lolno
If you want 9Ms use the F-16C.
I’m still waiting for Gaijin to add an F-16A Block 1/5 with only 9Js.
I am glad we are on the same page and I am also against adding AIM9M and R73 to all aircraft under 12.7. However, the F14A and F14B, which were recently upgraded to 12.7 and 13.0, should receive the same IR missiles as other aircraft of the same class.
F-14B already has AIM-9Ls for 13.0.
Other aircraft being under-BR’d is not a reason to remove the uniqueness of aircraft.
But all other 13.0 aircraft are using the R73 and AIM9M.
1- F-16A and Mig-29 are 12.7.
2- Those 13.0s are under-BR’d.
if they were over BR’d they’d have been moved up, instead of more vehicles like the Su-27 being moved down to that BR
The historically accurate loadout would be adding R-73s but removing the R-27ERs.
1 Like
In an alternate universe where WT was Russian biased we would be discussing how F-14 deserves AIM-7M/AIM-54. But here in Gaijin land we have no such luck.
1 Like
I think what really ought to happen is Gaijin should make the whole 12.0-13.0 a “1980s BR” with R-27R/R-73 wielding Russian jets, both an SU-27 and a MIG-29. Then, the US could have the AIM-9M removed from the F-15A, allowing the AIM-9L and AIM-7M combo to be America’s (and Japan’s) go-to to counter the Soviet R-27R/R-73 combo.
Other countries would have the equivalent capabilities. IE, China would have their J-11 with R-27R/R-73, and other western-aligned nations would have things equivalent to, for example, the Tonka (F.3 for UK and ADV for IT) with the Skyflash SuperTEMP and AIM-9L, or the S530D/Magic 2 combo for the French.
America/NATO would have the edge in the BVR fight, with the AIM-7M being kinematically superior to the R-27R, though the lack of Datalink on the Sparrow would still allow for some counterplay from the Russians in the FOX1 department. Then, if a Russian player was skilled enough to survive the FOX1 gambit and make it to the merge, they would be rewarded with the clear edge once they get up close.
Much like how a real scenario would have played out. It forces players to play smart, trying to maximize their aircraft’s strengths while minimizing the enemy’s. Historical teams making a return would take this one step further but that might be too optimistic.
1 Like
I am a big history buff. I also have immediate family who operated in support of the USAF mission in Germany in the 1980s. I myself lived over there for a couple of years, also in the military sphere. Many museum visits later and now this stuff fascinates me. I make these suggestions because I want to play under historical conditions. Both when I play as the US and when I play as Russia.
The “Red Storm Rising” scenario is one of the most interesting ones in my opinion and I would like the option to play that out realistically in the 12.0-13.0 BR category.
I tell you all of this because I want you to know I am suggesting this from a non-malicious standpoint. I am not asking for a Russian seal-club machine. I am simply asking for historical conditions to play in. Additionally, if I believed the R-73 would absolutely ruin this BR, then I would not be here asking for it. But, I believe that as long as the R-27ER is removed from the MIG29A (which it should be), it would be perfectly balanced, and also more historical! :)
What’s wrong with recreating a little bit of real history in a video game?
It’s never balanced, everybody only plays whichever side is the strongest and you end up not being able to create a match at all because the ratio of players in the lobby is 100:1.
There are custom matches that allow for people to do whatever they want.
There are no weapon restriction options like DCS, but in a community of reenactors it’d be safe to say that you’d be fine among trust.
I use random battles above 12.3 for spading to use in custom matches.
So yeah, use custom matches for your other goals.
That’s why I said this.
I understand and don’t entirely disagree with your sentiment but it’s just not really realistic. All customs are nowadays is just hangout servers. It takes an enormous amount of effort to assemble custom historical “re-enactment style” matches. I as a working person just do not have the time to put forth such effort.
I believe the suggested above changes would positively affect the gameplay/balance at large, while also allowing it to be more historical.
History is not realism. It’s best you separate those things.
And there are reenactment discords out there, and they’re always looking for leadership.
I think you are sorely mistaken in this statement. History is realism in the past tense. It is simply what used to be reality.
1 Like
No, history is historical authenticity, not realism.
Realism has to do primarily with physics and other objective things, not history.
They are one and the same. When making a game that aims to be historical, as Gaijin states they are, your definition of historical authenticity rolls in to the definition of realism, which is defined as “representing familiar things in a way that is accurate or true to life.”
Gaijin has never stated they aim to make historical battles, never.
Historical accuracy of vehicles is not historical battles.
Historical battles? Maybe not. But making the aircraft historically accurate is a goal that is stated multiple times on the “about the game” section on the War Thunder website. That’s what is being asked for here.
1 Like