they wont remove anything
maybe a new mig 29 , but they wont touch the current ones
R-73s weren’t the original missile, R-60Ms were; R-73s came really quickly during late development of course, just not the OG.
It’d be 13.3 with R-73s post-decompression.
I support removing R-27ERs and pushing Mig-29 down to 12.3 though.
R-73s were on the dev when the 9-13 was first added. R-27ERs were not added until January (the update came out in mid December). It could definitely remain 12.7 with R-73s, IRCCM missiles already exist at that BR (Magic 2), and are not really a problem because they can be stiffarmed by FOX1s. The R-27R is kinematically probably the worst FOX1 at top tier except for the Super 530F and Skyflashes, which are more like 11.0-11.3 missiles anyway.
My point being that R-73s wouldn’t be too overpowered because a lot of the time the MIG29 wouldn’t be able to get close enough to use them. Even if they do gate IRCCM missiles are not very hard to decoy compared to something like an AIM-9M.
2 Likes
That was a thrust vectoring test and you know it. It was not the intended weapons for 9.13, and should never be.
Sorry, but your demand for Russian bias to exist is down right annoying.
Mig-29 with R-73s would be 13.0, and 13.3 after decompression.
6x+ Magic 2s are at 13.0 pre-decompression [Mirage 4000], so your post contains wrong information.
Sorry, but 9.13 is the oldest Mig-29, if you want R-73s, use the SMT.
If you want just R-73s on a Mig, ask for Mig-29K or a Mig between SMT and 9.13.
And stop demanding Soviets get bias.
It’s not a demand for Russian Bias. Its a demand for historical accuracy. The R-73 was designed for the MIG-29 in the early 1980s. The MIG-29 and R-73 were fielded within months of each other. It was a real capability gap that existed throughout the entire 1980s and part of the 90s until the US developed the AIM-9X.
The same type of capability gap in the US’ favor exists in the AIM-7M Sparrow vs R-27R comparison. The Sparrow outpaces the R-27 by a large margin in terms of lethality.
Asymmetry of weapons systems is a natural thing, and it does not signify one plane is more or less “overpowered” than another. It instead allows for differences in playstyle between different nations.
Also, watch your tone. This is supposed to be a respectful conversation. You shouldn’t be so accusatory.
7 Likes
Mig-29A already has a historical loadout, so no it’s not a demand for historical accuracy.
R-60Ms were historically used with the aircraft.
If you want R-73s, use the Mig-29G or SMT, otherwise wait for more Mig-29s.
Also, text has no tone…
1 Like
Text can absolutely have tone. Case in point:
Just because something was used once with the plane does not mean that is all the plane should have. The plane should have what it used for the majority of its service life. Ex. The F-14D should not have the AIM-120.
Therefore, the most historically accurate loadout for the MIG-29 includes the R-73 and does not include the R-27ER. That is what qualifies my demand as one for historical accuracy. I suggest you refine your criteria.
Or just admit you prefer that an aircraft is neutered for the sake of your ease of gameplay…
3 Likes
We are not military LARPers nor should we be.
I play these realistic simulators to NOT play as a LARPer cause if I wanted to LARP I’d just join.
I prefer aircraft to be at their best BRs with historical loadouts, which all Mig-29s are.
1 Like
You’re playing a game, not a historical record.
The horse has been beaten to death about the 9.12/13 having the 27ER - Gaijin has stated that vehicles will receive munitions that they have the capability of using regardless if they ever did IRL. My understanding is there is no real modifications required when firing the 27ER compared to the regular 27.
Like others have said, if you want to play a full toothed MiG-29, play the 29SMT or the 29G or even wait for a later variant.
To me it just sounds like you want still a very powerful airframe with great IRs at a BR where you can just club.
Despite what I said multiple times… Okay…
Im not sure if you guys don’t play top tier, but the MIG-29 with R-73s would not really be anything super special at the BR it is currently at. The Mirage 2000 exists at 12.7 with IRs on par with the R-73 (Magic 2), radar missiles that are better than the R-27R (Super 530D), and flight performance on par with the MIG-29. I play 5 different nations at top tier in ARB and I can tell you with authority that the MIG-29 with R-73s would not be overpowered, PROVIDED THAT IT LOSES THE R-27ER!
I would sorely disagree on this point. The game is meant to be historical. It says as much on Gaijin’s website. In the most extreme cases historical accuracy is sacrificed for game balance but this is not one of those cases.
I understand why Gaijin made the choice that they did at the time that they made it. The MIG-29s only competition was the F-16A, but it is time to bring the MIG-29 back to its historical loadout, as that loadout is not game breaking anymore.
2 Likes
I don’t think the R-27ERs are the driving factor behind the balancing decision.
Without the 27ERs, you’d be mounting 6x R-73s. While I don’t necessarily agree with it at times, I understand Gaijin’s strategy of breaking up loadouts to help give the game some content - otherwise Germany would only really have the 9.12 and that’ be it.
Ultimately only Gaijin can tell us why the MiG-29s sit how they do.
If you could point out where in Gaijin’s advertising that claims War Thunder meant to be absolutely historical without fault or deviation. So far I don’t even see the word Historical.
First point on their features page.
“Over 2,500 highly detailed aircraft, helicopters, ground vehicles, warships and other combat vehicles crafted carefully from historical documents and surviving sources.”
If theyre crafting them from historical documents, they’re meant to be historical.
1 Like
To add on to this, First point in their FAQ:
“The appearance and characteristics of the vehicles in War Thunder are historically accurate, and their damage models are physically based.”
3 Likes
I sometimes really dislike when developers have creative freedom, especially in a game like this.
If I was to be the devil’s advocate, the MiG-29 did use R-60Ms, R-27s and R-27ERs. For balancing reasons it was given to nations that never bought them.
I know it’s a technicality, but it still qualifies.
I agree, as it leads to these kinds of grievances.
or how about move that f16 up? The solution to br compression is not more br compression.
This kind of thinking is why you’ll never be hired at Gaijin Entertainment /s
what?
All aircraft have historical loadouts, so there’s nothing really to dislike.
Any other loadouts will increase or decrease BRs, usually increase.
Especially when USSR and Germany already have R-73 Mig-29s.
@type_93_go_brrrr
F-16A and Mig-29 are equivalents, they are not compressed.
yes, but they are referring to the Belgian f16a with 9m’s in the post, which is not equivalent to the normal f16a or mig29 9-13, but is still the same br in sim for some reason
edit: sorry, it’s the same br as the ADF, which is still weird, cause 9m’s are extremely powerful in sim