There are many mass produced and operationally used weapons that aren’t in the game …
Not because their existence is in question, but because “secondary weapons are added based on balance at the dev’s discretion”
If they feel a weapon is needed, marketing material will be considered enough for adding them (or their capabilities)
Again, I do however agree that issuing the weapon to various planes without any evidence that those planes can use it is questionable (but it’s not like we can do anything about it).
At which, even more questions are raised regarding the KH-38MT, that thing should never have been added with nothing even coming close until the AASM added 9 months later
Yeah I have no problems with the ML’s balance-wise. They also outrange all SAM’s in-game, but the speed at which you can kill enemy vehicles is much lower and more involved. The MT’s are just broken.
As for the comment about “removing weapons” I think a better option would be limiting weapons to a gamemode. For example, standoff F&F weapons could be limited to only air modes where they wouldnt be making ground players miserable, and would still allow players to have their air to ground power fantasies.
I wouldnt, gaijin already admits top tier CAS is much too strong and a problem. Adding even better munitions will just make the problem worse. Playing top tier ground is already miserable enough due to stuff like Kh-38MT and AASM IR.
And that would only count for that specific airframe, and even then only in that configuration, there are a ton of examples I have of rejected reports due to a configuration not lining up, with the specifically curated variant in game.
Also a report for the GPU-2/A for the A-4E “Early”, but it was impossible to tell what the airframe was in the video since select A-4E’s had the ECM hump added to them to bring them to a common configuration with the A-4F, and the unit in question operated all three simultaneously while testing, and what we could derive of the Serial number and a reverse-look up of the block numbers indicated it was “probably” an A-4F.
A system that allows weapons to be used/not used on a mode to mode basis would be pretty nice. The Grom-2 would ruin the air sim economy, but it wouldn’t be an issue in ground battles, or in ARB/AAB. FnF brimestones wouldn’t be OP in any mode except ground battles too.
So they add a missile that might not even exist for a nation that already does well in cas but for years have denied nations like Japan their own domestic cas options in favor of adding sub trees or fake vehicles…like really they should have GCS-1, ASM-2/B, XGCS-2 (probably more real than this KH-38MT if what i been reading is true)
1- It’s a simplified simulation of arriving to the battlefield off-map.
2- For the purposes of War Thunder matches you’d have to use the tank for over 3 hours to run out of fuel, 25 minutes won’t run you out of fuel IRL or in-game.
3- This simulates active communication between tank crews of 3+ people. It’s as realistic as simulating trained crew can get.
4- Yep.
5- SP isn’t inherently a realism thing.
6- See real-life war games.
7- No such thing as unrealistic engagements.
8- No such thing as unrealistic maps; war has been fought everywhere.
9- Not sure what you mean by this, but the thing I’m thinking about is realistic: Directional sound.
Which is funny cause Alaska and Scharn are just better ships overall.
Kh-38MT being real or not is still the discussion tho.
@Fireraid233
Last I checked the GCS-1 is waiting for either vehicles [that can be self-fired and locked] or to be researched fully. In the case of the anti-ship it’s likely backburner.
And Japan has needed a sub tree since 2021. The sub-tree also wasn’t added instead of anything else, as that’s not how game development works.
All those weapons are equipped already on all Japan current jets
GCS-1 can be used on anything using the Mk 82s or basically any dumb bombs they have (GCS-1is a kit not a weapon). so basically every top tier Japanese jet, ASM-2 can be used on the F-4EJ Kai and would act the same way as penguin but maybe with a better seeker. There is also the GPS version alongside with IR.
GCS-1 might be a bit tricky but otherwise not impossible to add and certainly was something they planned to add seeing as we have a in game model of it already
Not true at all. If you want to simulate communication between your entire team, then directional call-outs would be way more accurate than precise mini-map tracking.
I wasn’t referring to SP. I was referring to AoE nerfs to bombs/rockets and removal of features such as FnF on brimstones.
War Thunder isn’t a war games simulation.
This is where I was referring to SP and similar mechanics like even team sizes and relatively equal footing. If you think War Thunder engagements are reflective of actual warfare, I’d point you to current events.
Can you pull up Ash River on google maps please?
I mean the fact that you can mute your own tank’s engine while it’s still running and turn everyone else’s engine up so that you can hear tanks from across the map.
While this is very much off topic we know what IRST yak-141 would have had and it has its mounting spot on the airframe, it would have been on the preproduction models (which our yak is supposed to be) but wasn’t fitted on most of the test airframes.
You have to ask yourself with these weapons “Do they require a lock? Can the vehicle itself supply that lock?”
It’s why EJ Kai lost the GPS guided bomb, cause EJ Kai can’t program GPS coordinates for munitions.
EJ Kai also lacks a targeting pod to self-lase so it can’t use laser guided munitions in War Thunder.
War Thunder will likely always be a self-locking game due to how trolls could impact buddy-lasing.
Then you have to ask “Are these primarily anti-ship weapons?” cause if they are they’re on the backburner of all anti-ship weapons waiting to be added to the game.
It’s primarily why I doubt F-1 can actually self-fire any of those three weapons and instead needs a buddy, but I could be missing something.
ASM-2 is anti-ship so backburner along with Exocet, and whatever else.
GSM-1 has to be proven [not my belief, this is a word for seeking information not making claims] that doesn’t need buddy system when the firing aircraft potentially [not guaranteed] lacks the ability to lock, and could very well be difficult to research [which includes verifying the research we players do] so give that one time.
GCS-1 requires literally no information from the host plane, it relies entirely on self search. And while the ASM-2B can use GPS for initial guidence, the regular ASM-2 has no GPS backup, and works solely through IR tracking.
As both of these are IR guided, i don’t know where your idea they need buddy lasing came from.
Now, yes, they are primarily anti-shipping weapons, but given the size of the target they were tested against is known, as is roughly it’s emission spectrum, we do know it’s atleast theoretically possible for them to lock ground targets. Especially since they’re explicitly stated to have background clutter rejection.
I never said they were laser, I said the scenarios that could exist in the research phase.
And with the discoveries here that Kh-38MT and IR Hammer is over-performing compared to their real-life claimed locking methods [irrelevant of Kh-38MT being real or not], it appears Gaijin needs to code in a self-search function for IR missiles.
I mean, saying they need a buddy plane basically implies lasing, seeing as they aren’t GPS guided aside from the ASM-2B means no datalink buddy system would work.
