Well if you wanna realism then play DCS. Why would you play WarThunder if you want realism?
“Well if you wanna arcade then play Ace Combat. Why would you play WarThunder if you want arcade?”
10 Likes
It’s not in the case of the more short ranged planes. While positioning matters a lot, on planes like Mirage and Su-27 with close range ARH (and 10km HMD in the soviet’s case), you want to stay in notch angle until the target is close, then use HMD for a quick missile launch before immediately going back in the defensive.
A nerf to notching is a nerf to the entire playstyle of the short-range ARH carrier, which were already inferior to the AMRAAM carrier.
1 Like
No lmao
It’s like giving your opinion on a painting, when you’ve been blind your entire life. “Eyewitness reports and content creators” aren’t gonna cut it.
Unlike tanks, planes differ so much, that you can’t give any opinions on modern jets with fox 3s, if the most modern stuff you’ve flown are gen 1 jets. The gameplay changes drastically. Notice how jets are commonly divided into generations, while MBTs much less so.
This is completely worthless coming from you, who has never played top tier, especially the A point.
Even if some of it is true, most likely you’re just repeating someone else’s opinion.
Subtle details make it clear you don’t know what you’re talking about.
For example, you compare AIM-9Ls to AIM-120s. It’s comparing apples to oranges, everyone who plays top tier would just say that F-16A has no BVR missiles and wouldn’t even bring up the AIM-9Ls .
Someone who actually plays top tier would compare F-15A or F-16A ADF to F-15C or F-16C, because the difference between Fox 1s and Fox 3s is the same as Fox 1s and no BVR missiles at all.
F-16A will always face planes with Fox 1s, it doesn’t make a difference for the F-16A whether they have Fox 1s or Fox 3s.
I guess modern jets are just stupid for you, so you should stick to props and 40-60s jets.
You may find that from a gAmE dEsIgN pErSpEcTiVe laser range finders are stupid, because they take away all the skill from aiming. Guess what, no one cares. Modern MBTs have them irl, so they should have them in the game. If I wanted to play a well-designed game, I would play some e-sport game.
At this current moment time. Several aircraft have BR placements purely due to the addition of AMRAAM. Such as the Sea Harrier FA2. This is at best a 9.7 airframe with a better engine and a good radar. Remove the AMRAAM and its 11.3 with Aim-9Ls and 11.7/12.0 with Aim-9M. Its currently at 13.0.
For it to be at that BR, we need AMRAAM to be somewhat reliable, to be able to fire at a target and kill that target unless they are actively defending. Otherwise the current BR placement for aircraft with AMRAAM becomes irrevelevant and its all about WVR Combat.
This really isnt an uncommon sight:
That F-4 made no attempt to defend against my AMRAAM, he was just flying low and spamming flares. That was it.
The last year or so has been rather dull at top tier as no one climbs. At all. The meta has been fly at tree top level unless you want to die. Seeing people climb again has been amazing and makes playing air modes feel like im playing a jet and not a tank.
Now I personally want to see MP removed entirely for Sim as that is the fully realistic mode. But I can accept a small buffer zone in ARB. But I think it could be a tad lower than what is currently, especially with the introduction of countermeasure pods like Phimat and the RALT. It certainly doesnt need to be restored to the 100m it was before
5 Likes
My main issue with this is what happens to aircraft that have WVR missiles- though I do understand your point about stuff like the harriers. A compromise that could work is massively increasing the effectiveness of chaff (Especially at close range, where other tools to defeat radar missiles are iirc much more difficult), but having MPing removed entirely- at least for Fox-3s.
My point is that AMRAAMs cannot be so good that IR missiles are inviable, because that completely fucks over anything that relies on them. Sim is an entirely different bag, and imma be real I have no idea what to do with it- since at least there, realism can be a bit more prioritized over balance.
cough
cough
That is incorrect, what I am calling stupid is their statement from a balance perspective. I actually am quite a fan of many modern jets, but again, my main concern here is strictly from a balance perspective.
Honestly. Chaff is over-performing a lot already. The only aircraft that I’ve struggled to notch/chaff (both ARH and SARH) in are stuff like the FA2 and F3 (and to lesser extent but still noticable in the Gripen) I dont have a lot of top tier aircraft, and Im waiting on some pretty major bug fixes / additions before I get into it properly. But these aircraft struggle in part because they use BOL for chaff and it is nerfed to hell at the moment. Fix that and they would all be perfectly fine defending without having to use MP. (or for the F3 at least, add the newly added Phimat pods to it for 216-432 large calibre chaff)
IR Combat does become more rare (but not that uncommon either, maps are very small still). and it is a limitation of the AB/RB matchmaking system that full utpier/downtiers have to be considered. But many of the aircraft at top tier are BVR focused. That is what modern combat is about.
