3.5 sl. i think you should gamble.
I have to buy the Mi-35, Mi-28, Shahak, the F-102 and Sabra in some days, I also I am close to the Aussie Abrams, I am broke and I am not making any money
did they stealth nerf the r27et? all going to the ground. Enemy 10km rear end… dive to the ground without flares and the missiles eating the ground 100% . never seen my et do that. they feel like an old sparrow.
Edit: nerfed 100% cant reach a rear end grippen at 7km
Both absolutely goated tanks for their respective BRs.
I just died because the Orenda Engine was torn out of the F-86E(M).
I found myself lacking acceleration when I needed it.
A notification about that would have been nice.
Is the new Darwin Hill map in rotation? i’ve been playing everyday since update and have yet to come across it even though i play well over the 5.0 BR bracket, it just seems strange, i’ve even added it to liked maps to see if it increases the chance of pulling it.
1 Like
Yes, I have gotten it twice. I love it.
Sadly, this does not actually change the odds of you getting a particular map. The devs only use it as “polling data” to see which maps players prefer.
damn thats a shame it’d be nice if they could increase the chance of it pulling
1 Like
Return the S‑8 rockets to the Mi‑24V, Mi‑24P, and Ka‑29 for those who already bought and upgraded these helicopters before the update. I think it’s extremely unfair to take away the S‑8 rockets just because S‑5 rockets have been added — this is especially unfair to players who have already researched all the modifications on these helicopters before the update.
I tried out Nuclear escalation…Its still flarakpz ignoring multipath, notch, chaff and the game mode being about who can pvp his way to the big nuke sooner and snowball the match into an unenjoyable nuclear snowball effect.
Spectacularly failed at delivering PVE. All because Gaijin forces their antics on it. The first iteration was fun, all it needed is the SPAA being confined to similar limitations they have in the hands of players instead of blatant aimbot . But nah, lets make the match time shorter, lets leave nukes cheap and make ground attack impossible by forcing jets to choose different airfields after death, thus spreading them out all over the map…
This shouldnt be a short game mode with a snowball effect.
Next match…your matchmaker placed me into one that was over under a minute.
Hey, guess what. Gaijin doesn’t care. They will do whatever they want with the game. Gaijin is milking the money with 4th Gen aircraft, soon to be infantry and 5th Gen too. The game is dying, especially sim mode. They won’t fix or re-work much to improve the game. They are just going to keep milking the money until the game dies.
see i take issue with this because, just because you did not die to the overpressure, doesn’t mean you wont die to that transmission now flying through your chest
Snails, are you overheating? Could you explain how the KV has almost a meter of frontal armor? Maybe your mechanics should have been thrown out long ago.
Played Sea AB earlier today - the usual ships that actually have AA guns had no problem still taking out aircraft - to say nothing of the missile armed ships. Only ships that had a problem, are the same ships that have had a problem always, because they have little to no AA because they are a 1916 or 1920 configuration of a ship when air power was next to nothing against mid-late war and even post war aircraft. And that’s because they need to get rid of this nonsense where you go from DD’s, to cruisers, to BB’s and just give each type it’s own line in a tree, rework some of the mechanics like spotting to be practical not literal, work on the map and spawn design, and work on the damage because while yes a 5 inch AP shell isn’t going to pen many spots of a battleship it can still turn the top half of it in to a burning hellscape that takes out any crew in the area and starts cooking off various types of ammo, and that unless AA gunners are not being replaced or the like can reduce the crew that way.
I haven’t seen any actual bombers in ground AB, where I play, just cause I was in higher tier stuff, but in Air Arcade - it seems less like there is an issue with the bomber damage model, as much as it’s a problem with the 20mm rounds at least (I haven’t used anything above 20 yet on a bomber really). I shoot at bombers with .50 cals, they end up burning out of control fast and the pilots getting knocked out even when attacking from behind. I shoot the same plane with a 20mm AP round, which has more pen - it’s not getting to the pilots or damaging systems the same way.
Okay this is marginally better in one way but it way overcorrects. The “bomber problem” was never some kind of isolated issue. It was a damage model issue, and the issue wasn’t bomber fragility. It was bomber fragility being AHISTORIC. The only bombers that were ever this tough that i know of was generally the Wellington, the B-17, and the B-29. The issue with the fragility with bombers was never that the fuselage was taking too much damage in general. It was mostly because too little damage would completely break large parts of the plane off completely. Like a stray 20mm would break off your entire elevator of flap. or a stray 2 could take off your entire tail or wing. Or that a burst of .30 cals could take off your tail assembly. Thats not how it would have worked. And in that sense this is good. The way damage works is to damage the structural integrity of the plane so that MANEUVERS would be untenable to pull off as the Gs would break the tail, the wing, the fuselage in general. It was that, or damaging the engine components enough to make it impossible to make it back to your airfield which would often be far out of sight, over hundreds of miles away. However the structural stability relies almost entirely on the skeleton of the aircrafts braces and minimally the strength of the skin. Each different type of aircraft was unique in how strong and weak their structure was, and making a plane bigger with multiple engines doesn’t just make an aircrafts build stronger. The Do-17 family, the Ju-88 family, and the multiple relatively lightweight duel engines, including the insane inclusion of the Catalinas shows how shallow and surface level of a change this was and the health of the gameplay and this change are incompatable. I would strongly appreciate looking deeply at each aircrafts history in documents on what its structural abilities were along with looking at the blueprints of them to come up with what damage model makes the most sense. This is not a change that should be taken lightly and as so it should not be implemented lightly.
(And anyone saying that they don’t think its that bad, take the XA-38 Grizzly out on Test Drive, take the HE rounds and see how many direct hits a Ju-88 can take. Yknow, the Schnellbomber? The one that went through a bunch of weight saving changes to be as fast as possible with a reasonable bombload. What do we think was sacrificed in the pursuit of speed, of which they thought speed could perhaps make up for anyways? If you’re still guessing the answer is how sturdy the structure was by making it lighter and more streamlined instead of bulky and stable. )
1 Like
yes gaijin put me in an NE match thats basically over and then give me a crew lock that lasts 7 minutes when i leave. you truly are gods gift to this earth
4 Likes
Are you going to actually implement the GNSS on the AARGM-ER (present on the statcard from DEV) or is half-assing the norm right now?
[DEV] AARGM-ER Missing the Ability to Launch With GNSS
AGM - 88G GNSS non functioning
And the B-52 was given a heat signature from the F-14, so now its false heat targets don’t even deflect missiles like the AIM-9B or R-3S.
You know it’s the norm for them to butcher it. They’ll just move on to adding JASSM to Warthunder and other missiles and ignore the previous missiles. New contents ($$$$) is what matters most.
The Ju 88 A-1, A-4 and C-6 were forgotten?