what do you think about Me262 BR ?

[EinsamerWolf_93 120]

Hi, i believe battle rating for Me 262s (A-1a...C-1a....C-2b) is high, this is one of slowest jets in the game, and i think BR 6.7 is better for all Me 262s. 

F80A5 with almost same specs is 6.7.

F84B26 is 6.7 with very better guns and is faster.

 

Me 262 C-1a/2b with BR 8 should face with:

CL13A MK5 with 1100 kmh + better turn time and rate of climb and guns.

F86A5 with 1081 kmh + better turn time and rate of climb and guns.

F9F-8 with 1019 kmh + Air to Air missiles.

and La 200 + La 15 + japan F86s.....

[One_More_Desu 23]

If this is a BR opinion thread;

ARB
A-1a: 6.7
C-1a: 7.7
C-2b: 8.0

[EinsamerWolf_93 120]

9 hours ago, One_More_Desu said:

If this is a BR opinion thread;

ARB
A-1a: 6.7
C-1a: 7.7
C-2b: 8.0

even 7.3 is too high for me 262. its worst jet fighter in the game. 

[Ein79 5,748]

12 hours ago, One_More_Desu said:

If this is a BR opinion thread;

ARB
A-1a: 6.7
C-1a: 7.7
C-2b: 8.0

+1 ...C1 could be fine even at 7.3, but 7.7 still better than 8.0 nonsense.

 

 

[EinsamerWolf_93 120]

i think we need a volunteer for posting this idea in suggestion section, every time i suggest something they delete my post.

[Karatekakerlake 394]

As long as the P-51H sits at 6.3 the first 262 should sit also at 6.3 since the P-51H surpasses it in every way. It accelerates far better, turns better, has better guns, has more or less the same speed and sits 0.7 lower than the 262.

[PickleJarOfDeath 1,498]

8 hours ago, Karatekakerlake said:

As long as the P-51H sits at 6.3 the first 262 should sit also at 6.3 since the P-51H surpasses it in every way. It accelerates far better, turns better, has better guns, has more or less the same speed and sits 0.7 lower than the 262.

Have you flown both? The P-51H is not faster. The 262 has a better average combat speed. The speed alone warrants that the Me 262 be 7.0 while the overall performance of the P-51H is worthy of 6.7 because it is not as fast. The Me 262 is not worse than the Spit Mk 24 which is 6.7 and definitely a lesser aircraft than both the Me 262 and P-51H. The P-51H may be a preferable aircraft but it does not have superior performance to the Me 262.

[Ein79 5,748]

11 hours ago, PickleJarOfDeath said:

Have you flown both? The P-51H is not faster. The 262 has a better average combat speed. The speed alone warrants that the Me 262 be 7.0 while the overall performance of the P-51H is worthy of 6.7 because it is not as fast. The Me 262 is not worse than the Spit Mk 24 which is 6.7 and definitely a lesser aircraft than both the Me 262 and P-51H. The P-51H may be a preferable aircraft but it does not have superior performance to the Me 262.

 

At 6.7 we have A2D turboprop, which when without payload is UFO-fighter, somethig like a mix of P51H and F80A5 - better than He162A1/A2, on pair with Me262A1/A2.

Spitfire Mk24 is overtiered to the nonsense level. Should be 6.0-6.3. P51H is fine as 6.3.

Me262A1/A2 - both should be 6.7...together with Meteor Mk3, which also is poor as 7.0 jet.

At the same time Kikka is 7.0-7.3 worthy while sitting at 6.7.


 

[PickleJarOfDeath 1,498]

17 hours ago, Einherjer1979 said:

At 6.7 we have A2D turboprop, which when without payload is UFO-fighter, somethig like a mix of P51H and F80A5 - better than He162A1/A2, on pair with Me262A1/A2.

It's a good fighter for something called an attacker sure... It should remain at 6.7 because it fits there.

 

17 hours ago, Einherjer1979 said:

Spitfire Mk24 is overtiered to the nonsense level. Should be 6.0-6.3. P51H is fine as 6.3.

It is fine as is. The P-51H is superior by a minor margin and should be the same, I agree. However, both are fast enough props and maneuverable enough props to warrant 6.7 as they have somewhat lesser performance to the selection of 7.0 aircraft.

