Because they’re not Russian. The Brimstone has a 50/50 mode allowing it to operate exactly like a Maverick. Lock a target with a targeting pod, Brimstone goes off the rail, then uses it mmW radar to guide itself in. This negates the need for the LOAL mode and makes the damn thing actually usable instead of the dumpster fire they’re presenting us with. The only difference is the seeker head being radar instead of IR or TV. But according to the devs radar seeking ATGMs are not able to be countered which is a blatant lie. Their reasoning is full of holes and when presented with said holes they ignore you.
4 Likes
Why isn’t, “Mode 2” being used?
I feel like a broken record, but this would allow the missile to require a lock before being fired, but allow players a proper fire and forget weapon. This prevents the premature addition of the LOAL mode but again provides a much needed edge over the SAL mode.
I mean c’mon, “for fast moving targets in cluttered environments”. That’s literally any game of Ground Battles. Can the devs cut us some slack and compromise for the middle of the road mode?
8 Likes
“It can see through smoke”
1 Like
It can be countered. And even if it could reliably see through smoke so what? Smoke is not consistently effective against ATGMs in-game currently.
1 Like
Been said a thousand times before but the MMW seeker defeats smoke and cannot be balanced using existing ingame mechanics. As such its not coming at this time.
3 Likes
Then don’t add a missile that cannot currently be countered by existing in-game mechanics. Don’t add it then wait for the game to catch up, that is literally putting the cart in front of the horse. You delayed the Grom, might as well delay this.
5 Likes
I’ve said this before but this is a terrible argument, don’t add it at all because it cannot be introduced in its complete form? Just don’t use it, there you go, problem solved. And then the players who do want to use it can do so.
6 Likes
I had completely forgotten about the mirage f1s… their 12.0 in air rb let alone sim so whats gaijins excuse for the gr 4 being 12.3? hmd is good but it doesn’t matter when all you have are 2 missiles.
2 Likes
I’d love to see the players who want this in its current state.
Also it’s a pretty fair argument. You want your city to open a half completed bridge to the public, or wait until the bridge is done and ya know, not die? Adding things half-baked isn’t any better than not getting them to begin with.
3 Likes
It arguably is worse to add things half implemented. Magic 2s got implemented half assed and still haven’t recovered. That is partially because of lazy simulacrums of targeting information, but the point still stands.
3 Likes
We have plenty of stuff in game that didn’t exist in the way it has been implemented.
But taking the ability to see through smoke away from brimstone for balance purposes, is the line in the sand that cannot be crossed.
1 Like
why cant we just have it act the exact same as other missiles with smoke currently.
Youre fine with it requiring a laser all the time but not allowing the radar to be blocked by smoke?
I think everyone would understand why it would be implemented this way.
We had more unrealistic implementations for longer.
1 Like
God forbid right?
Literally me, I want it in game even if its only got SAL right now. Because when A2G ARH seekers have their in game counter play we are then perfectly positioned to get the new seeker. As the all the barriers such as the missile FM, the physical model for the missile and launchers as well as them being mounted to an aircraft is all already done.
It is incredibly short sighted and bad faith to suggest it has no value to anyone.
In your world it wouldn’t come in any form at all, and then the masses would be complaining it wasn’t there at all. Its a lose lose situation for the developers because of terrible takes like this.
4 Likes
Unfortunately, this argument would be great if they had a track record of fixing things when the game was ready. But a lot of the time, they just don’t. Game was ready for magic 2s (example I am most familiar with) to be fixed, took tooth and nail to get them to listen. It isn’t that I don’t trust them, but I do worry that when things get implemented half correct they won’t fix it when the game is ready for it to be implemented entirely accurately.
Right so why not just wait until that time? I’m patient. Instead we get what is essentially a Hellfire from, I guess hell. Also the masses are complaining as we speak; hello, I and the thousand others who have replied to this are the masses.
Don’t use it then?
I must’ve missed it, when exactly did Hellfires have a range of ~12km at sea level, how about 20km at altitude? From a fixed wing platform? Just a Hellfire?
Most are coping or arguing in bad faith, I understand the want to have Brimstone be fully introduced because it would be comically good, but that isn’t arguing from a balance perspective. Once counters are available in game then it can come in its full form. But for now we have the missile in game fully modelled except for the addition 2 modes.
This is a win for us and clearly there is no way to convince you of that because in your world we’d have nothing.
4 Likes
Just because you dislike the rather sound positions that run contrary to the party line does not make them bad faith. A lot of the questions raised are quite valid. Especially questions regarding the efficacy of the Kh 38 missile which, having used it relatively frequently, I assure you gives very little care about smoke unless they’re right next to a building. Which is the same defeat mechanism.
7 Likes
“Don’t add it then” is a bad faith argument, because its an optional weapon. I’ve seen numerous players acting in bad faith with that argument.
Hell Mr Fluffy I’ve seen you advocating in other threads for Gripen to get Brimstone, my guy if you want it added to another airframe and you know its only going to be SAL. That is bad faith.
6 Likes
I said it was theoretically possible, and on account of the limited ordnance on Gripen it would be better than nothing if it is coming. That does not mean I want it in the current state or don’t want it in the current state. You will note, if you read the comment in that thread, that I explicitly highlighted the ordnance count not the efficacy.
Which twisting that context is a pretty prime example of bad faith. I don’t really care that you did, but if you’re going to argue people are demonstrating bad faith at least have the courtesy not to be a hypocrite.
2 Likes