You require minimum lead change with missiles superior than roland 3.
1 Like
Finally you understood, I’ve been trying to explain to you kindly.
I don’t interfere with guiding system unless enemy plane does aggressive moves which is why I keep radar lock for soft guiding while keep my hands on in case hard guiding requires.
Why though, the auto guidance from radar views is better suited for aggressive maneuvers as its reaction is instantaneous
Manual guidance is the way. You will handle the bleed off efficency of the missile way better and it nullifies any cheesy “rolling” attempts.
Rolling has never defeated any of my saclos sams, When guided by radar screen
It comes down to personal preferences.
Over the years I developed skillset for manual guiding and I like to be able to control my system if I see necessary, also radar view is not always effective in every scenario so I like to keep it as it is.
Rolling or certain agressive moves can actually offset radar view guiding.
The entire radar screen mode, aka the excel sheet, was introduced because/for bad players which couldn’t even get the most simple game mechanic (radar SPAA) right.
you are not better than auto guidance, auto guidance has near instant reaction to enemy maneuvers and has limited occluded los capability, the only minor downside is it lagging behind a bit, which is basically negated on Lead Capable vehicles.
Lmao, tell it that to the TOR-M1/HQ-17.
Those two has one of the worst auto guidance systems in this game, worse than manual guiding in most cases actually.
not my experience ive hit maneuvering aircraft at really close ranges that were perpendicular to me. my hq17 missiles never miss, its always either a broken lock or a break of LOS
So did by relying on my skills in manual mode rather than auto one.
To keep it simple, these systems are supposed to operate in automatic guidance mode anyways and “manual input” isn’t supposed to be a variable, it just is because of how the game is structured. Auto guided systems for the average player will prove better, providing consistentency. Rather than taking time to perfect manual aiming.
Brimstones would be too OP!!!
*Adds Kh-31PD and other HARMS that trivialize gameplay and can kill friendly units
Remember they used the argument that Brimstones would automate gameplay and that it would have been impossible for them not to target friendlies? Yeah, HARMs do that too.
2 Likes
Whats the maximum amount of Brimstones now ? 12 or 18 ?
That would indeed be incredibly broken.
Yes, but limited to SPAA and not literally everything.
Brimstones can literally use the sal laser as a designator for the mmw the excuses doesn’t hold up when it could work identically to the spike instead of being sak only
On the day HeavyCavarly dropped I played 4 games in GSB top tier with IRIST.
Out of 4 deaths, 2 were TKs by a “friendly” MKM shooting 31PD.
Guy swore the missile switched lock and judging by the way the HARM behaves, I tend to believe him.
Interestingly, GJ is worried about TKs by radar Brimstones, but isn’t about TKs by Kh31PDs…go figure, eh? :D
3 Likes
Actually these systems also designed to be operated manually if operator wants to.
Or how Gaijin was afraid of Brimstones having no counter play, but then add DLIRCM helicopters with LMUR and JAGM missiles, which virtually have no counterplay other than inferior SACLOS AAs, all of which except Pantsir can intercept reliably :)
FnF Brimstones are long overdue, SM-SV and even other ARH AAs are more than capable at intercepting something as slow as Brimstone.
1 Like
That is true but it’s often mistakened that it’s the superior/primary guidance method of these systems when it is not, that is why I said the automatic guidance method is the common method of most SPAA.
Especially since with the Pantsir/Tor explicitly, they go into auto tracking once you’ve switched to a different target.