Then it wouldn’t be 12.3, would it?
2 Likes
Yes, it probably would. But I see no problem with that, as long as the BR of the aircraft and those around it reflect their performance.
That being said, further decompression for top-tier air would still be appreciated if any Gaijin employees are reading.
Mig-23MLs have worse loadouts than the FG1, but make up for that in… acceleration and countermeasures.
I was going to say dogfight, but they dogfight worse than F-4s now. At least the non-MLD.
10 radars better than the Tornado ADV’s and F-14’s: F-15 MSIPs, F-15A, F-16As, F-16C/Ds, Gripen, AV-8B/F-4F ICE, Mig-29SMT, Yak-141, Mirage 2000 5F, and Viggen.
@ShermyDragon
I’ll keep defending the EJ Kai’s strong position. It’s the best 12.3 in the game 2nd to none. It has the best kit for the BR, 2nd to none.
I don’t understand why you hate the fact I care about realism.
EJ Kai is not a “flying brick”. Go fly a Mig-23, Tornado, Mig-21, or JH-7.
Me defending the EJ Kai from arguments that want to make it the F-15J is going to remain.
I’m not the one who said it was.
Then you need to take a stats course online now.
Next you’ll claim F-15J should be 11.0.
Why do you exactly think AIM-9Ls are some god-tier IR missile that automatically means an aircraft equipped with them no matter how literally shit the platform is deserves a 1.0+ full BR raise from its original BR?
You know they can be found as low as 10.3-10.7 BR right on certain subsonic aircraft?
They are also not even that hard to dodge or flare since they are non-IRCCM and can be dodged by anyone who has half a brain and simply checks their six from time to time.
3 Likes
You replied to the wrong person.
Python 3s and 9Ls aren’t godly, so I’ll refute whoever claimed they are alongside you.
The IRCCM missiles we have aren’t even a major step above them; a step for sure, just not a major one.
9M is consistent flaring while turning in a different direction.
R-73 is pre-flaring.
Mig-23MLs have worse loadouts than the FG1
The R-24R has longer range than the Skyflash and is a more practical missile (especially for cold bandits). The R-60M is a agile all aspect missile which the UK Phantoms have nothing of similar performance which can catch bandits by surprise.
The total ordinance of the UK Phantoms and Floggers in A2A are similar, the UK Phantoms have 2 additional SARH missiles than the Flogger which somewhat makes up for the shortcoming of the Skyflash missile but individually doesn’t remedy the issue.
10 radars better than the Tornado ADV’s and F-14’s: F-15 MSIPs, F-15A, F-16As, F-16C/Ds, Gripen, AV-8B/F-4F ICE, Mig-29SMT, Yak-141, Mirage 2000 5F, and Viggen
The F-15A, F-16A, YaK-141 and Viggen all have a worse radar than the Tornado F.3, majority of them lack TWS and won’t be holding lock as well (and yes, TWS is a huge benefit for situational awareness).
All other vehicles can be debated, the Tornado F.3 is kind of known for having a excellent radar
3 Likes
I am convinced at this point Alvis is trolling again. (Either way, time to go add some pics of the ratios he got for his crappy takes to the massive collection lmao)
3 Likes
EJ Kai is not a “flying brick”. Go fly a Mig-23, Tornado, Mig-21, or JH-7.
Bro literally said the MiG-21 is a “flying brick.” while also saying the Phantom isn’t.
Yeah, that’s enough War Thunder Forums for me today.
4 Likes
3 Likes
The R-24R is fired from a radar whose detection range is <40km [<28km in MTI mode], so no, it doesn’t have a longer range than Skyflash.
R-60M is the easiest to flare missile in the game, so much so that people prefer 9Gs and 9Js over using them.
Tornado ADV’s radar lacks an all-aspect capability for PD mode which makes defeating its radar easier than all the radars listed.
TWS is over-rated for air RB.
It’s better in sim, and that’s relative.
@BasherBenDawg8
So WTRTI is lying to people?
Or Defyn?
Or Jaek? [The man most opposed to airframes being carried by missiles; and thus partially where I get my take involving EJ Kai’s current kit.]
@Sir_Rebral_Palsy
Mig-21MF sustains a 13.1 degree turn with full missile load.
F-4E sustains a 13.6 degree turn with full missile load.
Alvis is simply a troll or an INCREDIBLY ignorant person.
4 Likes
They do not have this stance.
1 Like
Jaek does indeed oppose airframes carried by missiles.
I use to support it until I heard his argument and his evidence and reasoning convinced me to change my stance on missiles carrying airframes.
