Something being balanced and/or competitive is a pretty subjective thing, which is why you see all the different threads where people discuss and argue about BR placements and such.
To some, one vehicle at a given BR might be busted and to others it might be crap, it all depends on things they value more as an individual, hence the subjective nature of that.
Something being fictional isn’t subjective, thus is a nice way to sort this out.
AJ is because Gaijin lazy lazy not model Mit F-2 yet
38MT is broken, unrealistic(putting a 25x and gen 3 thermal on a disposable IR+IOG rocket) when the RU army cant even give their plane a thermal targeting pod is questionable dont you think?
This is the last time I am going to say this we have no more access to devs than you guys do.
A topic having a lot of messages doesnt entitle you to @ CM’s or any other staff members demanding answers end of.
The forum is to have a discussion about topics such as this one about the kh38, so I kindly ask you to stay on topic.
It’s the best AGM in the game but those things don’t exist in a vacuum, so it’s a game of tradeoffs for the full package, aka the plane.
This is how some tanks are able to get full stabilization, better weaponry, mobility, etc. much sooner than their contemporaries. Vehicles and their efficiency are a mix of like a dozen variables that all need to be accounted for.
The plane hardly matters. They spawn their Suchoi, press the hotkey for the target pod and spacebar KH-38’s down into the the ground map. Sometimes you can see them bailing out after they shot all 6 to just spawn the next KH-38 jet. So much for the importance of the Kh-38 carrier plane.
Theoretically you could mount 6x KH-38 + pod on a Tu-4 and it would work (you already spawn in Strike range, so how does the plane even matter).
honestly I imagine that they’re well aware of the topic and just can’t speak on it either due to being told not to or just simply they haven’t anything to add/ say.
It’s a bit of an awkward situation cause if they agree then everyone will likely cause issues that they’ve acknowledged it being not real and not doing anything about it or we just get a response about how it’s known and they’ll think about it.
yeah? because 38mt isnt real and its way way off balance
Russian dont develop any IR guided missiles, most of them relies on TV guidances unlike NATO which does develop and utilize IR guidance missiles
38mt isnt even realistic, 25x zoom and gen 3 thermal on a disposable battery while they cant even put a thermal targeting pod on their aircraft and its not like 29TD is unusable, they need to rework how TV guided munnitions locks things anyway
Well, they had to take on an authoritative voice for the article. And it’s not as if their math or the implementation is wrong in some way.
It’s just that the assertion underpinning the basic assumption of the entire position taken by the article; that the Igla and Stinger are functionally similar is flawed from the outset.
It’s not quite that reductive, but in essence yes.
and could have probably been better served by using documentation for the FIM-43, in place of the Igla, but then further questions would have been raised, as they should have.