[2020] Simple, Low Cost Improvements for the Italian Tech Tree.

Merry Christmas to everyone and a happy new year

You yourself have acknowledged that's not the case in examples where results have happened and using a singular example of a specific situation does not apply to all im afraid.

This sort of response is the sort of thing that does make us take a topic far less seriously however, as it goes from constructivity to accusations and false claims. So I would recommend we dont go further down that road here and ruin this topic.

You have also not been told in the past anything like that for feedback in general. So please do not misuse and twist my words out of context.

If this was backed up by enough evidence to prove this is the case, then it would indeed be forwarded and have a high chance of being resolved in the future. Model corrections take time (particularly on older models) but are generally always dealt with once enough information and evidence has been located to solidify the change.

Changes dont always need a big amount to be done. Its also the same with feedback. Celere Sahariano is a good example of that. In the grand scheme of things, it was not a massively requested tank from the whole community at all. Even among Italia

We don't use valid criticism to dismiss anything. Whats really being said in the posts I responded to, is misleading, out of context claims that are incorrect and don't reflect the overall puicture. They are also personal opinions on subjects not related to this topic at all and best kept out of it to keep this on topic.

What you assume to be "easy" changes dont often translate into easy and quick to do in an already very busy landscape. Again, suggestions come from all corners. This topic is one and there are countless.

Nobody was calling out passion or conc

The changes you refer too with the skins for example is part of a larger solution and eventual fix to resolve the bug that has been persisting where similar vehicles or same vehicles in different nations show each others skins incorrectly. So yes, I think the Sim community in particular will be very grateful when that issue is fully resolved in due course as a result of this first step and thats also a prime reasons why datamining and assumptions are also not a great way to go about things.

You also assume that because those things were changed today, that took time away from othe

G.91YS BR was a perfectly valid suggestion, just its best in the BR suggestion topics as thats where its all collected. As the recent changes showed, it was changed based on feedback there and will be 9.7 in the next update.

I think this is just a case of confusion.

We do pass suggestions and feedback from this topic, as it very often links directly to suggestions / bug reports etc.

The topic itself is not a suggestion, more a hub that directs to them.

The Italian F-104G is already known to the devs. Its possible it can be considered in the future for a separate position than where the F-104S is.

If you can provide primary documentation that the F-104S version in game carried them. Please submit them as a report.

The official manual claims it's possible. Therefore as with all aircaft, when there is primary documentation behind something, we always try to give it the maximum possible payload. Same with the F-104J, same with the Harrier and same with the F-4F.

If you are suggesting the F-104S can carry something it doesn't have, as I said, you simply need to submit those primary sources via a report.

In this case, as I explained. The F-4F manual confirms it's capable of carrying these missiles.

I have explained to you how our system works. That's the only one that's relivant here. If something is backed up by primary documentation (in this case the official manual) it's down to the developers to decide.

That's Turkish not Italian. It would need to be a source linking it to the Italian one.

This is the German F-4F manual.

No you don't. A quote sends the same notification.

It would need to spesifically link it to the 104S. Not the rail.

Because the F-4F decision comes from its own manual clearly linking it. So an equal source link would be needed for the 104S.

A suggestion is for theoretical weaponry or something like the Turkish F-104S modification. Since you are suggesting something

He did not mean to make a suggestion for something like reporting a missing armament thats backed by sources. That would be a report, not a suggestion.

All thats needed is as I said, source material linking the F-104S with the missile you are trying to suggest.

Nope. Im forwarding the standards set by the developers. Please dont speak for me or on my behalf as you are incorrect here.

As a Su

We have not had any confirmation or denial from the devs on this missile. Like many other suggested ordinance spanning all nations, its just a case of a lot of suggestions to be considered.

Most of which are not standard ordinance, but theoretical / test ordinance which is perfectly fine as a suggestion.

Not the same im afraid. The F-4F manual specifically lists AIM-9J. I understand what perspective you are looking at this from, but its not sufficient or the same to get the J for the F-104S. It will need to be something linking it in the same way as the F-4F for it to be considered. Not only that, but the F-104S and its variants can carry even better than the J in future.