The R-24R is fired from a radar whose detection range is <40km [<28km in MTI mode], so no, it doesn’t have a longer range than Skyflash
The maximum range of the Skyflash on the deck with a hot bandit is like 18 kms which is well within the lock parameters of the Floggers radar.
R-60M is the easiest to flare missile in the game, so much so that people prefer 9Gs
And the AIM-9G is a limited rear aspect (not even side aspect realistically) missile which only pulls 18g.
TWS is over-rated for air RB
NEVER let me catch you lacking after saying this, TWS is a phenomenal mode which makes BVR a ton more enjoyable.
1 Like
Historical realism is all I care for, even if it means missiles carrying the planes (*glances at MiG-21 Bison and F-4F ICE)
However Mr Alvis I do have a quick question if you don’t mind:
Q: Do you think this problem could be solves by making dynamic BRs in relation to loadout? (However this would provide the negative of sometimes accidentally bringing the wrong loadout you intended for)
Perhaps you could still get what you want, which appears to be bringing those planes into lower tiers with earlier loadout, while we would could get what we want (which for me is bringing later historical loadout into battles at higher BRs in exchange for more capabilities of the aircraft.)
(Would also be funny to equip the Aim-9L on the strike master and bring it all the way up from ~6.3 to 10.7 lmaooooo)
3 Likes
That is a perfectly fine stance to have. And I will never insult you nor anyone for having differing stances.
I have only ever [incorrectly] retaliated to comments that demean others cause I’m almost exclusively doing other things when those comments occur, and I lose patience easily from that.
This would prevent changing loadouts in-matches.
There is no way to implement that in-game without restricting people from changing loadouts in-match with how War Thunder is currently.
Also:
FG1 dogfights better than an F-4E. [F-4E produces less thrust.]
Also I test at 550kph cause all aircraft in WT can turn at least at 550kph in air RB, thus their turn rates will be identical.
The only thing full real allows is for you to pull excess AOA and get to sub-stall speeds.
This is one of the downside to this idea, however;
By joining in, I could see it only letting you have certain loadout presets, as in locking or limiting you to only a select few (based on the initial loadout selected)
Perhaps by locking any presets that have weapons that would mean higher BR worthy loadout, this could be implemented, and allowing for changing to weapon loadouts with drop tanks and gun pods, air to ground weapons and lower sp cost strike capability munitions, etc. but as I said earlier, the loadouts available for change in matches/battles would only be based on the initial loadout taken into the battle.
Another good idea would be displaying BRs by the side of the loadout in the preset tab, and showing BRs on the stat cards of the armaments when hovered over, in relation to the currently used plan ofc.
Something like this would be so fun for bringing an F-14A with only Aim-7E-2s and Aim-9Ds at a lower BR for some flight performance domination (while it will lack in armament capabilities, and its engine heat and flare count will make it quite killable).
Perks:
Might even be a potential solution for the Aim-54 problem every premium player is complaining about.
Maybe even be able to fix the Aim-9L and R-60M problem proposed by striker aircraft, allowing them to go to lower Bars, where their guns and FM might be enough to be capable without the defensive missiles.
Allows for variable BR gameplay and time related historical gameplay. Some players are complaining about no R-73 for the early MiG-29, but perhaps then it could be added now, at the introduction of it pushing it to a higher BR. (Remove R-27ER first ofc tho ;) )
2 Likes
I’d say put a pin in a lot of these ideas for the following reasons:
Let’s see what happens to game modes over the next 2 years.
I ain’t saying their AI overhaul will be done now.
BUT, if and when these things occur, maybe the game will be in a stronger place for more customizable MATCHES. Potentially ran by players.
1 Like
Tornado ADV is 12.3 with the same Skyflash
Just found out that the Tornado F.3 is 12.0 actually with AIM-9Ls and the Skyflash SuperTEMP, quite literally ZERO excuse to not add the AIM-9L to the UK Phantoms.
2 Likes
The Skyflash SUPERTEMP and AIM-7F are almost identical when it comes to flight performance. The major differences are delta v, burn time and force exerted. The skyflash has higher force but lacks the delta v and burn time compared to the 7F. Skyflash has a lower all aspect lock range, explosive mass, and fuse but a higher fuse range. The Skyflash doesn’t have the advantage of the 7F in long range capability but it is quite comparable to the 7F in short range. Both the Tornado F.3s and F-4s basically rely on their missiles and nothing else to win a air to air engagement. my belief is that aircraft in war thunder should recieve their historical weaponary, but Gaijin has been abusing the early and prototype suffixes to prevent this from happening.
Source: