Search Results

Comme promis, je suis de retour et disponible pour discuter (en privé) de la possibilité ou non d'ouvrir une partie conjointe.

Quote from Killiam07: “quelqu’un pour des parties 1x ” pas avant la fin du mois (disponibilité éventuelle à compter du 20 avril) et uniquement dans le cadre d'une coalition forte, je ne suis pas un très bon joueur et moyennement disponible.

Il me faudrait plus de détails avant de me décider. mais je suis potentiellement également partant en fonction des conditions.

Quote from static yoshi: “possibly use a VBL mistral for a mobile sam? lol ” for mobile SAMs, I envision a longer-range system than portable missiles like mistral. Especially in Tier 2 and Tier 2 where precisely the Mistral could then a place. it is also the whole of the antiaircraft function that may pose a problem.

for cruise missiles, there is a big misclassification. indeed, if the ASMP can possibly be classified as the Tier 1 missile, there is a reversal between Tier 2 and Tier 3. Indeed, the SCALP-EG / Storm Shadow could also act as CM Tier 2, CVS401 Perseus is a clearly Tier3 missile as it exists only on paper.for cruise missiles, there is a big misclassification. there is also a small typo error concerning the SSN since the Tier 3 is written "Suffre-class" whereas it is well "Suffren-class" like the …

Quote from NicolasMacron: “How does the Navy look so far? ” For personal reasons, I could not think of the rest of the navy. but with the game that classifies the anti-aircraft ship as a frigate and the anti-submarine ship as a destroyer, one will have to either juggle a little or cheat on the capabilities. anti-aircraft defense ship: - Tier 1: Suffren-class - Tier 2: Cassard-Class - Tier 3: Forbin-Class / Horizon-type anti-submarine ship: - Tier 1: Tourville-class - Tier 2: Georges Leygues-clas…

Quote from Opulon: “CVF FR "PA 2". Based on the Elizabeth Design. It has been canceled in 2013, but it's the latest Aircraft Carrier design we have in stock, and it was planned to replace the Charles de Gaulle. ” Quite, the last design that we are in stock. more than to replace the Charles de Gaulle, it had been considered as a complement to have two aircraft carriers in service. However, you must give it a name to integrate it into the game.

for attack submarines, it would make more sense to leave on nuclear submarines. as there are only 2 real class of French submarines, I propose to create an intermediate class corresponding to the AMETHYSTE modernization. Attack Submarine Tier 1 : Rubis-class Attack Submarine Tier 2 : [i]Améthyste[/i]-class Attack Submarine Tier 3 : [i]Suffren[/i]-class for aircraft carriers, I tend to agree with your proposal: Aircraft Carrier Tier 1 : Clemenceau-class Aircraft Carrier Tier 2 : Charles de Gaulle…

for the Eastern doctrine, it is the absence of Russian solution that makes me integrate Chinese elements to complete the holes. it seems all the more conceivable that one is no longer solely on European maps. for aircraft technology trees, I would agree to simply removed the stealth strike fighter. there is indeed not enough model available. Instead, I replace it with the unmanned combat air vehicle that would have more of a place for me in an independent category. Like the Tier 3 unmanned aeria…

the Su-39 is not a carrier-based aircraft. It is the SU-25UTG which is an carrier-based training aircraft. since the Su-57K is not officially considered, I would not put it in place of the Shenyang J-11.

The strike version of the Viggen is the AJ37 Viggen. Quote from For the JA37, Wikipedia: “Primarily a single-seat all-weather interceptor fighter, with a secondary attack role. Its first flight was on September 27, 1974[117] with the first deliveries starting in 1979,[117] serial numbers 37301-37449. A 10 cm (4 in) stretch in the shape of a wedge wider at the bottom than on the top of AJ 37 fuselage between canard and main wing. PS 46A LD/SD radar. Partially decommissioned in 1998, some upgraded…

the EBRC Jaguar is indeed a Tier 3 vehicle. It can also be positioned in the other categories and not just as a CRV. we can also consider it as a Tank Destroyer with the following organization: - Tank Destroyer Tier One: AMX-10RC - Tank Destroyer Tier Two: Centauro - Tank Destroyer Tier Three: EBRC Jaguar. it should be seen that the EBRC Jaguar should be considered a light tank as it will not have troop transport capabilities unlike an M3 Bradley. it is therefore to be seen.

then we can fully review the combat reconnaissance vehicle for the European doctrine. Indeed, the Griffon VBMR is only a armored personnel carrier vehicle and not a combat reconnaissance vehicle. CRV Tier One : VEC-M1 CRV Tier Two : Puma AFV CRV Tier Three : ??? (I propose the Pandur II 8x8 with 30 mm gun)

even if I'm at the French base, I do not think that the ERC-90 is the best possible solution. I would also remove all derivatives of M113 and other tracked to have a difference with the vehicle of Western doctrine. the VEC M1 would indeed have its place as a Tier 1 vehicle. In any case, it is the whole of the vehicles of the Western and European doctrines which would have to be reviewed. It is a little better for Eastern doctrine. Because by looking closely, very few vehicles are really in the p…

Quote from JeremyKJ: “Quote from Pygargue56: “in my opinion, you are over generations too old to be realistic. as I understand the game, Tier 3 units are modern units globally commissioned after 2000. thus, the Tornado ADV is for me rather a Tier 2. especially that the Tornado IDS is itself the European strike fighter Tier 2. ” The Gripen was commissioned in 96, among other exceptions. ” I know. If we look in terms of carastéristique, it is part of the same generation of fighter jet that the Raf…

in my opinion, you are over generations too old to be realistic. as I understand the game, Tier 3 units are modern units globally commissioned after 2000. thus, the Tornado ADV is for me rather a Tier 2. especially that the Tornado IDS is itself the European strike fighter Tier 2.

I apologize in advance if my English is average. I am indeed French and not very good at foreign languages. in my opinion, there are several possibilities of possible evolution at the level of aviation to make it more realistic. I think that there is too much space given to stealthy planes and too early in the game. They should belong to Tier 3 and not Tier 2. for my part, I think it would be better to have only one stealth fighter model to give more space to the drones that are the fight of the…

to continue on my explanations, I have always found that naval air defense capability was very limited. To reduce the impact of increased anti-surface fire capability for Strike Fighters, consideration could be given to improving the anti-aircraft capability of ships. the frigate is thus equipped with a long-range system equivalent to the terrestrial TDS. => Air Defense range: 125/150/150 (in European doctrine) the destroyer has a short-range system equivalent to the mobile AA vehicle. => Air De…

I deliberately put high values to see if it took or not. If it's just a shooting problem, I think it's quite possible to reduce the manpower so that the artillery retains a real interest. but the main complaint seems to be to get them to shoot out of reach, let's look at the anti-aircraft defense capabilities (European doctrine): mobile anti-aircraft vehicle: - visual range (no radar): 26 - Fire range: 26/50/50 my fighter has a higher range than level one and they have the same range in level th…

rather than a new fighter jet model with interceptors, could we not incorporate a real medium/long range fire capability for air superiority airplanes. Unlike mobile SAMs, frigates and artillery, fighter planes can not really shoot at medium-long distances. I would therefore recommend giving air superiority fighters the following capabilities against fighter planes and heavy planes: - Radar Range : 75/100/125 - Air-Air Attack Range : 50/75/125 In the same vein, fighter-bombers would have a dista…