Smin1080p

Im not really sure what point you are trying to make here. As I said, we construct belts with regards to two factors. A) Historical / Sourced based consideration as to what shells were available for the gun / vehicle and B) Balance considerations. Even if something is a prototype, its possible to find details on its guns, possible ammunition and from that construct belts from the sources and materials that are avalable.

The question asked to me was if a crew statement was sufficient to report something. As far as our reporting standards go, no, as explained crew statements are not sufficient by themselves. Claims and statements are made all the time about vehicles from crew that differ from well established sources, so sadly, we cant accept them.

Hello!

At the moment, there are a couple of issues with the report that mean it currently cant be forwarded, as it lacks proper sourcing:

These sources:

Are both not valid material. They are both 3rd party blog sites, that make claims and list some sources, but don't actually show them directly. Therefor we need the specific source quotes.

You can find out what is valid source material here:

Again as above, "ftr.wot-news.com" is not a valid source and thus cannot be used.

These sources are sufficient in their own respective parts, but they alone cannot support the whole report and all issues reported within.

If you can please update the material, we can resolve the report

Belt composition and final shell choices are indeed a balance decision, however they are still based on whatever rounds were connected / available / could be fired from the tank in question. So a source based element is still needed to instigate the change. Yes, a suggestion is entirely fine for this. But again, the crew statement would need to be properly supported.

Hello

In the future, we plan to have an exchange mechanism for duplicated items from this sort of trophy.

Hey

Sadly we cant use crew statements/tweets as sources. If that was the case, a lot of undocumented and unsupported (source wise) changes would be taking place.

A list of useable sources can be found here:

Whilst you are entirely welcome to hold an opinion on something and dissagee constructively, insulting other forum members is not permitted and is a breach of forum rules. There is no reason or justification to insult other members you disagree with.

A reminder of the rules:

Do Not:

1.1.1. Insult any forum
members, Gaijin employee or forum staff.

1.1.2. Start or participate in flame wars, intentionally derail a topic, or post useless spam
messages in moderated areas.

Hello

There are no plans to change the A-10 Early.

We have numerous vehicles across the game which may be of the same variant, but can represent an "early" or "late" stage of that aircrafts lifespan. It does not mean that a separate variant is denoted, but simply the representation of that aircraft is defined by a specific time period in its history. This is exactly the case with the A-10A Early and Late. There were weaponry/equipment differences that are reflected in game. A whole new separate variant is not required to denote it as "Early" or "Late" as it can be the same variant, reflected at two different stages.

Right now both of these variants are as intended.

Discussing rumours is one thing and entirely fine. Going into in depth discussions about a possible tree, structure, vehicles and everything else with no basis for that type of discussion and when a purpose built section exists was the point I was addressing

Trust me, I haven't missed anything.

We add new decals all the time. Some for events, specials, packs or a myriad of other reasons. The fact they may be from a nation not fully represented with a full tree in game does not mean this is the place to have pages long discussions about a possible tree, placement or the vehciles within it.

If you want to discuss nations not in game yet, we have a dedicated section for that. A bunch of decals appearing in the files don't mean anything about a CBT or full tree. Until there are reasonable grounds to do so, there are more relivant places to discuss things like that.

You know by now how this topic works.

As others have already explained, the details of the event (including the seperate purchase of the Soccer ball Piñata and Piñata stick) can be found in the official news article: https://warthunder.com/en/news/8160-special-lucky-piñata-en

Guys, once again, I'm not sure why we are discussing random nations and sub trees.

Please use the appropriate sections to discuss nations not in game: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/939-international-tech-tree-project-unofficial/

We have actually had some additional clarification from the devs regarding that. The rebalance that took place was indeed a one time change. The new economy system based on vehicle rank, which evens out the costs of identical / similar vehicles and also itself further prevents event vehicles from very high repair costs superseded this approach. So under the latest economy conditions, the Tornado already correspond its rank and counterpart as intended.

I redirected you to a whole section where you can talk about trees

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/939-international-tech-tree-project-unofficial/

If you need any in particular, please send a PM.

A reminder please guys. This section:

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/939-international-tech-tree-project-unofficial/

And this topic:

Both exist for a reason. Please do not off topic spam here.

This was generally part of a wider one-time rebalancing at the time, as some event vehicles had very high repair costs compared to researchable vehicles at the same BR. Few, if any had identical repair costs as their linear counterparts, such is the case as currently with the two German IDS variants. However its something that can be raised and taken into consideration in the next economy update.

Hello

I have forwarded the report. In a case where your report has not received an answer, please PM myself or any Technical Moderator.

We dont have any news at this time of when that will be. Naturally we have the weekly QoLs that can contain a plethora of things, but some elements can be kept for a major in instances of a larger / wider rework or rebalance.

Hello

Lots of aircraft that could carry AIM-9L do not have it in game. Missile loadouts are not and have never been 1:1 historical loadouts.

Even the Phantoms at 11.3 do not have AIM-9Ls. So this is not a historical matter that prevents the aircraft from getting these missiles.

The F-4F was recently lowered to 10.7 based on player feedback, where its performing very solidly and is one of the higher aircraft at that BR in efficiency. Therefor there are no plans right now to provide the current F-4F variants with AIM-9L.

There are also multiple topics already open on the F-4F and even more specifically, this very matter. Please use them rather than starting another new one:

Please report any issues here:

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder