Horrid examples, WT naval has a different standard for additions (keel laid minimum), and the Ho-Ri production is slated for removal when they find a suitable replacement, iirc it was also added under the assumption it was real, mistakenly-so.
7 Likes
I can provide more if you want, those were just the first to come to mind.
So we can be unrealistic…
Lmk when they do. Even when it’s removed, it won’t be removed for everyone. So still unrealistic.
Bro…
1 Like
I understand. You have no arguments…
Remember this message. You are only concerned about Russian weapons, but don’t forget about other problems too
1 Like
Ragebait?
1 Like
the bait used to be believable
It’s funny how people get mad when presented with the faulty logic behind their own perceived distinctions if it were applied in other circumstances.
My position is clear: remove everything which is unrealistic from the game or permit a degree of unrealism for the sake of fairness and balance.
If by unrealistic you mean the game’s assumption that equipment works perfectly/as intended, that is not the same unrealistic as a fictional vehicle like jet powered R2Y2, Ho-Ri, F-16AJ, Tiger 2 105, Panther 2, and flakpanzer 341, or fictional weapon like Kh-38MT, which should be removed promptly
1 Like
yeah a Kh-38 with a maverick seeker is really bad for realism
they should give it its stated loal abilities so it can be used at 40km
No- on a more fundamental level:
-Spawn Protection
-Unlimited Fuel
-Mini-Maps
-10 second repairs
-Nerfs to bombs/munitions to make them less OP
-Unrealistic teams
-Unrealistic engagements
-Unrealistic maps
-Unrealistic sound feedback
I can move on to more specifics with vehicle implementation if you want…
tbh this isnt even a question of “proving validity” they now have a justifiable reason to remove the weapon system from game on the grounds of balance, ill accept the ML variants as there are laser guided so in reality your not flinging 4+ at a time with zero impunity.
I’ve said it before but gaijin need to now start looking at removing weapon systems on Jets for the sake of balance or at least limit the amount they take (SP changes isnt enough) its the spam thats the issue
1 Like
WT naval has the “keel laid” rule because ships take a lot longer to build. Theres a majorndifference between a ship with a displacement of 40000t and a missile. Even then, players generally dont like the Kron being in the game.
You’re just being argumentative for the sake of arguing at this point.
Atm, there is no good reason, either realism or balanced-base, that the Kh-38MT should remain in-game.
Your position does not match your desire to keep the Kh-38MT in-game. It is unbalanced, its literally the best air to ground missile ingame and by quite a bit
11 Likes
little baby su27
I don’t care if the Kh-38MT remains in the game. I am saying that if it does, then they should reintroduce the aforementioned vehicles into the game.
I am also showing how challenging it is to actually make the argument from strict realism, and how it doesn’t make sense to make exceptions for some vehicles but not others.
Also TBH, the AGM-65Ds are now pretty on par with the Kh-38s in effectiveness. I say this as someone who has been complaining for years about how trash they have been. The key difference is that the Russians have the Pantsir and everyone else has garbage SPAA platforms, which I also disagree with.
1 Like
Well, (regarding the balance) I would prefer them adding better AGMs for other nations as well, e.g. Brimstone, SDB II etc
Though, while I do not agree with the claims that “Kh-38MT does not exist” (because marketing material is enough for the game in terms of existence of the weapon), issuing it to various planes without any proof that they can use it is questionable …
But it’s not like you can get them to remove it … I made a report for Su-34 based on Sukhoi’s website which says it can carry 6x R-77s (instead of the 8 it gets in the game), and they rejected it essentially saying “our consultant says that’s outdated information” without providing any evidence …
Gererally it isnt.
Otherwise there is a LOT of weapon systems that should be added that only existed in Marketing Materials
2 Likes
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).
1 Like
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
3 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.