 

18 hours ago, Einherjer1979 said:

Me262A1/A2 - both should be 6.7...together with Meteor Mk3, which also is poor as 7.0 jet.

Name a 5.7 aircraft that would be an appropriate match for the 262. I'll list off 5.7 aircraft and I want you to tell me which would be of remotely comparable performance.

F4U-4B

AM-1

AD-2

P-47M (should maybe be 6.0 but I don't have it nor do I want to pay for it)

Bf 109 K-4

Ta 152 H-1

Ta 152 C-3

Yak-9UT

Yak-3U

Spitfire Mk.9/14/18

Hornet Mk.3

J2M5

Ki-84 otsu

G.56

SO.8000

 

There are a lot of these that cannot face or support the Me 262 appropriately and I can only find one that may be able to in this entire list. That one should maybe be moving up though. Don't move the 262 down unless the problem aircraft above it have moved up without positive change for the Me 262. That means the Yak-23, La-200, maybe some Meteors, Sea Venom, and the rocket interceptors. You move up those, the F-84Gs, and everything above. Don't move everything down because things above are a problem. Move the things above further upward. The only reason I agree that the Meteor Mk.3 could go to 6.7 is because it is on par with the things below it. The Me 262 is a bit better.

 

18 hours ago, Einherjer1979 said:

At the same time Kikka is 7.0-7.3 worthy while sitting at 6.7.

I was unable to get the Kikka pointed at the target in our duels and I couldn't correct or maintain stability. I would say 7.0 at max given that the energy characteristics at least make it a better and more elusive interceptor but nothing more.

[Rapitor 10,702]

4 hours ago, PickleJarOfDeath said:

Name a 5.7 aircraft that would be an appropriate match for the 262.

I don't think that you should necessarily enforce a 'match' with an aircraft 1.0 BR lower.

I expect an opponent 1.0 BR above or below me to be in a difficult situation. That's why there is a BR difference.

 

Using the same argument, the 'name a [BR +1] aircraft that is an appropriate match for [insert aircraft] allows you to call for a downtier of any aircraft in game. Or uptier them with the BR -1 range

[PickleJarOfDeath 1,498]

49 minutes ago, Rapitor said:

I don't think that you should necessarily enforce a 'match' with an aircraft 1.0 BR lower.

I expect an opponent 1.0 BR above or below me to be in a difficult situation. That's why there is a BR difference.

Clearly you missed the mark. The spread is for appropriate not balanced matchups. If it was for balanced matchups it would be a spread of 0. What is appropriate for a 1.0 BR difference is not one of the listed 5.7 vehicles and an Me 262. That is not appropriate for a 1.0 difference.

54 minutes ago, Rapitor said:

Using the same argument, the 'name a [BR +1] aircraft that is an appropriate match for [insert aircraft] allows you to call for a downtier of any aircraft in game. Or uptier them with the BR -1 range

What I was getting at was “name one aircraft on this list that belongs at a distance 1.0 away from the Me 262”.

[Ein79 5,748]

6 hours ago, PickleJarOfDeath said:

It's a good fighter for something called an attacker sure... It should remain at 6.7 because it fits there.

 

Without payload (and still with airspawn) the turbo A2D is MONSTER-fighter, really MUCH more dangerous than Spit Mk24 or P51H.

 

 

Quote

Name a 5.7 aircraft that would be an appropriate match for the 262. I'll list off 5.7 aircraft and I want you to tell me which would be of remotely comparable performance.

F4U-4B

AM-1

AD-2

P-47M (should maybe be 6.0 but I don't have it nor do I want to pay for it)

Bf 109 K-4

Ta 152 H-1

Ta 152 C-3

Yak-9UT

Yak-3U

Spitfire Mk.9/14/18

Hornet Mk.3

J2M5

Ki-84 otsu

G.56

SO.8000

 

Comparing performance given in numbers, especially speed alone, is not a reliable basis for assessing the the balance of props vs jets combat - especially in the game with a death-match maps that resemble more MMA cage than real airspace during the war.

 

Late props and early jets are vehicles with completely different flight characteristics with the advantage of acceleration, maneuverability and low-medium speed handling on the props side. 

 

Main, if not only, selling point of WWII jets is speed advantage. 

 

However, due to the relatively low thrust, poor acceleration and high energy losses in maneuvers, the practical combat speed of early jets is dangerously close to the speed achieved by late props in shallow dive.

 

It is not a one-sided fight and to some extent comparable with fight of P47 vs A6M "Zero" (about 150 km/h of top speed difference). 

 

I was killed by props hundreds of times while playing jets - also when I was flying over >700 km/h IAS. Most from your list can do it. Only over 800 km/h IAS jet is almost safe vs prop. Almost.

BTW - between 7.0 and 8.0 jets we have much bigger performance gap than between 6.0 and 7.0. Late-war / post-war props have their advantages vs WWII jets, while WWII jets vs 8.0 jets from 50's like are just much worse jets without any advantages.
 

Quote

There are a lot of these that cannot face or support the Me 262 appropriately and I can only find one that may be able to in this entire list. That one should maybe be moving up though. Don't move the 262 down unless the problem aircraft above it have moved up without positive change for the Me 262. [...] only reason I agree that the Meteor Mk.3 could go to 6.7 is because it is on par with the things below it. The Me 262 is a bit better.

 

We already have Me262A1/u4 and Me262A2 at 6.7 BR.  Over the years. They didn't cause any balance collapse and matches where they work with Bf109K, Ta 152, Do 335, Ki83, Ki87 and so on..are some of the more interesting in the whole game and certainly not one-sided. 

 

 

Quote

I was unable to get the Kikka pointed at the target in our duels and I couldn't correct or maintain stability. I would say 7.0 at max given that the energy characteristics at least make it a better and more elusive interceptor but nothing more.

 

Current Kikka is simply much better performing jet than Me262A (acceleration, climbrate, even top speed is better).

Problems in putting guns on target while dueling 1vs1 should be much less relevant - Horten has even more problems vs rolling target due the lack of rudder and tendency to spread bullets like a shotgun.

 

 

 

Edited July 11, 2019 by Einherjer1979

[Blau1941 48]

Related but little off topic but I would like a tier system where aircraft (and tanks) used up til end of WW2 was in a clearly separate category to Post 1945 Category, Two tiers. Therefore no sabres fighting Me262s etc

[PickleJarOfDeath 1,498]

14 hours ago, Einherjer1979 said:

Comparing performance given in numbers, especially speed alone, is not a reliable basis for assessing the the balance of props vs jets combat - especially in the game with a death-match maps that resemble more MMA cage than real airspace during the war.

But speed does tell you which aircraft are just going to be able to dictate the terms of engagement. A roughly similar speed means balance in dictation. The Me 262 has the top speed to dictate better than the H-5 and 24 Spit but it will also have some trouble in trying to actually get the firing solution. However, speed is still valuable as a defensive tool. The level at which this is effective for the jets of 7.0 is high enough to warrant a 0.3 to 0.7 gap between them and the likes of the H-5 and 24 Spit. The aim is to decompress battle ratings to relieve stress on all aircraft. You can't look at this from within a bubble. The 5.7 fighters simply wouldn't be fast enough or have the acceleration to catch the 7.0 aircraft as regularly as the 6.0-6.7 props. The ease of doing so in said top end props is already lacking enough to warrant their current BR spacing (H-5 aside).

 

14 hours ago, Einherjer1979 said:

However, due to the relatively low thrust, poor acceleration and high energy losses in maneuvers, the practical combat speed of early jets is dangerously close to the speed achieved by late props in shallow dive.

But, again, higher top speed and average achievable speed means they have the ability to dictate engagements. The 262 is able to outrun every prop in the game by a notable margin. It has close combat speeds to that of the top end props. That warrants a 0.3 or 0.7 buffer between it and the props. It is a little better. I'm not saying it shouldn't be close to them, but I am saying it shouldn't be moved down. If you move down the 262 you have to move down some of the 5.7 aircraft. Maybe not all of them need to go down but some will and then that cascades to lower and lower battle ratings where things at 4.3 need to go to 4.0 or something of the like and then so on and so forth. This is not necessarily true but it is plausible. Avoiding compression is what we want. The 262 is already close to the top props and all that is in 6.0 to 6.7 are appropriate matchups for the given battle rating spacing. The 6.0-7.0 match is already common as it is.

 

14 hours ago, Einherjer1979 said:

BTW - between 7.0 and 8.0 jets we have much bigger performance gap than between 6.0 and 7.0. Late-war / post-war props have their advantages vs WWII jets, while WWII jets vs 8.0 jets from 50's like are just much worse jets without any advantages.

The Me 262 is well placed in relative to the many props it can already see. The jets above are a little too close and hence the F-84G should be 8.0, the La-15 and La-200 should be 8.3 or so, some of the Meteors should be 8.3, the rocked interceptors should be 8.3, and everything above should be moved up by a bit as well.

 

14 hours ago, Einherjer1979 said:

We already have Me262A1/u4 and Me262A2 at 6.7 BR.  Over the years. They didn't cause any balance collapse and matches where they work with Bf109K, Ta 152, Do 335, Ki83, Ki87 and so on..are some of the more interesting in the whole game and certainly not one-sided.

The Narwhal is not great against any air targets aside from bombers so it is 6.7. The a2a is not common enough to be considered a problem. The Ki-83 is already 6.0 so it sees the 262 anyway. I don't know why that example was brought up...

 

14 hours ago, Einherjer1979 said:

Current Kikka is simply much better performing jet than Me262A (acceleration, climbrate, even top speed is better).

Problems in putting guns on target while dueling 1vs1 should be much less relevant - Horten has even more problems vs rolling target due the lack of rudder and tendency to spread bullets like a shotgun.

The Horten is way easier than the Kikka to get guns on target because the 12G turn gives it the headroom. The Kikka does not have the turn to really keep on target. The Horten has a usable roll rate though low, next to no rudder, and an impeccable turn. It is so much easier for me to get that thing pointed at the target using the 229 over the Kikka.

[Ein79 5,748]

On 11/07/2019 at 23:54, PickleJarOfDeath said:

But speed does tell you which aircraft are just going to be able to dictate the terms of engagement. A roughly similar speed means balance in dictation. The Me 262 has the top speed to dictate better than the H-5 and 24 Spit but it will also have some trouble in trying to actually get the firing solution. However, speed is still valuable as a defensive tool. The level at which this is effective for the jets of 7.0 is high enough to warrant a 0.3 to 0.7 gap between them and the likes of the H-5 and 24 Spit. The aim is to decompress battle ratings to relieve stress on all aircraft. You can't look at this from within a bubble. The 5.7 fighters simply wouldn't be fast enough or have the acceleration to catch the 7.0 aircraft as regularly as the 6.0-6.7 props. The ease of doing so in said top end props is already lacking enough to warrant their current BR spacing (H-5 aside).

 

In this game the 1.0 BR of difference generally guarantees dictating the fight by one of the participants. 

 

Furthermore the speed advantage in the range of 100-150 km / h (TAS) is not a phenomenon that occurs only between early jets and late props, this is something that occurs through all BRs.

 

The problem with early jets and props is that the community reacts phobically to such a combination "because jet is a jet"..and jet in the mind of a casual player (I don't mean you Pickle!) means something unbeatable by itself. This is significant - every time "OMG we are facing jets" even despite it is just Yak17 or He162 ... not Su34 or F22.  

 

While to me, when I fly P47M and see He162 or Me262 below me it is rather "OMG, easy jet to kill, mine-mine-mine!!".  

BTW - in order to achieve the "decompression" you are writing about, you don't have to stretch BR distances between planes. We would achieve the same by reducing matchmaker's BR spread to 0.7 or 0.5 BR instead of current 1 BR. 

Both solutions increase the queue time.
 

 

Quote

The Narwhal is not great against any air targets aside from bombers so it is 6.7. The a2a is not common enough to be considered a problem. The Ki-83 is already 6.0 so it sees the 262 anyway. I don't know why that example was brought up...

 

 

It's just my experience - I had tons of matches fying various Me262As, and again - in my opinion teams consisting of a mix Me262A2+Kikka+late Axis props vs teams consisting of Allied 5.7-6.7 props and turbo-props are one of the most balanced and intersesting matches. Much more than mixes of 7.0&8.0 when playing regular Me262A1 (not to mention times when Me262A1 was taking off together with G91).

 

Edited July 12, 2019 by Einherjer1979

[Karatekakerlake 394]

Currently matches with the 262 end in about five minutes. The only times they last longer is if its against superprops without the P2W UFO (or if its groundpounding) sprinkled with a few jets. if its with mostly jets and a few superprops sprinkled in its a guaranteed allies win.

[NoodleCup31 8,812]

Of course it is.

ALL axis air from 7.7-10.0 almost only face mirrored matches.

This means AXIS max 7.3 BR vs Allies max 8.3 BR for example.

[Karatekakerlake 394]

4 minutes ago, NoodleCup31 said:

Of course it is.

ALL axis air from 7.7-10.0 almost only face mirrored matches.

This means AXIS max 7.3 BR vs Allies max 8.3 BR for example.

I mostly get matched against 7.0/7.3 but there are already planes that are by far superior than the 262 in terms of armament and overall performance. The 108´s are imho the worst weapons ingame, bad ballistics very unreliable damage output and the belly landing has now also been nerfed so technically there is no incentive to play it.

[EinsamerWolf_93 120]

On 24/07/2019 at 18:22, Karatekakerlake said:

I mostly get matched against 7.0/7.3 but there are already planes that are by far superior than the 262 in terms of armament and overall performance. The 108´s are imho the worst weapons ingame, bad ballistics very unreliable damage output and the belly landing has now also been nerfed so technically there is no incentive to play it.

yea, i prefer 4*12mm instead of 108

[G3cko873 505]

On 11/07/2019 at 16:54, PickleJarOfDeath said:

the La-15 and La-200 should be 8.3 or so

Stuff like the La-200 just suffer from when I think is gaijin being afraid to fill those .3 and .7 slot. But of corse that stupid thing deserves 8.3, while everything else ranges from meh to horrible. it has radar and the speed of a 9.0. However, planes like the La-15 have a hidden weakness that I think people forget about. Current implementation it needs 8.0, as is rip speed is so abysmally low that it can’t go up.

Edited July 26, 2019 by G3cko873

[PickleJarOfDeath 1,498]

On 26/07/2019 at 09:10, G3cko873 said:

Stuff like the La-200 just suffer from when I think is gaijin being afraid to fill those .3 and .7 slot. But of corse that stupid thing deserves 8.3, while everything else ranges from meh to horrible. it has radar and the speed of a 9.0. However, planes like the La-15 have a hidden weakness that I think people forget about. Current implementation it needs 8.0, as is rip speed is so abysmally low that it can’t go up.

The La-200 needs to go up but that is one of many.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EQM6ryjMrlhYFYXemuuwYn-GIMR7VyakeZ3qaAdno_0/edit?usp=sharing

This is a general outline of how I would go about adjusting battle ratings. Some of it may need adjustment but it should be an improvement over the current setup.

[G3cko873 505]

On 01/08/2019 at 20:08, PickleJarOfDeath said:

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EQM6ryjMrlhYFYXemuuwYn-GIMR7VyakeZ3qaAdno_0/edit?usp=sharing

This is a general outline of how I would go about adjusting battle ratings. Some of it may need adjustment but it should be an improvement over the current setup.

Just looking at the sheet, the only things I notice right away are one, in general after 9.0 is that it is a way too decompressed, 2 the La-200 would make a fine 8.3 as it has good speed and acceleration but is huge, is out preformed by current 9.0s in other ways, and it’s guns are meh at best. The La-15 current implementation can not go up to 8.3, if the they can find proof that the rip speed is higher then 945 km/h then it can maybe go up(which I have tried to find an answer to but just made myself more confused), but until then no. Also for god sakes fix the designations on the A2D and the F9F-5

Edited August 3, 2019 by G3cko873

[Spindash64 1,244]

I think it'd probably be fair enough at 6.7, but I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as people make it out to be.

[[email protected] 924]

262 A1a should be 6.7

 

 

its stock performance is atrocious

 

A2D turboprop runs better,and has way more options at 6.7

[BrassWolf 1,861]

22 minutes ago, *memnoch1911 said:

262 A1a should be 6.7

its stock performance is atrocious

A2D turboprop runs better,and has way more options at 6.7

 

Nobody compares stock planes.