Blocking out spawn camping and other unbalanced spots isn’t bad.
1 Like
True, but should still be able to use it as unguided rocket
Yes
I would like to ask what gaijin’s definition of “game-breaking” includes as some things have different meanings for players or for gaijin.
As i met you some time ago (a part of the Mod squadron) in Air RB (in a P-63 iirc) you might agree, that especially at prop tiers we see a hell of guys which see full-committed head-ons as valid game strategy.
So if a certain weapon (like the MG 151/20) becomes due to a wrong implemented modification way less effective than others (in head-ons and long range shots) this looks like game-breaking for players - at least for those with the now weaker weapon.
Therefore i can not understand why this bug report (link) is not processed - even as gaijin was informed 10 months ago with a similar report (also not processed) about the underlying issue.
Is there anything we can do as players if we see such things?
A short reply would be appreciated!
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
F-4J(UK) wants to discuss about losing AIM-7F when she was using it back in the USN days.
Oh, Don’t forget about JAS39C(SAAF) which has no A2A weapons historically she used it SA but got some missiles thanks to SAAB
- SAAF never bought any of AIM-9L/M, but Gaijin granted it because Saab designed Grippen to be capable of it.
- Saab suggested SAAF install R-Darter on JAS39, which SA was using on Cheetah. But SAAF didn’t want to cost extra.
- According to AIM-9L/M theory, it is perfectly fine to give JAS39C SAAF AIM-120, but nah, Gaijin goes nitty about giving that and sticks with SAAF this time.
Gaijin is tight-roping between both the Manufacturer standards and the Air Force arsenal
And cherry-picking whichever they want.
USAF F-5A/C was retired earlier than the introduction of CM pods on F-5 variants but granted because there are much of F-5 which got those upgrades.
At the same time, there is no AIM-9E on the French F-100D or no AIM-7F on the F-4J(UK), even though cousins from the US can.
Because Gaijin wants to rant minor-mains.
I am well aware and trying to understand your point
(Even though I am quite disagreeing with your idea)
It would be great if Gaijin don’t bullshit with their standards.
I think it is just contradicted.
2 Likes
The manufacturer of F-5A explicitly says that there’s wiring capability for countermeasures, which means the F-5C as well.
As for F-4J UK, I haven’t read its manual or other available documentation.
AIM-9B is a different beast compared to AIM-9E - H, and AIM-9L is itself different.
AIM-9B can be used on all jets cause of internal coolant supply, AIM-9E may not be able to.
However, the USAF disposed of their F-5C fleet to VNAF before installing the an AN/ALE-40 CM pod on it, right?
Because the British government never bought AIM-7F of their own.
Why do we need to buy an inferior conical-scanning AIM-7F from US while we have Skyflash with an inverse-monopulse seeker?
As for the French F-100D, I have no source because I am not a big fan of Super Sabre.
But as long as Gaijin tries to pick some of the ahistorical loadouts for ‘easier balancing’ or ‘placeholder’
IMO, there is no means to not giving French F-100D AIM-9E and stuck on the same BR.
it has way worse loadout on both A2A and A2G sides, compared to the original USAF variant. :/
We also can see the strangeness in ‘messed up loadouts of F-104G on various nations.’
Gaijin is unreasonably strict in terms of equipment loadout for countries they dislike. I think.
Yes, the US Airforce thought countermeasures were dumb despite manufacturers offering them.
It’s why our first integral countermeasures are on F-16 and F-15C. Navy had better smarts: F-4J and F-14A.
Granted, other countries weren’t much better.
What about F-111?
I don’t know the story behind F-111A’s countermeasures, so I didn’t mention it.
fair enough, but for now i will consider it first USAF jet to have integrated countermeasures until proven otherwise
Looks like world of …