Because theoretical and foreign weapon options are not for repo

We literally work together

You are confusing things.

Suggesting hypothetical / test armament = suggestion

Missing historical / operational main armament or configurations = report

Again, this is your view and take on this, but ive already explained whats needed. The F-4F manual specifically and clearly states AIM-9J. Thats whats required:

You asked whats needed, thats whats needed. You do not need to keep asking if I or the devs "know how this works". We all do, but this is how things are based.

Im not going to keep repeati

You are confusing the system of what pylons could and could not mount with our own system of how aircraft weaponry is decided.

You are assuming your way of going by pylon loadings is sufficient and the devs should accept this. When I have already made clear to you, thats not how the F-4F or anything else was decided.

I dont know how much more clear I can be here.

Ive already exlained this.

The F-4F was decided by the manual and whats made clear is possible for the aircraft. Same case with the F-104S:

If the offical manual says so, then yes.

Reload speed for tanks is an entirely different matter. As BVV explained, its also a balancing tool:

You are more than free to submit suggestions in the same way.

There is a number of A-129 fixes on the way. For now that's all I can share.

No timeline im afraid. They are also no older than a lot of other similar reports. But they are open.

We would welcome any additional information on the Sispre C-7 that can be found outside of that already posted in this suggestion

Not really so much about missing, just in terms of missiles, we have a lot more on practically every other one in game currently. Seems there is not a huge amount on the C-7.

As an existing historical tank, a replacement is not necessary and very unlikely.

An addition however to the tree is more likely.

Thats perfectly fine and could be a potential addition in the future. However its no reason to remove a historical vehicle. Folders also exist if it was required.

Replacing it with another vehicle is not making it more unique. Keeping the M4A4 is taking nothing away from a Tipo.

Italy used it. There is no reason to remove it.

You don't need to play them if you don't want to, but for those that do, its an additional line-up spot and also a fully historical vehicle for Italy to have.

We are talking about something not even on the cards at the moment. An answer doesn't exist for that.

Yes a couple of very cool docs were provided, so a big thanks on that front. We forwarded them to the devs.

AIM-9L is an entirely different and far more powerful missiles than the R-60M.

As I have said, if we can find any source linking AIM-9J to the Italian 104S. Something can be considered.

The "it could fire it" as we have already made clear is not how we decide things. Otherwise that means everything from the Sea Hawk 100, G.91 or Scimitar could get AIM-9J simply going by pylon commonality.

I should also make clear, we ourselves have been trying to find anything at all that links the 9J to the 104G or S for Italy also. Just sadly nothing has come u

The point being, R-60M being added does not automatically equate to AIM-9L being added. The two missiles are entirely different.

The fact they are both all aspect is about all they share. We already had an all aspect missile in the game on the MIG-23 before the R-60M.

Even with that, the MIG-23 was the bottom of the 11.0 BR bracket in efficiency.

Indeed it's not. Because this is not a tank. Tank shells are a balancing mechanic. All aircraft weponary have followed the same standards they always have. Which is a requirement for a source linking the

Because when it comes to aircaft, the "pylon commonality" justification you use opens up more issues than it solves. As I have said, following your reasoning, every aircraft with AIM-9B would be open to AIM-9J in game. That's precisely why we don't follow that for aircraft. It's not the same situation as tanks all.

1 of 2 reasons.

1) the missile is too powerful for the game currently and we are not there from a technology perspective yet.

2) the aircraft already has several stronger missiles, so we don't add the very weak ones.

It's not a link at all.

You link was entirely consistent of "the Italian air force considered buying AIM-9H". No tests. No evaluation. Nothing at all.

By the same logic. Britain could get the F-111 because "they considered buying it" or Germany the Harrier Gr.1 because "they considered buying it"

We don't have "fluctuating" standards. It's the same standards as always. Because you cannot meet them, does not mean they are in flux.

Tanks are not aircraft. Just as Ships are not tanks.

AIM-9J is on both the German F-4F flight manual and weapons manual as well as the fact it was fired by German F-4Fs in the USA.

Similarly we have sources from DMM confirming the EJ Kai could mount AIM-9J. As well as it being in Japanese inventory.

