West-Germany (or hoping without hope)

[Razzmann]

Keiler in no way deserves 13 FAV it was worse armored that T-64A, which is 11.

It would be a really, really good buff for gameplay though

[GARGEAN]

It would be a really, really good buff for gameplay though

Pfffff. Gameplay < realism.

[Markenzwieback]

It would be a really, really good buff for gameplay though

Pfffff. Gameplay < realism.

In that case we need to severely rethink the air balance!

[GARGEAN]

In that case we need to severely rethink the air balance!

Deal. I'll be okay wil Su-24 with 3 KAB-1500Kr and MiG-31M with 13.6k ranged R-37.

[Markenzwieback]

In that case we need to severely rethink the air balance!

Deal. I'll be okay wil Su-24 with 3 KAB-1500Kr and MiG-31M with 13.6k ranged R-37.

In exchange you loose almost all A2A F&F capabilities, all high-end ASFs except Su-27S type and a MiG-29 version with SA missiles (which is getting a range or accuracy reduction). MiG-23s now are plentiful, as well as several types of close air support planes with lower ECM.

US stacks up Eagles with F&F AMRAMMs in better availability and gets Strike Eagle as well as Rockeyes on their Wild Weasels. Germany gets plenty of Tornado IDS with Cluster, heavier Mk80-series and some GBUs. Brits can easily get their Tornado SEAD and proper A2G loadout.

We could continue this quite a while. I'd say gameplay is quite a bit more important than full realism for now. Especially since many weapon systems are simply fantasy-like abstractions from reality (*coughcough* TOS-1).

[GARGEAN]

In exchange you loose almost all A2A F&F capabilities, all high-end ASFs except Su-27S type and a MiG-29 version with SA missiles (which is getting a range or accuracy reduction). MiG-23s now are plentiful, as well as several types of close air support planes with lower ECM.

US stacks up Eagles with F&F AMRAMMs in better availability and gets Strike Eagle as well as Rockeyes on their Wild Weasels. Germany gets plenty of Tornado IDS with Cluster, heavier Mk80-series and some GBUs. Brits can easily get their Tornado SEAD and proper A2G loadout.

No deal, F&F capability is not crucial, but R-27R should retain as it is. Also R-27ER with more range added. Plus R-27EM for naval with added acc. R-77 or R-27EA can be added in pitiful numbers. Why the hell should later types like Su-27PU be dropped if we have Eurofighter and Rafale jumping around? With missiles that are as likely to exist in timeframe as R-77, I assume you. As for lower ECM - no shit. It should be reworked, not just lowered. Lower for MiG-29, but higher for Su-24, Su-25 and so on.

I'm fine with more types of AMRAAM carriers for US, but avail should be direct result of cost, which itself should be direct result of capabilities. So no shit.

[Steamfunk]

Keiler in no way deserves 13 FAV it was worse armored that T-64A, which is 11.

I think it goes without saying the T-64A should also have 13-14 FAV but it's one of those units that never gets a mention nowadays.

Why the hell should later types like Su-27PU be dropped if we have Eurofighter and Rafale jumping around?

Yeah I don't understand this either, the PU is really just a more heavily armed version of the MiG-29M. Imagine if the MiG-29 had the same treatment as the F-16, we'd have 4 different versions and unlike the F-16 Block X/Y these would actually be relevant and/or useful.

[Bougnas]

Keiler in no way deserves 13 FAV it was worse armored that T-64A, which is 11.

Not that I wouldn't like to see the T-64 series (and even the T-80s) get more properly modeled, but do you have the numbers so that we can better understand the comparison?

I'm perfectely fine with both the Keiler and the T-64s getting stat changes as long as we have data on their capabilities.

[Steamfunk]

Not that I wouldn't like to see the T-64 series (and even the T-80s) get more properly modeled, but do you have the numbers so that we can better understand the comparison?

The T-64A had an steel/aluminium cast turret which BTVT estimated at around 410mm vs KE, the glacis is 335mm.

[Bougnas]

Not that I wouldn't like to see the T-64 series (and even the T-80s) get more properly modeled, but do you have the numbers so that we can better understand the comparison?

The T-64A had an steel/aluminium cast turret which BTVT estimated at around 410mm vs KE, the glacis is 335mm.

Didn't it use some form of glass to form a composite armor?