No.
It’s the crown tree of mid.
It’s the best 8.0 lineup but that doesn’t change 8.0 being the most miserable experience sandwiched between TURMS/T58, LRF/Autoloaded Howitzers, obnoxious rat vehicles like the raketenautomat/USH/XM800 and 35mm SPAA
They are
Went from 4th best-pulling Fox-3 (3rd best if both R-77 variants aren’t kept separate) to having only the amraam pull worse
You can sparrow roll them too
1 Like
How is China better than Russia in ground? Russias tree is all round sweeter than sugar, my friend, can’t get much better than it. I’d just like to hear how you think China outperforms Russia in ground.
3 Likes
China does have the better top tier mbt
But apart from that, Russia ngl is better
1 Like
Sounds like a miserable time to play China air. Is this one of those stupid balancing changes that gaijin made that just involved nerfing the missile to death or is it actually based off of irl performance?
Stupid balancing change. They tried to “fix” the PL-12s by changing the autopilot, saying that it “improves stability”. All it does was crippling the PL-12’s turn rate and tracking ability.
1 Like
I prefer to think Gaijin probably looked at the performance of the PL-12 vs the AMRAAM, wondering why the former performed better than the latter
and instead of potentially buffing the AMRAAM they completely bricked the PL-12
Even then I’m pretty sure it’s only off the rail + the initial turn, due to the worse drag/kinematics the AMRAAM will start to pull harder
Chinese Bias occurs in the sense that they have a larger pull on certain aspects of gameplay and function. I think the Thai VT-4 is a perfect example of this.
Thailand should get the VT-4. The whole point of the VT-4 was it was designed for export. Thailand was a major purchaser of the VT-4. However, due to the fact that Thailand is associated with the Japanese Tech Tree (although in itself is NOT JAPANESE), it has yet to be added. Why? Because the Chinese players are so grossly upset that “Japan” (THAILAND) is getting it.
When Americans or Russians or Germans or ANYONE ELSE complain that another tree gets something constructed by them, they are told “well then maybe your country shouldn’t have exported them”. Even if they aren’t friends and don’t like each other. But for some reason, its a double standard for China.
On the other hand, there is no Chinese bias in the sense of gameplay mechanics themselves. There is no inherent favoritism towards the Chinese vehicles and giving them unrealistic values. Almost every example is because of the fact that it is a Premium and sells well.
So favoritism towards the Chinese Player Base? Yes. Favoritism towards the Chinese Tech Tree? No.
2 Likes
the J7 modification of the mig21 i would call china bias. that plane will turn as hard as a sea meteor in a turnfight.
star wars ass flight models
What’s funny is that the AMRAAM is slated to be nerfed next update.
amraam has not pulled anywhere near the other arhs for a long time now.
Kinda? The flight model is good, but 11.3 kinda favors SARH slingers over pure IR gunfighters. One of the reasons why F-4E is one of the best planes you can play at this BR.
can we not spread missinformation?
it pulls marginally less cause it retains way more energy then before, making this an overall buff
on the 120A/B the difference in pull is slightly bigger, but only puts it even closer to the C-5 and D, as they received an entire rework
Spoiler
2 Likes
While the drag is cut and the booster force is increased, the booster time itself is reduced and the missiles gained 10kg of weight. This is up-to-date information on statshark:
At 20km (where most missiles are fired) this “buff” is a less than 1 second difference:
So yes, it is a nerf. You are sacrificing missile turning performance (the important factor in War Thunder’s within visual range meta) for less than 1s faster time to kill at ranges that matter.
Have you not considered why 77-1s and micas are the meta and not amraams, despite amraams having a monopoly on range? Because 77-1s and micas turn. Amraams don’t.
statsharks missile cals sucks ass
the difference is marginal for the trade off of the literally way better energy state
First video is hyper zoomed in and has no distinct sense of scale,
and that turning graph of yours is similar to statshark.
the video literally has all the info needed if you can read it, its a you issue
You can literally see right here, the distance travelled is within 100m difference. This is not a buff that matters. Being faster in a straight line is not a buff. Trash AIM-54s does that better than you anyways.
Remember the PL-12A “buffs”, where it traded turn performance for similar time to target reduction? People didn’t call that a buff, did they? Because that marginal time to target is in exchange for cripping the turn performance.
So what is it then? Because last time i checked something that recieves a change that benefits it is a buff?
These can be avoided by brain-deads too, what’s your point?
less than 1s reduction in time to target in return for further nerf in turn time in War Thunder’s close range meta is a nerf. R-77s have trash range and worse time to target than amraams, yet is considered the better of the two for a reason.
Buffs only makes aim-120 a better missile against afks that don’t turn, while making it easier to defend against within 20km due to reduction in turning. Simple.
1 Like
The reduction in turning is so minimal, its not changing anything. R-77 range is fine too, don’t know what you expect out of it lol