Both of those are backed by primary documentation.

You are comparing that to "Italy considered buying it" . These do not even compare.

Because many of the tanks we have in game never fired any form of live or "combat effective" ammunition at all. Without the ability to balance by rounds of a s

As legally required in the USA at the time. It was still a German F-4F.

Here is the same aircraft:

Coupled with the fact as I said, two primary manuals also support this.

As far as this discussion goes, it every clear we have gone as far as possible. We have explained everything so far as they all follow the same standards.

In the meantime, we will continue our search for AIM-9J links on the Italian 104G and S and encourage anyone who finds any new material to submit s historical report

If you have sufficient source material to back that up, please submit a historical report. Nobody has so far.

We have been responding here all day and as I have said twice before, if someone actually has valid source material, it needs to be submitted for review.

We have not been ignoring anything. There has been nothing of actual substance submitted for us to do anything with so far.

Generally the developers are open to consider any weaponry for an aircraft so long as it has sufficient links to the aircraft in question. However that decision ultimately lies with the developers and designers. Not anyone here on the forum.

Im not exactly sure what you mean by this question?

If you mean do we have information on it, we have everything that has thus far been submitted on the forum.

At the moment, I think the general census was more info is needed on it.

The suggestions were not approved due to a lack of specifications and supporting material. The guidelines for vehicle suggestions make it clear what's required.

We are looking into this.

They haven't been removed yet because there is currently no replacement. Not due to balance.

It also does not mean we are going to add more similar vehicles, when we already started removing unhistorical vehicles (KT105, Panther II and Flak 341).

Nowhere in that rule does it mention we plan to add even more when we have already started removing them. Only that the ones that remain need to be replaced.

RB24 was within the Swedish inventory and cleared for use on all aircraft. We have seen no information that is was in any way incompatible or never used on the Viggen. We do not solely use manuals. Regardless, I'm not sure what this has to do with an Italian topic in the Italian section.

Back on topic, given Italy's situation and based on the Turkish use of the F-104G and S as well as other European use of AIM-9J on the F-104G series, it was decided by the developers to provide both the F-104S and G for Italy with the AIM-9J. It's now live on production:

Allow me to confirm its happening

Overall its the least played.

Using Thunderskill as the basis of any sort of data collection is fatally flawed. They warn themselves that their data is not accurate and only represents those that use the site. Its not representative at all of the whole playerbase.

Im not sure why you think the number of posts on the forum is any meaningful metric for what people actually play in the game. The forum is less than 2-5% of the playerbase population and its more than possible for less than 10 people to sustain a topic for more than 20+ pages. This one for example is maintained by a small but dedicated group. Forums are a place of discussion, and thats something the Italian community do a lot here on the forum.

Not only this, but Japanese and Chinese players also have other platforms where discussions are generally held. So when you remove those and look at the remaining nations left that have nations in game, you still get the same result anyway:

But the number of posts is a really meaningless factor in the number of players playing the nation in game.

It was a late addition to today's QoL.

Now
@_Condottiero_won't need to tag us anymore )))

(At least for now)

No changes are planned right now for least and we cannot talk in advance about what vehicles are planned or not.

This is an experimental prototype that never saw mass production. Its often asked if Italy can get more event vehicles, particularly premium. If we include something too similar, its "boring copy / paste", if we issue something cool that people want, but mass produced, its "it should have gone in the tree". In this case, its a unique variant that was solely prototypical and the best example of something that's an Italian event vehicle for aviation. It takes nothing away from the main tree and is a free obtainable premium. For those that dont have the time, there is also the option to purchase stars.

The standard for ready rack reports is set by the developers. As already explained in the Russian report, datamines / x-ray examination is not accepted by the developers. Only some form of documentation / source material would be viable for them to accept. Videos for any kind of reload calculation of any kind are not accepted and there have been many documented cases of this in the past.

This is the same standard that is set by the developers on all vehicles for these types of reports. I or any of the Tech Mods do not have jurisdiction on the matter. We simply follow the standards that are set by the developers and designers.

