Right. So The F-111A can take out 2x bases whilst being super fast at 10.7 but the Jaguar Gr1A at the same BR needs 5x 1000lb to take out 1 base and its barely supersonic with that loadout?
Would the F-111A suddenly start to suffer if it took 4x Napalm to a base?
not the F-111A specifically (it has to carry 4 napalm minimum w/o asymetry) but other aircraft would
Activity time means nothing if you don’t win.
The team that prioritizes winning still gets a rewards bonus.
And again… I dont see why this means that Napalm needs to be a LOT stronger than conventional bombs.
If anything this just helps make it far more fair than it is currently by reworking/rebalancing napalm.
So what that these aircraft cant take out 3 or 4 bases per sortie and instead can only take out 1 or 2. Just bring them inline more with the average of 1 base per sortie most bombers/stirkers without Napalm have to do.
and now Napalm becomes vastly more balanced without unncessarily nerfing things.
Eventually, add CBUs that have a similar damage-to-weight ratio to fully balance out all aircraft/BRs
no, this is unnecesarily nerfing the AV-8C, A-4, F-105, F-4, A-7, F-111A, and many other jets outside of the US tt
Against bases, napalm is stronger than conventional bombs. That’s why it was used so often in real life.
For the mass, napalm was far more effective against strategic targets than conventional bombs.
CBUs are more effective against soft targets than strategic targets and thus would deal less damage to bases similar to rockets.
from my understanding of pacific ww2, the only thing more effective than incindiary weapons for weight to damage against strategic targets was nuclear weapons
Again. Why?
Take the AV-8C for example? It would be unfair for the AV-8C to have to run 3x Napalm instead of 2 for a base kill but the Harrier Gr3 that is 100% identical to it is fine having to run 5x Mk13 1000lb bombs?
Why the double standard?
The best kind of correct, the technically correct.
man idk but doesnt justfiy nerfing a ton of other jets. they could add CBU with similar damage purely for the sake of balance and this is more favorable for everyone involved
The bases as I see them are soft target. Forward supply bases. (light-weight buildings, ammo and fuel dumps, etc) and not a hardened target like the AFs or factories.
So I dont see why CBUs would be any less effective against the typical bases we see in game
and there is no reason why we couldnt get CBUs meant for hardened targets like AFs such JP233 as well.
IF Gaijin is planning to keep these napalms in a broken state,
I am double sure about it, at least they should’ve tried their magic word. ‘Technical compatibility’ :|
Slightly off topic, but I think I might be mad if USA gets their AIM-132 ASRAAM by compatibility, while British jets still suffer from those napalm gangs.
Because Gaijin cares about nothing for balancing things properly.
As you knows.
Yeah, that would be annoying.
lol, first plane to fire ASRAAM was an F-16C, and first F-35 to fire it was a USMC F-35B
Only because the UK wasnt allowed to do their own intergration.
doesnt change what happened
Sitll. If US gets ASRAAM on everything because “inter compatbility” and Britain is continued to be denied Napalm even for its F-4J. Then I call bias
not everything, probably the F-16C and F-35B as most likely but we’ll see what else it was tested on
Fair point,
What I meant was
If USA jets are allowed to get AIM-132 because of compatibility.
There is no way to block British jets from access to napalm.
or keeping French F-100D’s hands off from AIM-9E.
If Gaijin keeps lollygagging with their standards as usual, All I can say is they are biasing some major nations. :|
By the way, about the original-of-original topic, I think it is fine to give F-111A AIM-9E.
It might not be a big improvement, but it’s still better than never.
Maybe giving 6x AIM-9J will be too powerful for F-111A I guess.
