If you think they will buff the mica when balance is no longer the issue, you’re wrong. As we have seen from the AIM-54, R-27ER, etc… they have simply let them be and kept their place. We will not likely see any fixes for MICA aside from potentially removing the handicap 50km explosion timer.
who need range fix of mica em when you can get fakour90 strap to rafale
R-27ER has been buffed over the years though, it is one of the missiles alongside Magic 2 that has seen several upgrades, as for AIM-54 I have a sneaking suspicion that airframe performance is the determination of whether or not a missile gets buffed to keep it in line with the airframe’s performance.
1 Like
Those are just two examples, there are numerous others. Look at the AIM-7F which has been over performing for some time and it was left alone to compete with a (still) nerfed R-27ER.
All IR missiles underperform as well.
1 Like
To be fair, that instead ended up being all missiles overperforming in terms of drag while maneuvering and so a global nerf occurred. And as for the nerfed R-27ER, once their performance was reported had been fixed quickly relatively in terms of being buffed from 25G to 35G, guidance delay lowered, and increased kinetic range all within weeks of the report date.
2 Likes
Likewise, premier ordnance on inferior airframes will likely not see further buffs. What is your point?
The point I was making in the end is that neither the Rafale or M2K are inferior airframes relative to other platforms so it is likely we’ll see buffs to the MICA missile unlike AIM-54 on the tomcat.
1 Like
satire?
I’ll have to disagree with you there, at least for the M2K
If you play the 2000 at high altitude (around 5000m to avoid contrails) with a lot of energy, the plane is quite capable of being competitive, the only problems that arise are when you lower it in altitude and speed
The gameplay is similar to that of an F15E, you stay fast, you hit hard and quickly and you don’t get stuck in dogfights.
The MICA’s hard limit in-game atm is 50km flight range, which is more than enough for effectively all launches in WT if you want to have a pK% above the single digits with basicly any missile. Lying about how “bad” the range is doesnt make your argument seem more reasonable.
As for the R-77-1, this was already covered rather extensively, but the aircraft launching them is significantly inferior climb rate, time to speed, and just overall flight performance compared to the Rafale, and that was BEFORE the Rafale got buffed and the Su-30SM got nerfed.
Still asking for more after the Rafale just got a laundry list of buffs is actually insane.
1 Like
The biggest problem of the M2K’s flight model is the acceleration/climb rate which should be hopefully rectified with this report: Mirage 2000s are lacking in time-to-climb performance. // Gaijin.net // Issues
Mirage 2000 should climb to 40,000 feet and accelerate to Mach 2 in 3.7 minutes.
In-game it does this in 4.3 minutes. That’s 36 seconds difference. It would be quite a nice buff.
If I’m not mistaken, it would put the M2K’s climb and acceleration over many 4th gens besides Eurofighter, Rafale, and F-15s.
8 Likes
Even with the acceleration issue, the plane is still quite competitive right now. It’s just a different style of gameplay.
On the other hand, yes, indeed, with better acceleration the plane could fight more like a dogfighter and not remain confined to an interceptor role.
1 Like
I’d say more than that. Currently the plane is relegated to being more like a low altitude fighter unfortunately, just because of lack of BVR capabilities. But the time-to-climb buff and MICA EM range buff would make BVR viable for it if Gaijin implements the reports.
So personally I don’t play it that way at all, I generally go up to 4500 or 5000 and go up between mach 1.2 and 1.3 and that allows me to gain range on the Mica and above all it allows me to avoid multipathing because the missile generally hits vertically. At this speed and altitude, the Fox3s are easy to notch and the MAW protects me from IR missiles.(it should be noted however that I only play a simulation so my experience is probably biased)
It used to be like that if you play War Thunder since Danger Zone update.
You said it like it was something recent lol. That was nearly 3 years ago
The AIM-54 was never broken. Its a pure skill check missile in-game, and always has been. What made it “seem” stronger back then was that the general playerbases understanding of BVR mechanics was significantly lower back in the day. Its always been relatively easy to outpull or to notch.
I absolutely disagree. When the aim54 was introduced, the game still used extremely rudimentary RWR, and the missile was an absolute menace that you could not evade if you dared to fly more than 1000m high. I would go as far to say that the introduction of the AIM54 was even more game breaking than the R27ER which has dominated for almost 2 years the top tier meta.
When RWR mechanics got refined then it was more manageable tho, but it’s still a very strong missile. It’s time to hit is very bad, but it’s kill potency even against multipathing targets thanks to its large warhead make it a better fix 3 than even some other fix 3s in game (like derby) in my opinion
You’re either misremembering or significantly overstating the capabilities of the AIM-54, particularly if you’re referring to the AIM-54 on release.
First off, regarding your comment on the RWR’s at the time, every nation had a jet with an RWR accurate enough for easy notching either before the F-14A was added, or within a patch of it being added barring Italy and sweden iirc, secondly, this point is largely rendered moot seeing as you could physically see the smoke trail for the missile for a solid 30 seconds post-launch. You could either notch off the visual cue, or you were simply an idiot for flying at a missile you knew was coming but did nothing about.
Secondly, the AIM-54 was pretty substantially inferior on launch compared to now. It had worse maneuverability, and significantly worse seeker seeing as it was released during the roughly ~12 month period in which all radar missiles were brutally nerfed with massive notch widths. It was incredibly easy to decoy, to the point where quite a few ppl did it entirely by accident every game.
Thirdly, as I pointed out, it was very easy to outpull the missile. Case in point..
The missile has never been that good in-game, people who had a good understanding of BVR back when it was added flew to altitude just fine. The fact the average player doesn’t know what they are doing, and were even worse on that front 3 years ago doesn’t mean a missile is broken.
Also, your comment about it “being more game breaking than the R-27ER” is laughable. The R-27ER crushes the AIM-54 in every respect in-game barring warhead weight and the fact one is a fox 3, but even then, the R-27ER also has a datalink which allowed for it to be shot, guidance to be lost, then to be reacquired for terminal homing. There was literally nothing in-game that came anywhere close to the R-27ER until a year and a half later when the “modern” fox 3’s were added. For comparison, the AIM-54 was added in June 2022, radar missiles were unnerfed sometime in sept-oct 2022, and the R-27ER was added in december 2022.
Fact of the matter is, the AIM-54 was such a non-issue in fact, that some people back then didn’t even consider it useable or a valid strategy to be used until it was buffed, as seen here (referred to as “actually useable now” by Seek following the buff) and here (referred to as “not that potent” by Defyn following the update going live, well before it was buffed), and the largely accepted upon “best” weapon load for the F-14A AFTER the AIM-54 was buffed was to carry 2/4/2 9H/7F/54A’s. 4x AIM-54 was also considered viable, though not as common, and 6x AIM-54 was considered a “meme” loadout (and still is).
Off topic enough at this point, if you’d wanna continue this discussion, we should do it in the AIM-54 or F-14 thread.