I am of a different mind, I would like a version with substandard defensive means and a version with accurate air to air armament. It would allow for people who want an easier time to have it, and people like me who have a fondness for accurate armament even at our own detriment to have what we’d like.
I still want a jaguar in French tree with all the bells and whistles (or even just magic 2s, still unhappy that the Brits got a jag with magic 2s before France), and a su 39 with all teh aams it is missing, as an example. I also acknowledge that would be miserable if everyone was forced into it (alternatively, give us better modes for air to ground)
As long as it doesn’t swamp other attackers with speed, don’t overly care where it ends up. We would need some decompression for this kind of approach to come in, really.
But generally, whenever a mud mover has gotten new AAMs, its been worse off than before. Harrier Gr7 getting Aim-9Ms put it at BRs where it was forced basically to always engage in PvP and Jaguar IS is just not worth using most of the time. Much rather potter about in the Jaguar Gr1A or even the Jaguar GR1 at an even lower BR
This is half the issue. People playing mud movers in a gamemode designed to be anti-mud mover
Reason why I’m suggesting ~2 versions. I am quite comfortable fending off folk on attack runs, so I would be happier for more armaments to do that, but can appreciate some folk really would not enjoy it. Until a new mode was introduced to make it a bit easier to engage in air to ground.
eh, i mean its the fastest true attacker/bomber ingame, its going to be speedy no matter what so might as well let it shine in a place with less radar missiles so it can really move
There is a difference between being fast to a base, and being fast enough to take all bases before strike platforms such as buccaneer have even reached one. If we apply your logic, we just compress further and further.
tbh the F-111F even with napalm (could be limited to only be enough for 1 base) doesnt really have the raw payload necessary to be a legitimate issue with destroying all bases. it will also bleed all its speed in the turn back home
1, sure. 2, which would be the minimum you’d see? That would make every other tree’s strike platforms have an even worse time, effectively unable to be spaded unless for once people didn’t play the US, which doesn’t happen. You would recreate the rocket mig 21 issue.
if they removed the gun it could be 10.3, no real a2a capability besides lucky bomb trickshots, reliant on pure speed that it has to shed (release limit is mach 1.1 for its weaponry) before, during, and after the release
let the F-111 do what it was meant to do and just haul ass at a bomb target better than anything else (only in a straight line ofc) they could even do the british based F-111’s (still USAF) which apparently had equipment removed which had a noticeable effect. just a pure speed F-111F
Except it couldn’t be 10.3, unless you were a prick who was inclined to ruin essentially every other bomber line for the sake of Americans having an even easier time. Which from my interactions with you at present, and historically, I assume you would be in favour of in spite of the implications.
Should we move Tornadoes down on account of them being amongst the most successful low level bombers in reality whilst also missing a portion of their thrust and agility just because we removed the 9Ls? It wouldn’t be particularly fun for anyone else, even if it would make tornadoes more useful.
The rating you suggest would have it move fast to the target in a straight line, and simultaneously be able to clean up another base minimum before other strike platforms at the rating (let alone below it) reached even their first target.
In the current climate, we would need decompression to facilitate this kind of development. Otherwise, to make other trees playable, their bombers would have to be sent down. Which would result in strike platforms well below ratings where the competition has a hope of intercepting them. In a mode where there are limited targets, and it is a competition between players to reach those targets (which is stupid, but that’s where we are in this environment), considerations need to be made to keep that competition at least remotely approachable by the vast majority of strike platforms across trees.*
*Obviously, a notable exception being subsonic tank hunters.
so from 10.3 to 10.7 with no gun, no aim9, and the reduced weight (couple thousand pounds difference) of USAFE F-111F fresh out of PDM? we should be allowed to have a Top Fuel F-111
I personally do not believe I can give an accurate rating for it to be placed at, at present. I am of the mind the only reasonable way to create a lower rated F-111 would be the introduction of higher ratings to decompress the tree. This would facilitate the F-111s at present being kept relatively the same, but also open up lower rating for less armed versions that would not necessarily degrade the functionality of other strike platforms.
It’s just by virtue of the way the game modes are designed, if there were more bomber friendly modes with far more targets, then it could be done in the current climate. But can’t really be justified at present.
Great. Don’t care if they’re interested in it, I’m interested in the addition of MICA IR, doesn’t mean it is a sound addition to the game in the current environment. As I’ve highlighted, you can have a faster f111 at the current rating, or alternatively you can ruin the modes for everyone else. Just personally, I’d actually like to be able to progress my bomber lines that aren’t American.
the bombs arent gonna turn to dust. if they did add napalm and the reduced weight to current F-111F at 11.7 that would be nice too, as an acceptable alternative