In air sim, with HMD IFF, MAWS, and 4 nearly invisible IRCCM missiles?
Yes, it’s undertiered.
2 Likes
He did not specify sim for the A-10C. He did for some other planes, but not for this one.
I see that now. In air RB it’s not common enough or good enough to be worth complaining about imo, so it should remain at 11.7 in RB.
2 Likes
I have only been taking players requests in this list.
Fixed
1 Like
Some I can definitely recommend after spading them recently (all are for RB Air):
Germany:
- Me-262A-1a (7.0 → 6.7 or even 6.3): for the love of whatever god or gods may exist, put this sorry thing out of its misery and move it down to 6.7. P-51Hs and Spitfire Mk.22/24 have no issues catching them unless the 262 is in an extended dive over 750kph, which it cannot maintain upon leveling out. The first jet ever reaching military service has no business seeing Sabres and MiG-15s. Same argument applies to the Me-262A-1a/Jabo, which is the same plane with optional ordinance. I’m almost tempted to recommend them for 6.3 these days after RealShatter global gun changes that made already-low MK108 velocity even lower.
- Me-262A-1a/U1 (7.3 → 6.3) (same in both Air RB and Ground RB): take an already fat plane, and make it fatter, but with more dakka. Okay yes, the nose 20mm guns make it a bit easier to hit people with than the MK108s, but the performance hit from the extra weight means its that much harder to bring that “overwhelming armament” to bear. Being a massive brick, it also cannot exactly dodge radar SPAAG fire well, the HVAP belt it was once infamous for is nerfed to useless status from “shell shattered,” and the Stealth AP-I belt is more limited in value.
- Me-262C-1a (7.3 → 6.7): This thing is just sad. The rocket booster helps to some extent, but it only has 2min 50sec of burn time. The gain in engine thrust is not enough to compete with the Sabres and MiG-15s, and the weight of the rocket engine makes it even more of a brick. If the normal 262s were 6.7, this would be 7.0. If the normal 262s were 6.3, the C-1a would be 6.7 material in my eyes.
- Me-262C-2b (7.7 → 7.0): Frankly the BMW-003 jet engines are much better than the Jumo-004s, due to identical thrust and lower weight. It gains a stupidly large amount of thrust from the twin rocket boosters, and can pull some hilarious vertical maneuvers, however its even heavier than the C-1a as a result. Furthermore, all it takes is the opponent not being dumb enough to try following you upwards and stalling below you, and this plane then can’t do all that much. The already brick airframe of the A-1a is made worse at maneuvering, making getting proper lead with the MK108s even harder. Most of my kills in this were due to me thinking “if I struggle to hit with the guns in general, may as well run Stealth so people don’t see my shots and don’t evade.” And they did exactly that in both 262Cs and the A-1a/U1, leading to some very funny shots, but I plainly recognized that just because it could take advantage of stupid people does not mean its actually all that effective. The boosters also last even less time than the C-1a, at 2min 40sec.
- Me-163B-1 (8.0 → 7.0) and Me-163B-0 (8.3 → 7.3): After their fuel nerf, these now have 3 min of fuel at most, of which an entire whole minute is consumed just taking off and climbing to altitude. MK108s hit hard but are frustrating to lead effectively. MG151s on the other one are somewhat better, but RealShatter did German guns dirty as well. Both Komets share the same uncooperative rudder control and wobbly aim as the Ki-200, which means its quite difficult to actually take advantage of “superior speed” if you cannot aim effectively at that speed.
Japan:
- Ki-200 (8.3 → 7.3): If the BI-2 can remain at 6.7 with 2min of fuel, the Ki-200 with 4min of fuel and arguably worse guns can be 7.3. It’s just as maneuverable, but the small plane cannot handle the recoil of those long-barrel 30mm guns. Unlike MK108s, the shells have rather low HE filling for their size, leading to lots of sparks that you wouldn’t expect. Furthermore, the rudder control on this thing is atrocious, leading to it wobbling around your aim point when you were only trying to do a minor adjustment.
I am only now starting to spade the R2Y2s, but thus far I think they’re only slightly better than Me-262As. They’re fat, turn well while they have speed, but don’t accelerate well. They have big enough airframes to not be shaken around by gun recoil like the Ki-200 is, an optional nice bomb, and tons of ammo. I’d tentatively recommend 6.7 for the V1, 7.0 for the V2, and 7.3 for the V3, respectively, with identical drops in BR for Ground as well as Air.
3 Likes
-
You didn’t put ARB, ASB, or GRB for them.
-
lol me-163 is very similar to the Bi from the sounds of it then it terms of its usability.
If it goes any higher it has to face aim120 and i dont think it should have to.
Edited to specify for RB Air, my apologies.
1 Like
I hate to nitpick, but please do it by nation too.
Germany:
Yada yada 1.0 → 1.3 ARB / AAB / ASB / GRB / GSB / GAB
(reason)
This is the format I’m looking for ^ plz and thank you.
I only have limited time day to day to visit the forum, and I don’t mind adding suggestions, that’s what the post is for! But I do most editing on my phone, making it difficult to copy paste a bunch and fix and so on.
Thanks!
All done, I specified it for RB Air at the top of my post, and likewise specified for one plane whose Ground BR is different to align it with the RB Air proposal.
1 Like
Israel:
Netz and Netz(Mod) 12.7 → 12.3 ARB
It has 6 IR missiles with no IRCCM, no radar guided missiles, yet it sits higher than jets such as the f18A which can carry 6 9Ls along with 4 Aim-7Ms and also sits above jets such as the Mig-21 Bison and Mirage F1C which both of those have IRCCM missiles. It also sits at the same BR as the F16A OCU which has 6 IRCCM missiles. The only thing it has over these jets is having more counter measures and maybe speed
3 Likes
Me 262 C-1a at 6.7?!
Where can I find what you are smoking?
3 Likes
It’s not hard to understand really.
You take a plane with shitty guns for anything but bomber interception or blowing up idiots who are not paying attention, which is also too much of a brick to pull lead in anything else, and you make that plane almost a ton heavier, for a highly situational rocket booster. A booster which only lasts 2 min 50 seconds, and does not provide quite enough of an increase to compensate for the increased weight. On an airframe which does not handle speeds over 750kph well at all, where it becomes even more of a brick in all control axes.
Did I make it work enough to spade it at 7.3? Yes, mostly through killing ground units (which anything can do), headoning idiots (which nearly anything can do), using Stealth belts on the shitty guns so people don’t think to evade as much (which nearly anything can do), and killing the AI attacker aircraft (which anything can do). In no way did the 262C-1a (or even C-2b) ever feel truly exceptional to do shit that nothing else could.
I also stand by the idea of the C-2b at 7.0 for all the same reasons. Even more dead weight whenever the rocket boosters are not activated. Same shitty guns. Brick airframe is even more of a brick. It can drop on idiots rather well and zoom up to B-29s in orbit like nothing else, but that’s it. And there are other planes which can do both of those two things quite well too at the same BR, such as the La-200.
I managed all of two “exceptional” matches playing the C-2b, and none with the C-1a.
In one exceptional match, the enemy team was dumb. I blew up some bomb-trucking F3D, then patiently waited overhead of the main hairball, dropped on a Sabre who foolishly bled all his speed and blew him up, headoned an idiot Meteor who didn’t evade because he saw no tracers from me, and finally sprinted down another Meteor who again didn’t evade because he saw no tracers from me.
In the other exceptional match, I killed a poor F-117 and then headoned three idiots, the fourth of which traded with me. But that was apparently enough to win my team the match as the enemy team was down too many people.
Funny how me just talking about my own experiences spading the Rocket 262s was apparently enough to get the explanation flagged and hidden.
1 Like
Nah, I’m not going to pretend the 262s are doing great but to say they should be the same BR as props is ridiculous and shows that you’re not considering the effects of compression on the game.
2 Likes
This entire thread is people advocating to compress the game further by downtiering what they play and not considering the repercussions on the game’s health.
1 Like
This thread is like 75% uptiering vehicles and 25% downtiering.
what are you on abt?
3 Likes
There are some planes that genuinely deserve to go down in BR tho, such as the J-8B in air sim, or the Tu-14, Yak-30, or almost every vautour in air RB.
1 Like
yea but thats usually not what people are suggesting. Yak-30 going down has little consequence because better jets already exist at lower BRs and always have existed even prior to the f86/mig fiasco, but you got ppl suggesting (and I’m making this up so as to not call anybody out in specific) stuff like say, the F-4J (USA) to 11.7 because it suffers against 13.0s.
I’m honestly shocked my take explaining my reasoning got flagged and hidden.
262s are bricks with guns that theoretically hit hard but are very difficult to get sufficient lead to hit with outside headons and chases due to the platforms being bricks. P-51Hs, Spitfire 22/24s, and Beercans have no trouble catching any 262A. The 262C-1a can briefly outrun them, but is even more of a brick than the A models. The 262C-2b can actually sprint to catch things in funny ways, but is even more of a brick still.
That was my experience recently spading all of the unfinished 262 models (Jabo, U1, C-1a, and C-2b). Currently also doing the Sturmvogel and once again props generally have their way with it.
Also doesn’t help that Germany still has no proper superprop equivalents, which dropping these sad brick planes would serve to fill at least decently.
2 Likes