I don’t mind prototypes and I’m all for unfinished prototypes like the JF-210 or 26DMU to enter the game eventually, but I think such rules need to apply equally for all nations to be fair. Now, we can get such vehicles sooner for nations with less to offer, but when setting a hard limit it needs to apply for everyone equally.
I do think they can make up such fundamental differences through subtrees, where one nation with a ton of stuff eventually equals out to multiple nations with similar amounts of stuff spread across. Though I also want them to fix subtrees then, since currently I think their implementation harms just about as much as it adds for all involved nations.
I doubt the F-2 will be a replacement for a 12.7 plane, but I’m also hoping it gets replaced in some way.
But also I want it fixed. F-16AJ itself is a paper design, but the one in game isn’t even the F-16AJ, but another F-16 variant purely made up by Gaijin. It is complete fiction as it is now. Even if it is hidden from research at some point, I’d still hope it could at least be made as accurate as possible.
Wasn’t there any specific components for the F-23 made, or did development really just stop at YF-23?
I understand it’s not the same plane, personally I’d love to see both assuming they pass as at least unfinished prototypes.
Yeah, though I’d personally say for War Thunder level modelling it’s enough to have unfinished prototypes with many components tested and performance outlined to enough of a degree that it wouldn’t need to be pure fiction.
Personally I’m really interested in such designs, but there seems to only be two types of games out there, the full-on historical ones that avoid even completed prototypes and those that go all in on napkin fantasies and straight up fiction. So with War Thunder openly accepting even incomplete prototypes from the start, while also at least intending to represent them as accurately as possible, that’s what I’d say is the ideal middle ground I was looking for.
But there’s also some things that Gaijin do that I think are very concerning, namely the pseudo-historical ideas behind vehicles like the F-16AJ. This actually has me doubt their ability to handle such vehicles properly…
For the F-16AJ, Gaijin try to act as the “historical game”, by making what is otherwise an at least clearly defined historical design into their own ahistorical what-if fantasy. Then they take this fictional version of it and try to sell it as more historical than even the real design was, speaking of prototypes when there never were any.
In fact, the whole addition was based on a confusion with an unrelated US prototype, which Gaijin thought was an AJ prototype. And probably my biggest issue with it is how they handled finding out about this. Which is completely ignoring the info, sticking to a blatantly misinforming article they wrote to try and pretend it’s more historical than it really is.
They literally did the game company equivalent of breaking moms vase, gluing it together wrong and insisting it was always that way instead of having it fixed or buying a new one.
That and the seemingly inequal treatment for different factions. It’s a PvP game, there shouldn’t be exceptions for any factions, but instead fair and clear rules that apply to everyone equally. Balance can be made by setting priorities in what to add first, as well as subtrees once they figure out how to make them not suck.
Honestly I’m not sure there are even credible sources to back the idea that the V2 and V3 were real proposals or considerations. A big point of R2Y2 was specifically being able to occupy the central fuselage with a large fuel tank, as the jet engines around that time all had poor fuel efficiency. This is not possible with V2 and V3 layouts, or at least V3 particularly. I’ve personally never seen a good source that speaks of anything but the V1 configuration.
I mean, it was added because the F-2 wasn’t going to be added anytime soon. Think it was based off of the YF-16A that had Radar missiles, but not sure. Its on the same level of “meh” as the Swedish T 80 U and that heli.
From what I understand they were less actual designs and more just ideas for what would’ve beeded to happen if the Ne-330 engines hadn’t just fixed all the issues of the Ne-30. So more of a “We’d have to do X” thing than anything else.
But I don’t really remember where I read that, I think it was the old forum, so take it with a grain of salt. There is still a chance they’re more like J7W2 made up post war.
why need to while those soviet prototypes are stated with ‘Object’, when production vehicles also has ‘Object’ number though they stated in military designation number.
It seems that Beglitepanzer didn’t test it though, its 57 mm is basically naval gun derived and Bofors 57 mm has HE-VT, so technically not impossible.
And also, if one vehicle with testing is problem, then why only cry about soviet, while M1A1HCs also have soft-kill that only tested in one vehicle?(Operational vehicles mount different soft-kill, though difference is only manufacturer and designation)
It seems that Beglitepanzer didn’t test it though, its 57 mm is basically naval gun derived and Bofors 57 mm has HE-VT, so technically not impossible.
On the tank itself it had a incompatible FCS making it unable to fire from the vehicle, however the naval version had 0 issues
And also, if one vehicle with testing is problem, then why only cry about soviet, while M1A1HCs also have soft-kill that only tested in one vehicle?(Operational vehicles mount different soft-kill, though difference is only manufacturer and designation)
T-80B and U thermals are real, the Kh-38MT is in limbo, the Maus is real.
Most T-80Us had thermals, and later production Bs had thermals.
Your post’s whataboutism only hurt your argument.
Object means prototype in Soviet documentation. No one’s given special treatment in War Thunder [I personally don’t consider sub-trees as special treatment, but use them as examples to dismiss special treatment later in this post.]
@Rowiek
Dodging AAMs in a WW2 aircraft is not unrealistic in the slightest. History is not realism, and realism is not history.
Japan has 1 very real bomber, the Kawasaki P1.
Japan has top BR SPAA options as well once Gaijin gets the multi-vehicle code working [no, the radars won’t be player controlled].
Also for USA to get special treatment they’d have to get more in-game than what they made IRL; one could argue sub-trees are that.
PercussionCap posts’ claiming that real vehicles are fake is an insult to the Kikka, even doubling down claiming real vehicles are fiction. Truly sad.
As is in-game, the M6A2E1 is a fictional vehicle. Others are less obvious - the XP-55 doesn’t try to kill you anytime you go into a gentle turn, its flight model is also very fictional.
