of decompression.
max BR was 10.3 from what I remember and it came out at 9.7 so yeah pretty much only saw top tier not to mention it was primely ran with the challenger 1 which was 10.0 or 10.3
LMAO, I wish.
Here’s what the CM had to say about it.
However having nonexistent IR FNF mach 2.2 AGMs are on par for balance lol.
What rusmains will also never tell you about btw, is that back then Tunguska’s radar would see targets through the ground. You could NOT hide from it. Russia had a literal 360 degree coverage from helicopters, and it also took them a while to fix that.
:D
Typical Russian main as always yeah i agreed
If they wanted them lower they would’ve introduced them with a worse weapon from the start.
Did Falcon get any of it’s vehicle-defining features or the BR increase was purely decompression/player stats related ?
Rapier came in bugged and that obviously resulted in it having bad stats, so of course it’d get it’s BR lowered. I don’t think it lost any of it’s initially planned weaponry.
Plenty of nations had nothing to counter it and G-LYNX was by far the strongest helicopter at that BR.
This REALLY makes me wanna quote Smin and ask why the Kh-38MT exists in-game then, seeing as there is no evidence of it ever being used, or being functional in the first place…
I dont think F&F Brimstones (or F&F ground attack munitions in general) are healthy for the game, and personally believe they should be relegated to air modes only, but gaijin strictly adhering to reality with NATO at the expense of game balance, while just taking an “anything goes” attitude with the Kh-38MT and seemingly Russia in general is annoying
You quite literally did, multiple times.
You stated 38MT is overpowered since it’s much better than anything else, hence it’s unbalanced. I told you that same logic can be applied to all-aspect missiles down in BRs where entry-level IR missiles are common.
Your answer to this was claiming that the subsonic bricks are “somewhat balanced” which is something you could only say if you took your time and looked at the whole package. This is something you never done in your reasoning about 38MT and it’s carriers being OP.
Sorry but we have to disagree on that one.
I wasn’t even talking about A-10C.
Those all-aspect missiles were just an easy-to-find example of how pointing fingers at something and claiming it’s OP without looking at everything is foolish.
6x 65Ds + TGP + 4x 9Ms is a pretty nice loadout at 12.0.
That thing is probably the best CAS at it’s BR already.
No, I’m against changes that remove things from a certain vehicle which were basically a reason to add it to the game in the first place.
That’s like removing a powerful HEAT shell from a low tier vehicle which has exactly that as it’s selling point. At that point it’s addition would be pretty much useless.
There’s a difference between adding weaponry with a well established and plausible type of seeker it might not have been combined with and making up one that’s physically impossible. The statement he makes is correct, the diffraction limit necessitates LOAL for longer ranged mmW radar guided munitions.
And what type of SPAA did the AH-1Z go up against? Shilkas and Gepards without radar that had their bullets despawn at 3 km. But that doesnt fit the narrative, so you ignore it.
Behold the privilege of the IvanBoo - Able to be both the most skilled and the most garbage player in the whole game. Changing their argument depending on whichever is most convenient at the time.