Well this conversation has devolved into GRB nonsense (I don’t play GRB, I find it a torturously unfun experience)
But the brimstones are complete ass, all you have to do is try and use them to attack convoys in sim to see they’re pathetic compared to fire and forget weapons, anything with mavericks are better than the GR4 in that regard imo
I can probably kill a convoy with the F-111F, go back and re arm before I’ve got 6 brimstones off accurately
This is what drives me the most nuts. Aircraft being serverly limited in air modes, because of tanks in the ground mode.
Brimstones should have given Britain (and now italy and germany) the niche of being able to wipe out convoys
The point is not if they can do A2G but how well. Something you seem to ignore. I can do A2G support with FFARs or Zunis, but that doesnt mean its going to be as effective or efficient as using for example guided munitions.
Which if im not mistaken by only a 0.4 BR, yet capability wise they are vastly on a different level.
Additionally, dont assume that because i used tornado as an example (a plane that is categorized as a strike aircraft only one BR step below fullback) i am somehow saying youre right? How arrogant or ignorant are you.
a BR system that hardly works (obr 2018 BVM fighting 2A5s from 90s), is in desperate need of decompression and is based more on statistical performance instead of the actual performance of a vehicle? yea that BR system?
Actually a point i di agree with you on, making bigger ground maps would alleviate a bit of the problems posed by CAS as there would be more places for SPAA to move to and attack from.
And this is just dumb. Its part of the mode, if part of the mode is unusable then something is completely wrong, same way of something proves to be too powerful yet left in.
Focal point yes, but always with planes playing alongside of tanks in mind.
Is this your argument? The fact that you cant spawn a plane in ground without a tank? The way the mode functions is that you earn points from ground to be able to bring in planes, that doesnt detract from the fact its still combined arms. Its why SPAAs exist because why would you need anti air systems in a game mode where tanks are the “focal point”.
Have you ever tried queuing into ground battles with only anti air vehicle in your loadout? Weird how it lets you do that.
Get to see all the rays bounce of the Eurofighter
Yeah I was really excited to get the GR4 for sim when it was announced due to brimstones…
The disappointment was immeasurable
The only use I’ve found for Brimstones is for the occasional funny kill in Air RB
That’s like proposing to remove stabilization from all 7.3s which will leave FV without one of it’s only selling points. Removing selling points of vehicles will make them much worse, but you can’t grasp that concept.
Telling me to have a terrible day and spamming anime tells me you’re the one who needs to grow up.
For you information Su-34 isn’t the only aircraft that can be spawned in a GRB game, so it’s lack of defenses against others shouldn’t be taken lightly.
Surely much better vehicle overall than the infamous Su-34.
Your arguments have been shut down hours ago, now I’m mostly replying to your rage posting as it’s honestly amusing to see someone malding this much over his aircraft not being handheld in every area.
Yeah, i’ve not used them once in sim yet. real shame. The core weapon system for the Tornado Gr4, might as well be deleted from hte game where ASB is concerned
Yes, you found out BR compression is a thing.
Date of introduction has nothing to do with vehicle’s capabilities.
You’re actively trying to make things even worse, instead of making them better.
Having unusable stuff is not good, but if I had to pick I’d always pick that focal points have the upper hand.
Air units don’t even need to spawn during a game.
True combined arms mode would be that every single match. Current GRB isn’t.
Yes as it’s a possibility air units will spawn, but that happening is not a given though.
This is comparing apples to oranges. F&F Brimstone is a selling point of the Eurofighter, F&F Maverick is a selling point of the F-16C, and F&F Hammers are the selling point of the Rafale - but you’re fine with them not having them/removing it from them in order to make up for “Su-34s disadvantages”, how hypocritical… but you can’t grasp “concept” or so they say.
Telling me to have a terrible day and spamming anime tells me you’re the one who needs to grow up.
Must’ve ruffled your feathers seeing as you once again are bringing this up lol, also tells a lot about your mental age, good.
For you information Su-34 isn’t the only aircraft that can be spawned in a GRB game, so it’s lack of defenses against others shouldn’t be taken lightly.
So now we’re ignoring how tanks are supposed to be the focal point of the game-mode because it no longer suits you and the narrative you’ve created? Su-34 not being as good at CAP duties as the Eurofighter, Rafale or the F-16C is not an argument for it to be able to be the only aircraft with ripple firing F&F missiles while others cannot, at the same time, others having this capability doesn’t diminish Su-34s ability to affect what’s happening on the ground, this is a slippery slope you’ve created and doubled down on.
Furthermore, multi-role fighters shouldn’t just be limited because a strike aircraft would otherwise no longer be (which wouldn’t even be true) “the best”. This is something only you, who wants Russia to be the best in terms of CAS, subscribe to, and this is due to your bias for Russia, and bias against other nations, yet you aren’t willing to accept your own (confirmation on top) bias.
Surely much better vehicle overall than the infamous Su-34.
Following this logic, the T-80BVM and T-90M should both lose 3BM-60 as they are better vehicles than Challenger 2s and the Arietes, surely you’d accept this bargain, surely you wanna practice what you preach and stop presenting yourself as nothing more but a hypocritcal ignoramus, right?
Your arguments have been shut down hours ago
How delusional one has to be to think this lol. I can actually accept when someone makes my argument invalid with solid logic (something you can’t do), you haven’t, and likely never will as your whole concept of balance relies on making just one nation stand out, and for the rest to rot.
Statement of a century.
Dont need is not the same as cant.
The entire existence of SPAAs is tied to the existence of planes in ground RB. How are you not understanding this.
also dont particularly understand why you have the idea that people here are malding instead of just replying to things you wrote. Ive not seen anyone throw slurs, directed swears or raging and REEEEEEEing in here.
Particularly this says more about you than others if you just constantly assume that anyone who disagrees with you is malding and raging at their screen like the german kid from the meme.
People here have different opinion than yours, they arent necessarily malding. If anything atmost they are being frustrated by lackluster understanding from the other side.
Mirage 2000D RMV - 2021
When is the last time someone complained about that
It’s a perfect comparison. You’re removing a certain feature from all vehicles at a given BR, which will make some much worse in return.
Not (and shouldn’t be) at current 12.7.
I’m just pointing out how childish you are, all the while you’re trying to show yourself as someone that’s hasn’t been emotional over a topic on the internet.
Ys it is.
You not understanding how balancing works is not my issue honestly.
Yes if everything that’s better than C2s and Arietes loses their rounds as well. It would actually make things more balanced, which isn’t something you’d really want.
You thinking I wouldn’t accept this just shows me you absolutely have zero idea what balance is.
Your concept of balance would make one nation stand out, but in a bad way.
Meanwhile my concept accepts pros/cons system in which every vehicle will have it’s selling points.
Does it have better capabilities or worse capabilities than something introduced decades ago?
Does it have access to better ordinance than something introduced decades ago?
Date at which something is introduced still plays a big role. There are ofc tank or planes that have been introduced later but are weaker than for example some earlier vehicles and vice versa, but to completely disregard it is not very smart.
?
True combined arms mode would force just that in every game.
And this is why some are useless when nothing in the air spawns.
Gaijin really didn’t think through this “combined arms” concept very well.
You surely missed that infant wishing me a terrible day, right ?
We can disagree all we want, but doing things like that is just childish and that’s why I’m calling (only) him out for that.
And this guy has still yet to notice that this is the exact same type of argument he’s peddled of how it’d be fine to remove core capabilites of Western multi-roles airframes as long as it makes Su-34 the best…
Not (and shouldn’t be) at current 12.7.
And why is that? Because the airframes can be used in dogfight? Non-argument.
I’m just pointing out how childish you are, all the while you’re trying to show yourself as someone that’s hasn’t been emotional over a topic on the internet.
So straw-grasping, aight.
Ys it is.
You not understanding how balancing works is not my issue honestly.
Where were you when Su-25SM3 or MiG-27K were demolishing this “balance” you’ve been speaking of, again? For sure you weren’t defending them or giving them silent treatment.
Yes if everything that’s better than C2s and Arietes loses their rounds as well. It would actually make things more balanced, which isn’t something you’d really want.
How are you this goddamn blind? This is just the F&F IR argument but for ground vehicles, you support one but not the other.
Your concept of balance would make one nation stand out, but in a bad way.
Why isn’t France standing out with Hammers?
Why isn’t US standing out with Mavericks?
Why isn’t Russia standing out with Kh-38s?
Why isn’t Sweden standing out with Mavericks (again)?
Almost as if giving F&F IR variant of Brimstones (limited to 6 per aircraft) wouldn’t change anything, and wouldn’t make Germany, Italy, or the UK stand out in any way. If everyone has a weapon system like that then nobody stands out, simple logic to follow, well, not for you.
As such, here, your slippery slope fallacy.
Date has absolutely 0 bearing on how things are balanced. For example the CM52 is from 1952 but is 2.3. The only thing that matters is vehicle capabilities compared to others. If you take date of introduction into account you would get nonsense like the M60 and Object 279 at the same BR or Yak-38 at the same BR as the F-15A.
It’s case by case. Leopard 2A7 (DOI 2021) is vastly superior to the Merkava Mk.4 (DOI: 2006), but still yes, DOI shouldn’t be looked at when considering balance and instead statistics (note: not how much SL or RP something’s making, but how good its K/D and K/B are as they are the best indicator of something’s ability to perform).
