God I despise MiG-23/21 bombers. One of the few types of people I enjoy to see get tk’d.
3 Likes
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…
Why ?
It has enough bombs for two bases which is more than enough in that department.
It comes with 2x 9Ms and a decent amount of CMs.
I don’t think it should be at the same BR or just above than Su-22M3 which is slower and has only six keypresses of flares.
It’s funny to see how Brimstones are actually more useful than R-60s.
Are we pretending this really matters for BR balance
Only reason I think it should stay 12.0
Yes it does as both speed and bomb load affect base bomber’s efficiency which is something Gaijin is looking at.
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.
not when the gamemode doesnt care if you bomb or not, its just rp/sl generation
Also JH7A, Mirage 2000DR1/RMV, MIG27K, when players asked for GRB/ARB BR separate, Gaijin just moved up their BR to show they are working.
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.
It’s performance on the deck is more like a Su-22 Which sits at 11.3 Tornado GR.1 is 11.7
Su-22s are noticeably slower than Tornados.
I dont think there is much in it now with the Tornado barely making mach on the deck with the changes to the fm
If they are comparable to the premium Tornado, then they’ll easily dust Su-22s as well.
the gr1 has dogshit engines, worse than german tornados, its not outrunning anything
Or they could make it so fighters get 25% of what strike/ bombers would get destroying bases.
Make it so bombers and strike get forward air spwns and actually have a job. Personally i dont even use these jets so doesnt effect me… but its easy to see the current setup is trash level