fact
MLU+ is not / will not be the designation of the aircraft. Its simply stating its later than the first MLU. We are not confirming its designation right now.
1 Like
Nothing is being ignored. Simply we have answered this multiple times now across several topics.
1 Like
I am sorry but I still feel my questions have not been answered. What is the point of including a “unique” vehicle that only makes it worse than their counterparts in a way that is commonly considered crucial at its BR if the vehicle can’t be put into a lower BR and no unique place exists for it compared to the vastly more superior counterpart.
Also both this aircraft and its counterpart went through the same program (JHMCS) but it can only be implemented to one of these aircraft
MLU1 never had AIM-120Cs so it can’t by established logic applied to it receive them in the future so there still will be unique A2A role for the MLU2 in the future
All we are asking for is parity for a feature that is vital for an aircraft at this BR, especially so because this aircraft already is the weakest of its BR. This should be included since the variant that had them had otherwise minimal modifications
Personally I would rather have vehicles in the game that are viable and well balanced or not have them or have some of them done well and fairly and others done half-assed
8 Likes
Should we expect both MLU 1 and MLU 2? Your wording from.prior makes it seem that gaijin have no plans to add the MLU one which makes an already underwhelming TT even worse by not including the first of the uniquely Finnish modifications additionally have the devs actually heard or even seen that again we want to see the Finnish F-18C be on par A2A wise as the US model? The game is dominated by defending from Fox 3 and without HMD that this jet essentially unabke to play to the same standards so considering the US F-18’s keep dropping in BR why is the same not available to us?
This version is spesifically the F-18, differing from the F/A-18C in the US tree by being the early version Finland acquired that did not have the CAS packages and other upgrades that came later. Where its possible, we try to have the unique version of aircraft so its not just the same aircraft identically in multiple trees. Much like the difference between the German and British / Italian Eurofighters IRST.
As we have mentioned, we plan a second later upgrade MLU variant which will come with all of the requested features people would like to see including the CAS upgrades and other differences. Like the cockpit changes and HMD.
1 Like
We just plan a later variant currently. Not multiple.
1 Like
no reason a significantly weaker variant should be same br as the stronger variant. no hmd at 14.0 is ridiculous. doesn’t matter what is added later on, br is made for current planes.
8 Likes
So the devs plan to skip the MLU 1…so why not add the MLU 1 uogrades to this Hornet to make it unique? It would be the most unique model for A2A if it received its Finnish modifications while allowing it to be on par with the US for air 2 air anyways. Again why skip MLU 1 its just a silly point that is clearly causing more problems than its worth. The majority are in agreement that refusing this is either targeted hate or nation bias considering the BR is the same as the superior model. I ask you to please let the devs know that this is no different than the US getting 229 engines so why ignore us?
Skipping the MLU 1 in favor of the MLU 2 is possibly the worst approach you could do when the devs for some unknown reason seem to think that HMD is essentially a pointless upgrade. Thats like placing a tank at 12.0 with 15.0 turret rotation. Sure you can work with that but everyone else will have the advantage.
Worst case scenario just add both the MLU 1 and the Early F-18C to Finland and slower work on the cockpit, you’d have less people arguing over the poor balancing decisions.
2 Likes
So having an A2A only Hornet isn’t a unique enough experience with a lowered BR for GRB? The MLU1 still had the F-18C designation as no A2G weapons were acquired.
If the uniqueness severely affects offence/defence shouldn’t that give it a unique place.
This is kind of like adding the flareless version of the F-15 but not as extreme.
In my personal experience the BR of 14.0 requires speed and HMD to achieve successes
If I really want to play a AMRAAM slinger without HMD I can play the F-4F ICE and have a much better time while having approximately the same experience: being slow as balls and losing all speed in dogfights
We also know of how desirable these unique experiences are with the F-16 OCU to players (most people skipping that aircraft and the rest having a bad time). Why should anyone bother with an experience that will be objectively bad in almost all metrics and needlessly worse than a counterpart. What about the players that have sunk a lot of time for interest in a certain tech tree in anticipation of these aircraft only for it to be uncompetitive all the while liberties taking in design for other models aren’t applied here even though it would be good for the balance.
There is very few souls looking for the experience you are offering and a much larger audience making the reasonable request of making this aircraft either lower BR or gain HMD. There would also be a ton of variants that would be unique experiences but the people don’t want them because these experinces would be unnecessarily painful and I think this one will be one of those as is.
6 Likes
There are two sensible choices to make
don’t give the HMD to the f18 finnish, and put it on 13.7
give the Finnish f18 HMD for sole and exclusive balancing reasons and keep it at 14.0. (although it is not historically accurate blablabla ).
Anything other than these two choices is madness, and will only disadvantage Sweden/Finland.
The decision is not difficult, it is simple…
3 Likes
The vehicle has aim 9L its already not historically accurate
3 Likes
It would be historically accurate for MLU1 and inline with other planes with JHMCS
1 Like
There is the F16AJ, and they put it there precisely to fill the gap in Japan, which is ok, it is not historically accurate but the vehicle is incredible, putting the HMD in the Finnish F18 even if it is not historically accurate is not heresy or blasphemy, it will just balance the game.
2 Likes
Several nations were supposed to have this F18 patch, but they decided to give 3 F18s to just one nation, with BR 12.3, 12.7 and 14.0… the only other nation that received an F18 was supposed to be similar to the American F18, but they decided that it won’t be.
We already know who this patch is for, and which will be the only nation that will truly enjoy it and how it will be extremely favored by it to the detriment of all the rest.
7 Likes
The real question is will other nations get the same treatment as Finland or will they get US equivalents.
Hi. Trying to be as polite as possible, but you already have put some of the capabilities of the MLU-1 to the Finnish hornet in the IFF as it was part of the MLU-1 upgrade package, and the only upgrades missing from the dev server version and the MLU-1 package are HMS, TAMMAC- Mapping computer (and Aim-9X what I’m not expecting).
So wouldn’t it be more in your favor to add those capabilities and have a real contender for top tier air?
You would also get the benefit of keeping the Nordic player base satisfied because (at least) I haven’t seen anyone asking for anything that isn’t in the game already (as in Aim-9X)
6 Likes
As a resident “US Main” this feels like another F-15I vs F-15E situation but with the roles reversed.
Litrally all that needs to be added from the MLU set to allow the Finnish F-18C to at least compete in A2A is the HMD, I have no idea why this is not on the table for Gaijin.
If it is really not on the table at all, just remove the F-18C Late’s HMD and shove both down to 13.7, gaijin already bends the rules all over the place and we already properly equalized the F-15E and F-15I after much gnashing of teeth. HMDs are paramount at top tier now and having two largely identical aircraft with one having such a massive boon and the other not is daft.
Look, ord differences between trees on similar aircraft is expected, but at the same time, if nearly identical versions of the same aircraft are added but made inferior or superior equipment wise when properly equal aircraft exist either their BRs needs to adhere to this inferiority or they need to be equalized, and I very much so vote for the latter.
And in the case of the choices made by gaijin’s dev team quite often as of late.
The community has been far more on the ball with good choices than the devs and I very much so find their input superior.
8 Likes
The Nordic Community just doesn’t matter is the real reason why they haven’t bothered to give a decent response to the matter. When it goes to live they will continue to keep it at 14.0 regardless and this vehicle will be left to rot until the MLU is added at a BR where its bot competitive and so on. Thus is the cycle.
1 Like
Implementing the Hornet belonging to one nation in an outright better state than the other one does not make the worse aircraft “unique”. This is not similar to a more respectable “unique” addition in form of, for example, the F-16C versus F-16AM; where one aircraft lacks in avionics (no radar HMD, although JHMCS on F-16AM should have radar cueing but that is besides the point) but makes up for it by being the Viper with the better flight performance (Block 15 vs Block 50). In the case of the Hornets, one is outright worse than the other whilst still residing at the same BR. This is even more nonsensical when you consider that there is nothing holding back the current Finnish Hornet from receiving MLU1 upgrade package, as this would only bring it in line with the American one and nothing more. I wonder how you were to justify that, considering that the decision to implement the Finnish Hornet in this state does not seem like it is backed by anything but artificial grind extension and an intentional effort to handicap Sweden’s air tree for no legitimate reason.
5 Likes