It would be 10.7, but not at 11.7, where most tornados are for some reason,
The 9L equipped ones should all be 11.3, and there’s no reason for them not to be.
11.0 is plenty good. Harrier with 4 9L and better flight characteristic is at that BR. Plus if you can’t do periodic flare at that BR it’s all on you.
Everything is gaijin’s fault.
They can reduce the grind drastically. Get rid of spading and maybe then you would see less fighter bombing.
Well, to cause a slight tangent: An ambush only fighter known as Sea Vixen, which is garbage at doing anything other than ambushing players in furballs, remains the sole aircraft in my record with its performance.
I played the Tornado MFG differently cause bombs, and still maintained a high KDR despite it being a strike aircraft. It quickly exceeded my skill in strike aircraft at the time.
And I stopped going for bases long before napalm went from 4 to 2 due to… what aircraft was it… F-104S and Kfir C2.
I started looking for my ground strike loadouts again, cause I knew from 2020 testing that ground striking was more profitable than bombing anyway, and I did it on and off with a number of jets, including A-10A of course.
Napalm getting buffed made strike aircraft that weren’t fast [F-111A, F-105D, etc] more playable. And as you can see from the results, strike aircraft were buffed more than multirole aircraft.
Also Mig-23MLs earn less rewards napalming bases compared to other premiums.
@七-十三
Harrier is not a mach 2 strike aircraft with 12 1000 pound bombs…
@MrKrabsPattys Spading reduces the grind for new vehicles…
-
We need better stock missiles for fighters, then there will be fewer bombing guys who bomb with their fighter jet unless they really want to.
-
The current mechanism of napalm needs a serious overhaul.
Half the weight, double the speed, easier stealing base from these ‘halfbaked fighter’ tagged as ‘strike aircraft’
(Of course, there are strike aircraft which can use napalm too, but the majority of them are slower than MiG-21/23) -
It would be great if the current ARB system gets a full rework, which makes strike aircraft more valuable than now.
The current system is built for nothing but to shame strike jets.
No airfield killing, the chance of ticket-winning is low. heavily focused on TDM and almost always sees ‘no enemy aircraft left’
I still remember the comment of ‘Tiger_tank_1’ who claimed bombing in a fighter is better than bombing in an attacker because both have the same bombing capability, but fighters retain more a2a capability than attackers after bombing.
If we consider nothing but the ‘capability of contribution to victory’ in the current TDM meta ARB
and if we don’t get rework on the current system or rework on the napalm
Which ‘mister-bombing-J7D’ wants to keep.
Then, Banning Tornado IDS and other strike jets will be a better idea than ‘removing napalm from MiG-23ML’ :/
As long as MiG-23ML will be a better fighter and a better strike jet than Tornado IDS.
and will perform better than Tornado IDS in every aspect.
1 Like
I was thinking about getting rid of spading and for new vehicles just get rid of like 100k needed. Instead of 410k and another, a lot, just get 300k and then you have a fully capable vehicle
1 Like
You’re making a point about AIM-9L, I made counterpoint with AIM-9L, how hard is that for you to understand?
1 Like
Your argument is well made and entirely rational and logical.
I disagree, and I still love your post.
1 Like
Gaijin built a big friggin grinding colosseum for their ‘money grinding’
They enjoy popcorn, which is bought with money from our purchases, while we are stabbing each other for ‘whos fault’
And they fix nothing but ruining everything in every moment with ‘it is fixed!’ update :P
1 Like
Thing is, that then, more players won’t find the game enjoyable. Gamemodes suck and that would require gaijin to work :( a bit more on their gamemodes
A bit of a thing right. I watched a lovely video by a developer a few months back correctly complaining about bad feedback.
“More game modes” is bad feedback.
I mention how AI overhaul needs to be focused on and with that give us PVE game modes such as expanded sim EC, and a new test of air RB EC to see new popularity with the new playerbase.
Cause the PVP game modes… they’re tried and true game modes, there’s really nothing more PVP can be added.
“Battlefield rush!” Tanks already benefit from defensive positions, defending team always wins in the BR system of equal players, and equal players is loved among the fanbase. That and there’s no confirmed report on what the objective balance is for defending vs offensive player counts should be.
Think hard about what you want, and it should probably be related to PVE.
Oh, and if your idea will harm another player’s experience [Looks at this topic’s intent.], I’d suggest thinking of ways that improve the experience… AI overhaul that makes placing and programming AI on maps easier so more ground units can be scattered across maps.
1 Like
It would be so much more engaging if the goal of the game was shifted from destroying enemy team to maintaing the control of the battlefield and denying the enemy the objectives.
I’m not denying strike planes and implementation have a problem. I’m just showing a potential reason for why players bomb in fighters.
Most Air RB maps are huge, but the catch always has been that all ground NPCs and bases are usually clustered up at 1-4 tiny squares in the map center.
There is indeed little incentive to fly elsewhere, which usually leads to alot gameplay issues.
There are in fact one or two maps with ground npc objectives scattered also far behind the lines and at map edges. Artillery and rocket artillery posititions. Supply truck convoys etc. There you can actually do stuff in your Tornado. Without beeing immeadetly spotted and shot.
On like 95% of all maps you fly to maps center, you get swarmed and killed. Strike aircraft are unplayable. All you can do is to run for a base bomb, if there aren’t any speed fighters with napalm. Its even worse when these abundent NPC planes uncover your player bracket to the whole enemy team.
2 Likes
No, only because then it ruins the bombers that are their main source of base damage. Otherwise you will get SU-25’s loaded with tons and tons of bombs.
Then why do you think that current game mode is fair?
fire bombs are good for RP, bomb one base is at least 10k rp, destroy some planes you double that. So go away.
Ok but doing it in fast fighters takes away from the strike aircraft that have trouble destroying other planes.
Want teamwork? Make friends.
They nerfed rockets because you could get full RP for multiple bases and they dont like that. If it was to nerf fighters they wouldn’t have touched napalm, and if it was for sim… nvm they dont care lol.