All i can say is
for example... un-managed 4 t4 vs micromanaged 9 t3......... all t3 dies with at least 1
or 2 remaining t4 left..... whut the hell?
Now instead the update increasing CV players, i think it only benefited the old high 100+
CV and shuned the low level CV which is the next generation CV players. Like letting the
old adults breathe free but choking the children.

I recc this post.

lol thx thats my point

navyfield and realistic shouldnt be used in the same sentence unless is not is put in
the middle
and their were t4s luanched from cvs
they were just modifications of t4s

@ crunch: No T4 was launched from a CV. No KM fighter was launched from a CV.

look o all people complaining about realism and saying look us had best fighter at
the end of the war

well first of all this is not true
second mustangs werent as good as u guys seem to think
third and certanly not least most mustangs were never luanched from cvs!!!
yes there were mustang but the were modified
fourth and most important navyfield and realism have almost nothing to do with
each other

What if history and history in general in any reference to game play is just a
post this side of spam. No point in even bring it up because the game is
lacking the one thing the history crowd points to all the time and that is
the history they want. The game pays credit to to enough history to make a
playable game, if history was pushed as a reason for game adjustments this
would be a very one sided game. (depending on your nations server, lol)

History gives us the content, and Navyfield created the game play. Blame the
people of the 1935-1945 for not creating the stats for us to use today in our
games, how dare they not think ahead.

T4s as a whole need balancing. Not even nation vs nation but reload and ammo needs to be
looked at as well. +1 for you but I doubt SDE will listen unless CV #s drop significantly.

'Also, KM has better T4s if used properly.'

Except for the fact they don't, US fighter pilots have the very best fighter stats and
the best of the Tier4 plane stats. They're not beaten in anything.

Check for yourself i have no urge to start posting stats.
(also for the first and last time, there is no historical accuracy in this game k thnx.)

look guys the USN had the best fighter pilots and planes at the end of WWII, also, if
ur complaining about Ftring in an ijn CV, go play ur BB,

KM has the range in BB guns and better ftrs at lower levels,

IJN has many carriers but near-horrible planes(easily shot down by us pilots in the
pacific at the end off WWII),

France has the better TB and DB damage,

while UK has better TB planes not to mention, they can use loads of armor.

(Btw IJN didnt really bother to protect their pilots in RL, hence the easy to kill/get
owned thing)

US BBs are average, they have better Carrier ships and worse Ftrs at lower lvls.

So far all i have seen is FTR to FTR comparison, have you accounted for ur nation's
strengths and downplays? are you just going to give US worse ftrs than the Japs
and still give the japs bigger BB guns at BB6???

please think stop ur ranting and think...have u considered other factors? Also, KM
has better T4s if used properly.

Also balancing is never about just one group of planes...its the whole game(down to
every FF and DD.

BTW i agree with AdmSamuel they are mustangs...Nuff said about that XD

"elliott stop complaining maybe you should of went us cv line"

This seems to be the #1 argument for usn cvs

elliott stop complaining maybe you should of went us cv line