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.
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
Or they just add tons of bases so this total insanity of base bombing team kills and whining goes away and everyone is happy. People that don’t base bomb now will probably be happy to shoot down the additional base bombers, and people that like bombing will be able to bomb more. Honestly I think the only downside in gaijin eyes would be the increase in the amount of RP players are earning 🤣
More bases to bomb would be interesting and they implemented it in bigger maps and everyone complains that maps are just too big. On maps where u have normally 4 bases there is space, but everyone would complain taht the batllefield is larger because of planes spread made by more bases. And gaijin wouldn’t u jest let get 6k more rp because of more bases. And i still don’t get it why planes like su-25’s with 2x r73’s and 2xr-60mk’s, smart bombs and guided missiles have lower br’s than tornado’s in game. U got like su-25t even su-25bm that is even lower in br than premium tornado in germany not even talking about british tornado’s. I just don’t get it why planes with planes that have r-73 and other bigger advantages and that is nearly unflarable from 1km have lower br’s than tornados taht have aim-gl who can be flared by 1 drop. Not even talking about flight performance of these 2 planes. Also the situation of a-10’s u get 4 aim-9m’s at the same br as u, more countermeasures and also have guided missiles and bombs. and one of the best flight performances at stall fight. The br of tornado’s must be changed to lower because it is just not worth to play bc u can’t even outrun anything at your br not even talking about uptiers which happen most of the time
Supersonic vs Subsonic. Its messy but its why usually subsonics are a lower BR than supersonics with equivalent missiles. For example A-10A with 2x Aim-9Ls at 10.3 vs Tornado IDS with 2x Aim-9L at 11.3.
So typically, subsonics get better weapons at a lower BR to compensate for the fact they are subsonic
Doesnt always work out, because you have subsonics like the Harrier Gr7 at 12.3 or even stuff like the AV-8B+/FA2 at 13.0 or on the flipside the Jaguar IS at 11.3. But its usually the fairer solution.
Though…
Tornado ASSTA1, GR1 and IDS(1995) dont belong at 11.7, their guided A2G weapons are of minimal value and shouldnt be a reason to sit at a higher BR and overall, the main issue is ARB, no ground attacker does well playing as a ground attacker, between markers, map layout/design, lack of targets, etc etc, you just cant play them properly and are at a major disadvantage.
I think 11.3 is okay… not great, but okay. There are dozens of possibles buffs and changes for the Tonka and with those it would be perfectly fine at 11.3, but if they never come… Im on the fence whether it would cause any harm at 11.0 and im edging towards probably not, especially if 7.0-10.0 got decompressed
Best advice I can give, run no more than 5x Mk83s, and stay defensive until you can get in and bomb a target. In the Tornado Gr4 at 12.3, the tactic usually results in 1x base kill fairly consistantly