There is no confusion. Im well aware of what we are talking about. Im simply explaining what would be accepted and what would not be. X-ray and datamines would not be accepted. Neither would videos.

Reload relate itself is another matter and as we have already explained, is a mixture of source material and developer decided game balance. It does not need further clarification thank you.

For anything to be forwarded to the devs in this area, it needs to have some factual based backing that's not just a video. That is the same guidelines and standards we have for all tanks.

You are claiming something is incorrect, to do so, you should have some factual backing in order to submit a report. Datamines and X-rays have never been accepted. If a source(s) does not exist, then you are only going by what you feel is logically "right" and we have already passed that in the dev server / main update feedback as it was already mentioned by others. But a report will not be accepted without any kind of factual grounding.

Im aware that's not what's being raised here. Im talking about the difference in how they are modelled and reported.

This is not the same as the AIM-9J. Source material was found internally and provided here by others to support that, which you yourself did not provide. You were simply asking for it "because its compatible" with no supporting evidence for the F-104S.

Again, feedback on the matter has already been passed in the main update feedback. I am explaining the standards set by the developers and why a report will not be accepted without any factual grounding or basis. You are making a suggestion for something to change. Its not a bug or historical error.

I cannot clarify this any further and have explained the situation fully several times now, so unless there is some new or additional material to discuss, this matter is not progressing within this discussion.

There are no plans to replace any tanks that were used in service. Additional tanks may be added, but there is no reason to replace historical vehicles.

We already passed the suggestion as one of you (I can't recall who exactly) mentioned it both during Dev server and update feedback. So they are aware.

There is no reason for them to be removed. All nations have vehicles they historically used. Additionally not everyone shares the same point of view with you on that. So it's not a good idea to speak for everyone.

I have already previously explained this. It is not a game bug so is not a bug report. To submit a historical report, then you need historical documentation or source material with something factually grounded. If it is neither of those two things, then it is a suggestion, one that has already been passed in the main update feedback.

I had already previously said this:

There is no factual backing to support this. Purely your opinion. Those tanks are not diminishing or preventing the popularity of the Italian tree from rising. Since they were added, there has been a positive impact from them.

You do not have to play any of the vehicles you do not wish to. You can unlock them, simply not crew them and move onto something else. Because you personally do not enjoy / want them, does not mean they should be removed for the sake of everyone else that has no real issue with them being there and actually providing a benefit to the tree for other players and especially to newer players of the Italian tree.

You are also fighting prototypical / experimental vehicles that never saw combat in any form, on locations where they never met with nations that also did not fight directly side by side. So they are actually more historical than most of those other matters that are also big parts of the game and always will be.

Among those ranks there are also a plethora of other domestic vehicles within the matchmaker and the question about decompressing Battle Ratings was regarding top tier, not the middle ranks.

There is no reason to create new or additional rules when historical vehicles exist to be included in the tree.

Again, your personal opinion on this is well documented. So there is no reason to re run this discussion yet again. I was simply explaining that there are no plans or reason to changes said plans to remove any of the historically used vehicles of Italy.

They were removed to streamline research at a time when the Soviet and German trees were being drastically expanded in certain areas. They were also basically identical vehicles within the same tree. Whereas you are comparing this to similar / variants across multiple trees.

As BVV explained in the last Q & A, each tree is treated independently of the others. So because there is a Sherman in one, does not mean there cannot be a Sherman in another.

Its within the last Q and A video. Not a written one.

No timeframe. Depends on when enough information has been submitted and when there is an opportunity for the artists to complete it if it's deemed as necessary.

The changes were corrected to the right values, it was just an error with the notes from RU > EN:

Reload time for 4.7cm cannons on the following Italian vehicles has been revisited:

AB43 — reload time has been reduced from 4.6 to 3.3 seconds;


M13/40 (I) — reload time has been reduced from 5.0 to 4.0 seconds;


M13/40 (II) — reload time has been reduced from 5.0 to 2.9 seconds;


M13/40 (III) — reload time has been reduced from 5.0 to 2.9 seconds;


Sahariano — reload time has been reduced from 5.0 to 4.0 seconds;


47/32 L40 — reload time has been reduced from 6.0 to 3.0 seconds.