Smin1080p

No. The US has 2 x A-10s and the B-26s this update for aviation. The A-10 itself is a massive addition.

France does not have any other options for a top helicopter currently. So its already got as close as it can and has a top tier helicopter at the very least. There is only so much we can do there when no other real options exist.

For Sweden however, there is a viable option, which is what it will receive. Because France has no current further option to match the Apaches, does not mean other nations should miss out on a top rank helicopter or have a massive gap in their tree.

Hopefully people enjoy what is coming and what is still yet to come

Nothings been deleted by the moderators as far as I can see. Again the suggestion for one could indeed be made in the correct area. The main point was however its addition to the main tree itself is not directly comparable to the situation with the Apache. But feel free to make a suggestion for it if there is enough real grounding.

Not with this update currently.

Really not going to repeat for the 3rd time how the comparison here is not the same as the Swedish helicopter situation.

Think its been discussed sufficiently and explained enough at this stage.

Japan has IJN Kongo this update.

There are no further Swedish helicopters this update. Thats what we can say for now.

Again, Israeli has its own tanks to cover itself. This comparison is not the same as the Swedish Apache.

As I said above. We are working on bringing all nations into parity. But this update is the Swedish tree.

Domestic production has never been a direct requirement.

All other nations with helicopters have something at that BR range. This is a viable solution to avoid what is indeed a massive unnecessary gap and clear lack of parity without breaking any existing precedents. A lack of a top rank helicopter in most ground forces line-ups can be substantial and something we are trying to work on for everyone. When its avoidable like this with a clear fitting candidate, there is no reason to not include it.

Again, your and others thoughts and opinions on this are very clear, respected and understood. Really isn't a need to keep this loop going a this stage as its been fully explained how and why.

A good % of the vehicles in game were not adopted into service with the nations that have them. Only trailed. There is not really a good reason to artificially hamper Swedish top tier when a candidate exists that conforms to the existing measures of implementation in the game.

Many of the weaponry choices and tank shells in game follow suit. This really isn't a ground breaking factor.

Israel has a tree full of their own domestic tanks. The comparison is not really the same here with what would effectively be a massive gap and complete lack of a top tier helicopter. Which is not something the Israeli tree has to worry about over time.

In those cases, they simply did not exist.

In this case, it very much did exist and was used by Swedish personnel in Swedish markings with a serious intent to be used fully. Real world circumstance cut that short, but as its obvious by the very nature of the game and the fact nations like Sweden participate in the game itself, real world circumstance is not really a factor here.

As I said just some time ago, we dont rule out nations also getting support from other nations. Most have already benefited from this (Italy's F-104S and G getting Turkish / European AIM-9Js for example) in some capacity.

None the less, I think its clear people hold differing opinions on this, as they do with most things. But this back and forth has really run its course in the topic now. The reason for the inclusion has been established now.

Its not a mistake to bring everyone's helicopter tree into general parity for game balance. Especially since it follows existing additions of the same / similar nature.

One persons opinion on what they see as a mistake does not also make it the view of everyone else.

4 Nations have or are going to have the same (Israel, Japan) or better variants (UK, USA) helicopter as their top helicopter. Germany have the upgraded Tiger with PARS and the USSR have the Ka-52 and Mi-28NM. France doesn't have any further options currently and Italy has some considerations.

Sweden's only option for a top tree helicopter is the Apache. We also as previously explained are not really making an exception that has not already been made for several nations.

We dont rule out other nations being included in other trees. But there is no need to override the Apache as a result.

There is no real reason not to provide something that is historical. Most of the vehicles in game were not adopted into service for one reason or another. The real world circumstantial situation of why the Apache was not adopted does not apply in game for the same reasons all other vehicles are also in game.

None the less, its very clear people have different opinions, which is the same for lend-lease, captured, prototypical and other trailed aircraft. The reality of the matter from a game perspective is this is just the same as all of those for the same or similar reasons.

We have 10 nations in game now. Its very easy to get a Rank III or above heavy tank in them. Italy simply did not have heavy tanks outside of what it classified its own tanks domestically. Italy never had the Tiger or tested it with the same capacity Sweden did the Apache.

The comparison here between something critical for most top tier line-ups and something required to complete a task does not really compare. One is almost necessary for a solid line-up, the other can be completed with any nation.

This also has nothing to do with the topic.

Britain, France and Italy have their own aircraft and tanks to occupy those slots however. Whereas the entirety of Swedish top tier ground forces would have no helicopter support equal with other nations.

There is no need for a British F-5, no need for a French F-15 and Italy has its own tanks to occupy those areas. There will always be some gaps, but there is no reason to not provide the Swedish tree with something that they did test, but didn't adopt due to real world changing circumstances that blows a massive whole in their top tier without.

First it requires validation and review by our consultants. Weaponry choices are also done with regards to balance.

We are aware of the countermeasure issue, but the fix also leads to a reduction to. So its hardly a positive change. But known.

Bug reports are necessary for proper traceability and reporting. If all the info is present for whats required for a bug report, then it will be very easy for it to be properly reported, as it should be rather than a discussion topic. When a report is made, we can forward that for review.