Hello, over the past few years many planes at top tier/high tier have gotten extra missiles, usually ARH, that should not have. Not any specific country, but almost every one. I do not believe these should be in game for multiple reasons.
-
Part of the reason most players push for the new planes to also get unproven/not in service extra missile capabilities is because previous planes got it too. If all planes with extra missiles get corrected, and no more are added, this would eliminate the need to keep adding inaccurate loadouts.
-
It diminishes future additions. To me, this is probably the biggest issue. A lot of future additions, especially the ones with no hope of a fake loadout, feel very dead on arrival because of this. And on top of that, a lot of planes feel unneeded. For example, the F-15EX should feel like a major upgrade over both the F-15CGE and F-15E in game, but since it got 4 extra missiles it should not have received it makes the F-15EX diminished into a faster and heavier golden eagle as far as air goes. This goes for the Su-35 as well. The extra 2 r-77/77-1 on 27SM, 30SM, and 30SM2 should only be present on the 35. Since all of these already have its extra missiles it makes it improved combat capabilities less impactful when it’s added.
-
It makes the game less unique. When unique modifications will/are added it makes them feel the same and less interesting when something else beforehand got its properties only it should have. A big example of this the Rafale C/M F3R in game. In French service it only uses 6 Micas, but since the Indian version with a lot of its own modifications had 2 more, they received 2 more Micas they should not have. This is especially problematic as the game keeps progressing and getting closer to running out of vehicles to add. I don’t mind “copy paste” like most do, but I will say doing this really subtracts to the possible uniqueness potential in game.
Off the top of my head here’s every top/high tier plane that should be corrected:
USA: F-15C Golden Eagle (minus 4 AIM-120)
Germany/UK/Italy: EFT and EFT Aesa (minus 2 AIM-120)
Russia: Su-27SM, Su-30SM, Su-30SM2 (minus 2 R-77)
France and Israel: Rafale C F3R, Rafale M F3R: (minus 2 MICA-EM)
China: J-15T (minus 2 PL-12)
Japan: Su-30MKM (minus 2 R-77)
It’s worth mentioning, as you see this would proportionally affect everyone except USA as everything mentioned here loses 2 missiles except Golden Eagle. This would be fine as America will most likely soon get the EX and if you want volume of missiles now the Superhornet exists.
5 Likes
F-15EX can also get 4 extra missile just like F-15C GE, bringing the total missile count to 16, it will also have 360 RWR and possibly MAW.
But i do agree with your point since i have always been against weapons being added due to compatibility and hence even i believe extra missiles should be removed
Too be fair, that was the F-15SA if I recall correctly, which is technically a different version, and on top of that photographs don’t always mean technical feasibility. Anybody can bolt things on to plane for a picture, it does not mean it’s compatible.
For example, it seems to be agreed upon by most people that the F-14A IRIAF could not use R-27R but this picture exists, doesn’t mean it actually can use it.
Removing these missiles would seriously hurt the game, infact, I think they should add even more to planes such as J-16 and J-15T, both are capable of 28 missiles IRL .
The reasoning behind this is that it allows more much diverse tactical options, while being more forgiving for lower-skilled players. Reducing the missile count of planes that are specially designed for many is indirectly buffing lightwiehgt construction aeroframes like the Eurofighting and Rafeale C, and especially the JAS 39E, which is a very powerful and dangerous aerojet . . .
Another thing that is very well known is the fact that US… Russia… And China are very populus nations, reducing their missile capabilite will majorly hurt their opinion . . .
I think the bettre solution is offering more rockets to them , that way everyone can enjoy the game .
More over, this is actaully a secret trick to buff the F/A-18 Spura Hornet aerojet, which has 12 AIM-120—one of the deadliest rocket in the game.
I would like to remind that the flight model of the F-18e is still incorrect and with many over clocking prefromant merics. It is accelerate too fast of 30 seconds compared to IRL … .
Many plane suchs as F-16 and JAS 39 C need more rockets. They performance benefit is too little for haveing only 6 missile. . .
Proposed plans such as the Tri-rack proposal from turkey would massively help this plane. While i agree reducing count of other planes will help f16, i think it better to buff rather than nerf everything else.
Not to mention the F-16V deserving 14 AMRAAM capabilite. they are scared of the real china dominating everything so only the commuie china get actual loadout. . …
There have been zero instances of this.
Your complaint that F-15C GE got MRMLs is noted, & dismissed because the proof was provided; despite being the “sketchiest” proof ever provided for any aircraft [not my opinion].
2- It does not & cannot do this.
F-15EX will be a major upgrade over F-15C GE, going mach 0.3 faster while being able to bring ordnance with 8 & 12 missiles.
Su-35 will be an upgrade over Su-30SM2 being a standard Flanker with the same powerful engines & avionics computer.
Artificial nerfs are garbage anti-player ideas.
Yea so eliminating most of the power creep at top tier is not anti player
The vehicles you mentioned have not caused any power creep.
F/A-18E/F, F-15CGE, and Su-30SM being the same BR as F-16C Pobit/16V with twice as many fox 3 missiles, and almost twice the amount as gripen e is most definitely power creep. It would make a lot of the lower end planes good for once.
Heavy fighters being the same BR as light fighters is not power creep, that’s imbalance.
Bringing this up entirely refutes your post, so thanks for agreeing with myself & others.
Decompress 13.0.
I mean if they did decompress the BRs it would make the problem not be as bad.
Doesn’t mean they’re wrong, though. Dual R-77 has never been seen on any Flanker outside of the Su-35.
Which means nothing.
AGM-65Gs haven’t been seen on Italian AV-8B+, it doesn’t mean compatibility isn’t there.
Vehicles don’t magically stop being compatible with weapon systems just cause a military doesn’t equip the weapons.
American Marines notably not equipping 4x AIM-120s to their AV-8B+ [at least for photographs].
F-16ADF shouldn’t have ARH at all. It’d be a much better aircraft with the historically accurate AIM-7M and AIM-9M at 13.0. Other F-16As though should keep their AMRAAMs they did use.
And Gaijin needs to stop being allergic to adding R-73 and AIM-9M to the aircraft, particularly 4th gens, that carried them. Why are extra or too-modern ARH handed out like candy but Gaijin is afraid of IRCCM?
Those former vehicles should go up in BR. Nerf them sure is a second-best. Absolutely though the latter group should not go down in BR, not that you seem to ba advocating for that (though many people here do)
what??? its balanced how it is
