Also it is the French tree, so it could be an odd one like the Israeli tree and such others with weirdly established trees.
That is messed up… And that is in the subtree of a reserve, you can unlock all the rest, just nothing below the first of the tree in that first boat.
Since they redid the bottom of the reserve coastal trees at the last major update, as was advertised at the time -
I reckon Gaijin could put it in neon and people would still be too ignorant to notice it…
This is not a premium store package or marketplace item. The French VTB-14 is part of the regular tech tree which makes it triply confusing that I need to get a higher Rank item to order a lower rank one once the research has been already completed.
According to the quote you posted, the French VTB-8 (old reserve) is available upon purchase of first vessel of rank II. However, VTB-14 is NOT VTB-8. Yes, they have been grouped together but VTB-14 is NOT old reserve, therefore should NOT be included in the requirement to purchase a vessel of rank II. Besides which, I already HAVE VTB-8 and VTB-11 so, since I already have the old reserve AND the next one in the tree, why restrict the last one in the tree which isn’t a reserve craft?
Also, this is not a bug in armor or weaponry settings and it is not an aircraft lacking a cockpit or a ground vehicle lacking a visible crew (actually, since I can’t have it, maybe it does lack the crew, I really don’t know or care). None of the listed known bugs mention coastal vessels or placement within the tech trees. Further, if it WERE a KNOWN BUG, when I reported it to customer service, why would they tell me it ISN’T A BUG, IT’S A FEATURE and then tell me to suggest the placement on the forum after telling me it sounds like a good idea?
I haven’t done any of the tree so I was able to see what you mean.
I’d rush those coastals if you were going for it.
I’ve already got 13 French bluewater ships and at least 4 coastal vessels with 1 (VTB-8) spaded. If that were the issue, it wouldn’t apply in this case.
Not really. If you want to use SPAAs, play Combined Arms. Tanks Only is for people who want to use tanks, simple as. Plus you still have the ZSU which can tear apart tanks, same as the 40mm Swedish thing, Gepard, VEAK, and OTOMATIC.
tank only would decimate combined arms player count
people cry about having tank only but same people turn around and cry about camping cas is the only thing thats stopping people from ruining every match by getting into a stupid spot and not being able to get killed but can kill everyone else
I don’t think people who want tank only complain about ““camping.””
I dunno about you, but I wouldn’t want to ride these things into a capture point or anywhere near an enemy with a functioning machine gun:
I’d also like if I could play such things without getting strafed 5 seconds after respawning (Ratel and eland are suffering)
Business Model 101 - make a problem
Business Model 102 - sell the fix ($$)
WT in a nutshell
Then that just proves how unpopular CAS is, if a single game mode decimate a Combined Arms mode.
Bit of a difference between being able to capture a point, jump out, and then get into a plane and bomb for the match, versus just sitting in a corner.
Camping will always be complained about, that is nothing new. However it is nothing major, nothing you can do to fix it. However, with planes, you can fix that by giving us a mode without planes.
And “camping” is kind of the prescribed playstyle for vehicles succintly described as “bug gun on truck” or “gun on paper platform.” I’ve no idea why people take an issue with camping. Just… go around, take the other route. Get behind. Of course, that requires decent map design, but the complaints should be directed at the map not people playing their vehicles as intended.
Complaining about camping is like complaining that the mustang sticks to BnZ and doesn’t turnfight your zero (which does happen and is funny to read in chat.)
When I first played this game, I was the person to turn fight with the Mustang, and then got pissy because I was being eliminated. Thankfully I’ve grown better, but I still don’t play American stuff because I prefer dogfights, not “go up high, and then go down low”
Dogfights work with american planes, it just takes a different approach (in sim perspective at least, instructor doesn’t let you do the high-energy burn turns a lot of times)
Zeros are very good at low-speed flat circle fights.
Spitfires are good at high speed flat circle fights (at slow speed (250 km/h), spitfire feels too stall happy).
Bf109s like to dogfight by going vertical.
Americans are anti-Bf109s. Mustangs, hellcats and corsairs turn incredibly well while fast (grab a hellcat with sim controls and see how long hard it can do a 180)… it’s just they dump all their speed in that one turn and then become a boat. Solution? Spirals (engine accelerates badly, gravity accelerates well.)
You still lose versus zeros if you try to do the spiral thingy, but vs germans & italians you have an even chance . Russians are a toss-up.
Wow, two planes out of the multiple that cannot. Prolonged dogfights are what I like, like with the Grippen. You can’t get that with majority of America.
For the record (since you seem to miss it) you are doing exactly the same…“looking down”…
In more practical terms…i will assume that you are talking about air modes…because in tanks the “skill barrier” is between AB and RB. In the sense that it requires a very different skill set…
It is in RB that you get to play spotting and “manual” ranging shots…sim adds the limitations in views and no friendly spotting, but the big change IN SKILLS is in RB IMHO.
BTW…i am using skills and skillset because while i agree you need more “training” and “thinking” for RB and SIM, there is lots of skill required in AB…fast moving and aiming is still a skill…
I kniw i never denied that. I am not the trend however. And i do it in retaliation.
Of course i stated that at my first post.
I disagree, tank AB RB and SB are all closer to eachother than Air AB is to Air RB.
Tanks have even less differences.
Again i was talking about air… But the tank differences are comical. I agree this is almost nothing
I never said you need more training and thinking in RB. Where the hell did you get that from? No i don’t think RB needs more training and thinking than AB…for air i would say AB needs more since there are more variables due to the higher number of opponents. For ground it really doesn’t matter, even the mission design is identical in AB and RB for tanks. The increased engine Performance and the pen indicator don’t create a large enough difference.
M4A3 saw combat in Korea