You are underestimate how much that speed would give you at 10.7 relative to the A10 (which shouldnt be the same BR as a tornado).
The J35XS is 10.7 with 6 Aim-9Js and flares, and the J35D is 10.3 without flares and only 4 9Js.
The tornado has a vastly superior platform to the Sea harriers at 10.7/11.0. What should be done about them? Should they stay at a BR where they are objectively worse than a common enemy they would face? They certainly can’t move down lower than 10.3/10.7 either.
The Mig can’t turnfight, it’ll lose all of it’s speed if it doesn’t take time to reset the fight.
Yes, because they are arguably undertiered due to compression.
SARH missiles aren’t some “I win” button, especially in something like a tornado which has decent RWR.
That’s not what 9Ls are to flareless planes.
me when i lie on the internet
Once again, there is a vast capability difference between a tornado and A-10.
Compare super-sonics with super-sonics and sub-sonics with sub-sonics.
Tornado Gr1 should get Mk103 engines and should be 11.3 along with the ASSTA1 and A200A.
All 6 Tornado IDS might be better suited at 11.0. but that is highly unlikely given that most equivalents are 11.3.
Whilst the Tornado IDS is a fairly limited platform when compared to a fighter like a Mig-23 or F-4. It is reasonably fast, has an excellent RWR and a good supply of CMs. Whilst its handling isnt great, you can do ‘fine’ with it since the new FM. But its purpose is to base bomb, and the ability to take out 2 bases does annoyingly factor into Gaijins balance. (Despite the fact there is rarely 1 base to kill let alone 2)
There is no reason for the Tornado IDS to be anywhere near 10.7.
You cannot kinematically dodge an AIM-9L. Not unless it was fired by someone giving it the worst possible shot on purpose. At roughly equal energy states, any shot within ~3km of a target will result in a kill unless they have flares.
The quote literally says “outturn”. Not outrun. Who exactly is making stuff up?
This is just blatantly false and frankly a bizarre claim to make to people who have experience at this tier. But hey, if it’s so easy, I’m sure you can prove it with a few clips of your own.
This would only work if the Tornado is too close to you in the first place. Any reasonable player would be easily able to follow the movement from distance and fire off the missile at 2.5+ km.
Now who’s not arguing in good faith?
The difference being the A-10C is a massively slower plane, meaning that you can literally just stay away from him all game long without trouble. You can use positioning to ensure that he never gets close enough for him to get a shot off unless you’re ready for it.
Put those same missiles on a supersonic airframe, and suddenly you don’t have that option.
They would be free kills, but you’re massively underselling how strong AIM-9Ls would be when combined with a supersonic airframe.
Regardless, they’d also still be slower than Phantoms/F-111s/Kfir Canard/etc that you’ll be seeing in most games, so you’re still not guaranteed to get to the bases first.
In fact, you’d just be moving this problem lower down, as now F-105s, Jaguars and other transonic strike aircraft will be the ones unable to reach the bases.
All that long explanation doesn’t explain why certain tornadoes are set at a higher BR when they don’t get anything extra which is relevant to air battles compared to the 11.3 ones. That’s what this post is about.
If your argument is just accept it, you don’t understand the point of this forum and you should refrain from participating in it. Player feedback is a necessary part of a thriving game.
I do play it in air sim. It is not easy there either. Fun fact: Mig-23ML/A/D sit at 11.3 in sim when this thing sit at 11.7. The former is faster and deadlier compared to the tornado.
Regarding Strike Variants of the Tornado and Bomb Carriers in General
At the moment, most aircraft that primarily bomb bases in Air Battles are as effective, if not more, than fighters of the same Battle Rating, although they often have much weaker weapons and air combat capabilities than fighters.
We’re aware that many of you think that the Battle Rating of bomb carriers in Air Realistic Battles is too high, comparing them with fighters solely in terms of air combat capabilities.
However, on the economy side of things, the Battle Rating of bomb carriers — which are discussed in many topics — are optimal or even underestimated. This means that their weak capabilities for air combat doesn’t prevent them from receiving on average a good or even great reward. As noted above, the average reward is one of the main factors in determining the Battle Rating of a vehicle. Therefore in order for us to be able to reduce the Battle Rating of these aircraft while maintaining healthy economic progression, the rewards for damaging and destroying bases would need to be reduced so that the average reward (the effectiveness) of bombers and fighters is equalized.
We fully realise that a change like this will not receive any support from players who are asking for a reduction in Battle Ratings at the current average reward values.
Therefore in the summer, we’re planning to give more clarification and bring this issue up for discussion — whether or not we should reduce the rewards for bases in order to reduce the Battle Rating of aircraft that mainly bomb bases, or leave everything as it is now. Please follow the news for more details on this.
Based on what we’ve written above, as of now we are going to leave the strike variants of the Tornado at their current Battle Ratings in Air Realistic Battles. The Battle Rating of the Tornado IDS ASSTA1 (Germany), Tornado GR.1 (Britain), and Tornado IDS (1995) (Italy) will not be lowered, and the Battle Rating of the Tornado IDS MFG (Germany) and Tornado IDS WTD61 (Germany) will not be increased to that of the other Tornadoes mentioned above.
btw they never adressed it in summer again afaik
Nothing has changed from that it seems, at least until October
The different BR between them is a relic of the time before split battle ratings.
The IDS all had guided munitions, while the WTD and the Marineflieger had not.
Therefore they were a higher BR.