So we might need a better decompress (or id vote for an Air Sim style BR Bracket system being applied to ARB that way uptiers are optional) and then the game becomes balanced just fine.
With the future additions just around the corner like the Typhoon and Rafale, the only way top tier remains balanced is for BVR combat to be vialbe and the focus. Look at the Gripen. It was IR only, in a IR Meta and so badly dominated they had to apply fake nerfs to it (BOL nerfs are 100% fake). But now we have BVR Combat, Id say its actually fairly balanced these days
2 Likes
Ah, fair enough. The one thing I also think should be considered is quite frankly a hard cutoff at Fox-3s, or at least a more significant BR spread. (Either that or BR-specific multipath/differing multipath for different planes)
I am honestly fine with top tier being BVR- as long as the lower-tier WVR-only and Fox-1 carriers are still viable.
At the moment, I think the 13.0 IR carriers are struggling a little because they are quite often pulled up into 13.7 (and an aircraft in an uptier should struggle, if it doesnt its at the wrong BR). When they add 14.0/14.3s they will hopefully get pulled up a little less and it should be more balanced. And that is also without factoring in more 12.0/12.3 premiums pulling them down as well.
MP + Fox 3 has no impact on this problem. Tornado F3 sucked last year because it faced a wall of Mig-29s and F-16s and was only good in downtiers (if you got one) now its fine. It sees uptiers and downtiers evenly (and in SB it has its own bracket for downtiers). Not too mention the MP reduction has been a notable buff for what is a BVR Truck
2 Likes
Chaff definitely was way too strong before. However it should still be possible to defeat in a notch
True enough, and I will definitely yield to you on this since I am very unqualified.
I still maintain that fox-3s were a mistake though lmfao
Oh please, who actually watches War Thunder e-sport. It’s a meme.
Saying War Thunder is an e-sport game like CS or Rainbow Six Siege is laughable.
Then you should perhaps advocate for hard separation of fox 3 and fox 1 era, instead of making both obsolete with multipathing.
I think as an uptier it’s fine, as long as it’s not too frequent. It will fix itself once current top tier will not be top tier anymore and will be able to get uptiered themselves.
IR missiles are not useless at top tier. Again, you are comparing apples to oranges.
F-16A is not an air superiority plane to begin with. That’s why F-16A and F-16A ADF were introduced together and were at the same BR. One was for CAS, the other was for air superiority. It’s weird how now basically identical planes with different loadouts for different tasks are at different BRs.
Multi-pathing needs to be reduced to realistic levels… especially in Sim where bad players are still just flying low to avoid ARH missiles and predominantly picking flat maps. It should not be possible for an Su-27 to close the distance with me if I am firing AMRAAM at him. He should have to stay in the notch the entire time and then have to defeat my Aim-9M that is fired from side aspect.
We need another round of ARH missiles buffs and multi-pathing is just playing into Russia Bias.
3 Likes
Maybe…
The problem was one of balanced additions for nations (or even additions for nations)
Like again the Sea Harrier FA2. It is a perfectly reasonable addition for the BR, it’s limiations mitigate the Fox 3s enough that its a reasonably fair fight even against IR only aircraft like the earlier F-16s. But it could only fire AMRAAM, not any SARH missile like Skyflash. Without AMRAAM, there is no point adding the FA2.
At which point Britain is bascaily left with the Tornado F3 at 12.0 and then nothing but ground attack aircraft until the Typhoon. Which again was ARH only unless it came with only 6x IR missile or something like that and which point Typhoon vs F-15 in a WVR fight is pretty one-side.
Also, if you add AMRAAM to one nation like Britain for the FA2, then you have to add it to all.
and britain is certainly not alone (Gripen sucked with Skyflash DFs vs R-27ERs and was forced to always play the merge and before that Sweden was stuck fighting F-16s and Mig-29s in the Viggen D)
I think they have done the best they can with the hole they dug themselve into when they added the Mig-29 and F-16. Fox-3s are heavily nerfed compared to IRL in terms of range, maneurvability and seeker performance and chaff is stronger than it should be. I think they have mitigated them as much as you can do without making them pointless additions. Now the next step I think is things like ECM but also improve the quality of maps. Air maps have been for far too long neglected, with no thought into what the gamepaly is like on them other than they look pretty.
I hope this is sarcasm. I can never tell in this forum.
1 Like
Ah yes, the desire for proper BVR combat = being a USA main advocating for more American bias.
2 Likes
I think in ARB MP should be reduced to 40-50m. But in Air sim, it could be removed entirely. That is the point of the gamemode, to be as realistic to IRL as possible, but MP currently really isnt
1 Like
AB actually has a decent leg up on RB for this- we actually have some fairly good maps. I do worry about their additions beyond this, because we are definitely starting to get to the point where we may have issues with nations simply not having anything comparable.
*if they can split MP across modes
Yes, this might be an issue