Smin1080p

If certain ones were, it can be reported and passed to the devs for consideration as a suggestion. However it not being present is not considered a bug.

I'm not sure what relevance this has to my answer at all. Nobody claimed they were missiles. GBUs use the targeting pod for guidance.

Learning how to drop / use them is another matter. But its not a bug that they don't use CCRP.

The answer has not changed from what BVV last said.

Because you can say, "I can do this just fine, so nobody else should have this issue", that doesn't mean its really a great way to view things or that you speak for everyone here.

Whilst control limitation is particularly more of an issue for consoles and something we must always keep in mind, its not something that just impacts consoles but also the average player that doesn't want to have endless combinations, macros or key patterns they have to use.

Again, we are aware of peoples desires to see more controls for some aspects, hence why I said "We don't rule out the possibility of it". However we have to make considerations for what the majority of the player base want, need and use on a regular basis as well as what is both practical, useful and worthwhile to do.

So to answer your question / statement, no, we are not "holding the game back" due to any one group of players. We ...

Hello

We are aware of this issue and our devs are currently investigating

I fully understand the matter you are describing. What I have been trying to explain is that this is a normal part of our balance adjustments. We frequently make changes to BRs across all types of vehicles, as evident by the most recent update:

We do not however provide the statistics behind those changes.

I have already gone into further detail in this topic as to why the F-104S was changed.

It was brought up in that situation because it was relevant in the context of that situation. Its not at all relevant in this case with the F-104S. This is not that situation and a response from the developers has already been provided on the matter of the F-104S. A list of the opponents the F-104S faced the most before its BR was increased is not relevant in this case.

We don't fabricate "answ...

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. This was one of the most discussed vehicles for this BR update and we provided some additional context as to what vehicles it faces most.

This is not the same and actually nothing to do with the type of stats being asked for to be shown regarding what determines the BR of the vehicle. Which we have never released. You are confusing two elements which don't apply to the context here. What was asked was the stats regarding why the F-104S was moved up. To which, we have already provided an explanation.

BRs for all vehicles are always subject to change. This is the case for all vehicles. Be that tree, premium, event or otherwise.

We don't and have not released the full stats for any vehicle, premium or otherwise for the history of the game. This is not something specific to the F-104S / TAF, but all vehicles in game.

This has nothing to do with being disrespectful. We have provided several answers here already as to why the vehicles BR initially changed and why it wont receive AIM-9L.

We do not release the full details of our statistics. They are a combination of multiple key factors.

The ASA is a later modification and the version of the F-104S to carry AIM-9L. Not the early S or TAF.

As mentioned, this is not under consideration as the ASA is 11.3 with 4 x AIM-9L. The 104S has 6 x AIM-9J and is at 11.0.

The F-104S moved to 11.0 because of its high efficiency at 10.7. So its also not going to receive even better missiles on the back of that.

This is not under consideration. The F-104S.ASA has AIM-9L at 11.3.

No further changes are planned at this time. Again, the aircraft had the highest efficiency at 10.7, so it could not remain there. It's been at 11.0 for just one week. As I mentioned, the Devs will follow it's status and make changes if necessary in a future BR review update.

As far as I'm aware, if it was a basic option, it would have been done already. So likely requires more work from our web Devs than is actually worth it.

Really not that big of an issue and very clear in the rules just not to use it. Much like everyone has a caps lock, but it's not a reason to write in all caps all the time.

Regardless, this really has nothing to do with the topic at this stage.

Simply part of the forum tools.

No red text is to be used. There is no "official" one.

1.1.9.
Use red text font in any respect. This is reserved for
staff use to highlight problems or statements.

9/10 times someone has already asked them before, so we have the response already because we already know. If not, we will ask if it's something we need to cover.

CV-90s never had that form of tracking. They have a more rudimentary system that's also found on most MBTs for basic target tracking. It's still being decided if / how this form of tracking will be implemented. But it won't be like IRST lock.

For HSTV-L, we are still looking into the details.

We are looking into such systems, but again, no plans to speak of right now.

Forwarded to the developers for review. Thanks for your report.

Handled the same way as this really: https://warthunder.com/en/news/7289-development-reports-concerning-the-protection-of-post-war-combat-vehicles-en

You did not read at all what I said:

Once again you provided no proof this document is fully declassified or unrestricted.

These rules are not something to just ignore and skip over. This is a serious matter and we will handle it as such.

We will not handle any documents or allow any documents on the forum that may be of a sensitive or classified nature. Proof of declassification and proof of no restrictions is required.