Yeah, their “explanation” for it was so convoluted that I still dont understand what they are on about half the time and the other half is full of holes that it was mostly nonsense.
And every single time I’ve tried to get a better answer, i’ve been ignored.
I am not gaijin - so i recommend to ask them.
But from my pov you are way too experienced to deny that gaijin has always used nation specific skills to balance vehicles - it was often just hidden from plain sight and camouflaged with different SL & RP multipliers.
As the player base became highly sensitive regarding economic cuts is seems logical that gaijin tries other ways to “balance” vehicles.
A short reminder:
The planned economy changes which led to the player riot in May 2023 had included 3 different repair cost for the same vehicle at 5.0:
IT P-47 D-30 - around 9.000 SL
US P-47- D 28 - around 4.600 SL
CHN P-47 D-30 - around 3.300 SL
Each with different SL & RP multipliers, IT at Rank IV the others at Rank III.
So whilst i had in the IT P-47 a 85% full uptier ratio and had the honor to escort 4 German Ju 288s in my team (playing 6 vs 6), i saw in my first 25 matches in the US version not a single Ju 288 - and i stopped playing the CHN version after i realized that i have no fun in those teams.
So the Italian pilots were so much better that they “deserved” to pay 3 times the repair cost of a CHN player…
Your Tornado BR differences look not really nice, but as long as repair cost are on the same level it looks like the UK pilots are more successful and pay for it with a too high BR.
Which i Believe is the intention of this thread
Which is just overall, rather unfair, perticuarly in ASB, where Redfor (and thus the German and Italian Tornados) have an overall much easier time fighting alongside the dominant fighter, the Mig-23MLD. Especially when combined with the artificial nerfs that Britain and Britain alone has for their Tornado
I have no idea why tornados are different as i dont play planes and even less top tier planes…
So guesses…
They have different equipment (radar or something)
They have different ordnance (better weapons will cause higher BR)
They work better with some other planes in the team (this causes higher success rates)
I personally understand reasons 1 and 2 above…not so sure about reason 3…but all 3 make SOME sense in tanks. It always depends on the “details”…as an example (from tanks where i am more comfortable), having better ammo, extra MGs or a faster reload can make an apparently identical tank to be better…and in some cases make for a higher BR (ammo in particular can make a huge difference). Some heavy armor vehicles are less useful on some nation when the opposition has better guns…but can be more effective versus nations with lesser guns (at that BR).
Repair costs i dont really know the reasoning…long ago i assumed they were used to make vehicles less or more present in the battlefield. I had a not very popular opinion that rare (prototype, captured) vehicles SHOULD HAVE higher BR costs. BUT gaijin seems to use some stats based metric that i really don’t understand either…
I honestly don’t see what applies to Tornados…not my area of expertise…but the overall opinion remains.
Though… F8F to 4.7 after reviewing, and Hunter f58 undone 10.0…
And Chinese guys’ views on A5C & J7D, And Gaijin putting them at the same br…
The 3 at the higher BR have tpods and guided weapons. (Mostly GBUs) That is it. In fact the Gr1 at 11.7 has a weaker engines than the other 5. In all other respects and all other respects that actually matters for ARB/ASB they are identical (same weapons, CMs, etc)
The reason given is that they have higher efficiency but it’s never been explained why they do and it’s generally believed that there is no difference other than the WTD61 having much lower effeciency due an influx of bad / inexperienced players
Not sure i get it…but from a quick look at wikipedia…the higher BR Tornados (0.3 higher) have laser guided bombs…
I NEVER fired a laser guided bomb…but can’t this be the “simple” answer…and the reason behind the “efficiency”…
AGAIN…from tanker experience…a better ammo can make a huge difference…and provide considerably more kills.
A laser guided weapon IRL would allow attack with more precision and less risk to the plane…which would imply better results in game…no?
(Again…ZERO experience…just reading wiki)
Yes, in theory, but with CCIP (the marker that will tell you where the bomb will fall) you can drop unguided weapons with more than sufficient accuracy to kill AI vehicles. You are limited to 4-6x guided weapons (does vary a little between the 3) so that would mean a max of about 4-6 ground vehicles killed.
Alternatively you could run 12x unguided bombs for 12 ai ground vehicles killed (and likely much faster and safer than if you used GBUs) , or as it takes 5 to 6 bombs to kill a base, take 1-2 bases instead. This is (essentially) identical between all 7
[11.3] Tornado MFG, WTD61 and IDS
12x Mk83 Unguided bombs
[11.7] Tornado Gr1:
12x Mk13 Unguided Bombs
4x Laser guided Bombs (GBUs)
4x PGM-500 (AGMs)
3x PGM-2000 (AGMs)
Gen 1 Tpod
[11.7] Tornado ASSTA1
12x Mk83 unguided bombs
4x Laser guided bombs (GBUs)
6x GPS/Laser Guided bombs (GBUs)
Gen 2 Tpod
[11.7] Tornado IDS (1995)
12x Mk83 Unguided bombs
4x Laser guided bombs (GBUs)
Gen 2 Tpod
Out of these additional loadouts. Some value might be placed on the Gr1s AGMs, or the ASSTA1s GPS guided bombs within ARB/ASB, but you could still kill far more with the unguided bombs and thus earn far more within the match.
The 11.3s ones (bar the MFG) are also a lower Rank, which does also marginally reduce their reward multipliers, but I would still place the greater value in the lower BR and thus the better chance of actually making it to something to drop a bomb upon.
The GBUs more than justify their BR within ground modes. But within air modes, it does not. In ARB I doubt anyone has actually ever run guided weapons on a tornado and only maybe in ASB to knock out specific targets. but doing so, probably still nets less score/reward than just dropping unguided bombs onto a base as far as I am aware.
I do absolutely agree that BR should be higher if the loadout has an impact (the Tornado Gr4 for example does have a greater loadout and warrants the 12.0/12.3 BR) but the 3x at 11.7 are for all intent and purposes identical to the 3x at 11.3. they have the same flight model, same missiles, same counter measures and for 99% of situations, the same bombs. Only the Gr1 (Britain), has notable differences, with ever ever so slightly better unguided bombs, but then again, I’d almost place it weaker overall than the other 5 due to having much weaker engines which overshadow any advantage gained by the better bombs. So I would consider them equal on terms of BR placement.
If it is the case that the GBUs and other guided weapons some how increase the effeciency/reward per match significantly enough that it causes them to need to be a higher BR then I would need someone at Gaijin to explain how. Because I cannot think of anyway currently that the presence of the GBUs or other guided weapons could have such an impact. Which comes back to the original post of this thread.
Gaijin,
You have opportunity to help improve your reputation, and I’d like to contribute to this.
The Tu-4 is severely underperforming and is unable to defend itself in most situations.
The bomber’s survivability is inefficient after the first target, given the high presence of aircraft armed with autocannons.
It is very difficult to aim at and hit jets traveling at high speeds with conventional bombers.
The plane lacks sufficient structural strength and durability for prolonged engagements.
At BR 8.0, where it currently sits, it has no defensive measures against missiles, as it is not maneuverable enough to evade them.
The plane is too slow, and given the previously mentioned issues, it rarely gets the chance to drop its bombs on bases.
In ground battles, vehicles equipped with radar-guided autocannons, such as the Gepard, can quickly disable the plane and send the user back to the hangar. The Tu-4 lacks the maneuverability to defend itself against such SPAA threats.