Good luck reaching those bases before the Tornado, F-4S and SU-24 tho
As a brazillian who is passionate abou military aviation, the way the AMX A-1A and the MAA-1 Piranha are implemented in the game make my PP flacid.
I don’t know what you mean by “fast actvation time”, but IRL the Piranha guides straight of the rail and has better flare resistance then the AIM-9L and can work with a HMD (it does on the modernized version of the AMX).
Maybe… All-aspects at 10.3 is a really messy thing to balance
Oh yeah, can doesn’t mean will. But it’s one of the core arguments I see people justifying the Buc S1/2 at their current BRs for example.
It’s completely stupid
I like it very much in ASB, and speed is not an issue there, as contrary to ARB where everybody starts the mission at the same time, base rushing really isn’t an issue, as players get “staggered” over time and bases respawn quickly and reliably.
In ASB I have no issues with it at 11.0, and could well make it work as base bomber when the A-1 was even higher.
But on the other hand having it at the same BR as the Italian one would only be fair, and I see zero reason why they should be different.
I still don’t understand why better thermals for premium AMX mean a step BR increase in GRB, while 1995 Tornado with 1st gen thermals sits at the same BR as Tornadoes with better thermals.
Btw people are talking about ASB, I’d actuallly add AAB, it can be very fun and profitable especially when you get into battle with not many players, although waiting times can be long.
I agree, however the AMX carries only 2 and they are so easily flared that I don’t believe that it would be so much of an issue.
I really like it too, don’t get me wrong, but in my (limited) experience with ASB i’ve found that the AMX is very “luck dependant”. If you get into a game that doesn’t have a lot of players you will do very well, but if the room is full, for exemple during events like the recent Mig-25, it can get a little ugly since it doesn’t do very well on dogfights.
One thing that I find annoying is that, because the AMX doesn’t have a radar, I need to carry the targeting pod to use as a sort of IFF, a lot of times i’ve shot down friendly Tonados (tornadoes?) and Phantoms simply because I couldn’t identify them as being on my team, but now i have to carry 200kg of dead weight (not much, I know) instead of 2 more napalms.
To be fair I don’t think that putting the premium AMX on 10.7 or the TT AMX on 11.0 would make a lot of difference, but them being on different BRs makes zero sense.
The issue is that a lot of 9.7s let alone a lot of 9.3s have no flares
1 Like
Wouldn’t say luck, as you can chose which match (and thus also which map, how many players roughly, how long it already played) to play.
I like Afghanistan most for the AMX, for example.
Alpha jet overperforms significantly
1 Like
Both should be 10.7 ARB and GRB. 10.3 has a lot of more sluggish, weaker CAS frames, bruh. Jaguar Gr.1A should be 10.3 in ARB.
Whilst I agree the Jaguar GR1A and especially the Jaguar A & E are over BRed right now. Im not totally sure I would go quite as far as to say they are weaker than the AMXs.
Its really really messy BR range and then ontop of that you have the total mess of trying to balance ground attack aircraft in a gamemode where you are almost entirely balancing around A2A combat… but the transonic nature of the GR1A does give it an edge of the AMX and a chance that it can actually be used in its main role.
Overall. I dont think either can actually be balanced properly given both the current compression and current state of the gamemodes. The AMXs should be lower, but you have the whole mess of all-aspects vs flareless caused by the compression at 9.7/10.0
Would put them on parity with AMX.
Jaguar GR.1A is worse than the french one tho :sob:
It has AIM-9G at 10.7 with barely supersonic/transsonic airframe that can’t turn, shitty ADENs Vs M61.
Jaguar GR.1A is objectively way worse than AMX.