They now could lower the BR of the IDS to match the lower Tornados, but they don’t cause the efficiency of the higher Tornados seem to be slightly higher than the lower ones and therefore a BR change is not needed (in their words)
You are blaming the playerbase using a tool given to them for an obvious singular purpose (Napalm is not used in any other capacity in the entire game, full stop) instead of blaming gaijin for not updating their ancient gamemodes.
If you believe in the power of this forum to change the game, then I congratulate you on your huge optimism…
If Gaijin changed the battle rating of the aircraft, then those were the changes that the developers had the most influence on and Gaijin once explained that it counts among other things…
the overall percentage success of the aircraft, depending on aircraft of comparable configuration and their settings in battles…
the popularity of the aircraft among players (Gaijin wants players to play with all aircraft)
I.e. if one aircraft is highly profitable (SL), its battle rating is raised to be profitable on average, the same applies vice versa, if the machine is below average, the br is reduced here…
The exception is premium machines (see the endless “wall of lamentations” here on the topic of Wyverns)…and nothing will happen anyway…
Yes, the discussion about machines is stimulating, but it has to be something extra for the developers to deal with it… and I don’t wonder about them, mostly it’s just the crying of players who can’t do it, as they would imagine…
Regarding the MiG-23, we don’t know what the developers are counting in the battle rating, it’s not worth comparing different game modes…
Here’s a screenshot of the repair table from the new wiki…just the differences in the cost of repairs…
Both machines are, as far as the former Soviet Union is concerned, the first multi-purpose type machines…
A huge number of them were produced (especially 21) and they were used for a large number of tasks… From reconnaissance, through fighter tasks, as fighter bombers to the first attempts as CAS …
Here I see a few other things…
maps for the tactical frontline combat method, based on game maps for WWII
maps of ground units, where it is purely about loading bombs and going to bomb
and the navy, it will not be different here…
a lot of players, want to play only fighter combat and see planes/players with bombs as a burden that weakens the team…
but not everyone wants to just spin in a never-ending furball aka kill or next game…
then there are players who need planes only for ground/sea battles and for them it means the simplest grind and done…etc.
There would probably be plenty of ideas here on the forum on how to transform the air, land and sea modes of the game, but if that is the developers’ goal… who knows…
This game is a game for all regular video game players and Gaijin once said that he did not want to make it a simulation game focused on a narrow group of players (i.e. only fighters, only bombers, only tankers, only helicopter pilots, only sailors, etc…)
Now here’s the thing, what you’re saying about the MiG-21/23 being used as fighter bombers/CAS is false. For the MiG-23, there was specialized versions, like the MiG-27 and MiG-23BN (flareless/missile-less). The MiG-23M/L/D/A/F are not fighter bombers. As for the MiG-21, the only attempts at making it into a fighter bomber were when they were completely obsolete, like in Egypt facing F-14’s and whatnot. Now in War Thunder we have Battle Ratings, so most planes aren’t forced to compete in historical matchups, and thus should not be bombing in their very capable air-to-air fighter.
We are already off topic…
If the MiG-21 was supposed to be a direct competitor of the F-104, then the MiG-23 should have equaled the F-4 Phantom II, and in the latest versions, it should have almost equaled the F-16A block10 aircraft in some parameters…
But it’s much more complicated, the MiG-23 ML had a lot of subversions…
Briefly like this
version - 23M - Flogger B, primarily a pure fighter, testing anti-ground attacks
version - 23ML - Flogger G, pure fighter, primarily pure fighter, anti-ground attack testing
version - 23ML/MLA - Flogger G, multi-role, primary fighter aircraft, secondary attacks on ground targets
version - 23 MLD - Flogger G/K, multi-purpose, primary fighter aircraft, secondary attacks on ground targets
MLD had 4 other subversions - Product 23-18, Product 23-19, Product 23-19B, Product 23-22A…
That plane was simply a modular box, where different versions and subversions were built from a fighter plane with anti-aircraft missiles, to an airplane capable of fulfilling a whole range of different missions, with various suspended weapons.
I counted for the complete MiG-23, a total of 15 built versions and another 12 versions that ended up only on the drawing board…
Gaijin put into play and not only what concerns the MiG 23, it can also be seen with other aircraft, real - advanced versions of the aircraft that allow to fly both anti-aircraft and anti-ground missions … if they put all versions of one type, for each aircraft, that would be madness…
They are not machines of the first production units, such as MiG-21/F13 or F-104A, which only have 2 rockets and a few cartridges for the cannons and after firing, they are just such “doves of peace” …
And not all players necessarily want to play only fighters…
You have two options here. Either you fully commit to the idea that what gaijin thinks is the only thing that matters, and therefore we have to disregard common sense and vehicle capabilities in favor of thinking about what earns “too much silver”; or you stop using what gaijin thinks is important and instead talk about real vehicle capabilities and whether a BR is actually balanced or not. The playerbase does not give a damn if a vehicle can bomb 2, 4, or 28 bases when it comes to BR balance.
Now that we have separated BRs for different modes, base bombers should be balanced with base bombing in mind, as that’s their main purpose in ARB. Yeah, A2A capabilities are nice to have but in my opinion those should have much less importance when deciding vehicle’s BR.
That’s one of the bigger problems ARB has, as all RP/SL actions should bring the team closer to victory.
People wanting to balance bombers/strikers purely around their A2A capabilities is comical and yet another proof of how inherently flawed the game mode is.
Base bombers should be able to win games by bombing, just like fighters should be able by killing enemies.
If any of that can’t be achieved, it means the mode is a cesspool and should be scrapped and reworked.
