Smin1080p

The ones not on the weekend.

My guy out here saving my Sunday.

Context is not deflecting, but important to consider when discussing the subject at hand.

Once again, Russia's current top tier SPAA is more than sufficient for its role. IR or not. We have other candidates in mind, but its for the exact same reason that TOR wasn't added to the Russian tree this patch. Its indeed correct we work on our models over long periods and much consideration goes into that. But as it currently stands, Russia's top tier SPAA is already better than the Type 93 from Japan. The fact its IR is rather meaningless there.

Again, no tree is without a gap somewhere at some stage. We are always working to fill those, however the Russian tree has the least gaps out of any tree here. China had far more significant SPAA gaps for some time and they were heavily requested by the community.

...

We are always working on bringing new SPAA across the board for all nations to fill gaps. Russia has already seen some of these over the past year or so, as well as other nations like the UK and Israel which had significant gaps, that are now being plugged this patch and the previous ones.

Worth noting that some nations have far larger gaps than the one from 8.0 - 11.0 for Russia. We are however working on new examples of SPAAs for most nations over time as always.

This topic sometimes )))

Always a possibility. But at this stage I haven't been keeping track of everything datamined.

Russia has a perfectly capable top rank SPAA. China does not. Russia can wait a little while to receive another SPAA in that department.

The tank is very much still work in progress. Armour is made based on a amalgamation of all published and available materials. Not game balance (eg Russian tank has this, therefore X tank must have this).

As explaned here, reprorts (treated as suggestions) wigh source material are welcome.

A news post was made as soon as we were aware and working on the issues. It should now be fully resolved.

https://warthunder.com/en/news/7921-technical-issues-on-game-servers-en

Yes that won't come to the game if it was just a non-functioning mockup based on our current critera. It's the very reason we removed the Flak 341 Coelian and why it won't return.

Please do not just post random off topic stuff. No reason to do that here when you have a whole forum to use.

The visual model:

As I said, XT-2 was a specific designation at an early stage. T-2 Early simply defines that its an earlier version of the T-2 than in the tree, but does not necessarily tie it down to any specific individual XT-2 airframe

It is indeed correct that the T-2A/T-2Z were not armed. We do not however have that version in game.

The version we have in game is based on the XT-2 prototypes. As mentioned in the blogs, the prototypes were sequentially updated and upgraded over time and were armed. This is why we have chosen the name T-2 Early, to represent the fact that this is not just a singular XT-2 early on, but an earlier version of the T-2 that we have in game (a prototype version).

There is therefor no need to replace the T-2 Early.

I'm implying that asking us to comment on things in the files over and over again is not going to receive an answer.

If / when something is actually coming, we will:

Make a dev blog


Include it in the patch notes / changelog


Announce it via some other offical means (Stream)

We wont:

Confirm it in a random forum topic


Confirm it because you sent a private message or Discord message asking


Explain every last thing found in the files (because some are meaningless for this update or any update)

Things being in the files (and this means absolutely anything) don't mean they are coming this patch necessarily or they may.

But either way we are not going to comment on it until its certain.

If we had something to say about a vehicle, we would ))

The developers have said they will consider this option. But it's not a priority right now.

If you believe something is incorrect, feel free to create a report with whatever material you wish to raise. However the current reprorts have been insufficient to lead to a change based on what has been submitted.

Not with this patch that im aware of. However its reported and known to the dev.

Not planned for now and we explained why when it was added. Its doing perfectly fine with 65Ds as it is.

Response from the developers: