Should and “Su-27 and F-14B” slightly different
Because the F-14 is a Naval Aircraft. The Su-27 doesn’t have an aircraft carrier to launch off of.
So no, a fight would not be realistic between the two under most circumstances.
Secondly, while an F-14 could see the Su-27, it could also see Mig-21 and other lesser aircraft. An Su-27 would never stand a chance in a realistic fight between it and an F-14.
And your Su-27 would also see F-22, F-35, F15 (all), and much more.
F-14 can be used as fighter, like killing lybian Su-22 in 1981. But not Su-22, Su-27 in that case
Btw, most of soviet aircrafts starting from mig-21
As I stated the F-14 and Su-27 are not equals. Does not matter what variant you’re using there on different plains of existence. Now with that carry on with your discussion with Baron.
1 Like
No, there’s no problem.
Problem is, when newbies been crumped by pros, without even chance to resist.
This is discouraging them, and get them to idea leave the game rather then “be better”.
But if they will play with equals - they have equal chances to win/lose, and this will encourage them play better - because they know, that game was fair, and they really can see progress if try improve themselves.
While pros just too much higher, and its almost impossible to reach their level before they fall into despair.
Don’t forget about the huge time head start.
Pfff…
Do you know lot of vets, who try help newbies, especially if they not friends/regiment conscripts?
I know only fistful of guys/girls like that.
And shitton of overall dcks, who just joyfully beat up obviously weaker opponents, in order to later boast about the statistics they have earned, and b̶i̶̶c̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ whine about how their lives are being disturbed by newcomers who play worse than them (or just not tge way how they want), thereby insulting their “refined” taste.
(This, by the way, is the essence of single-respawn players - if they get into a fight with newcomers, they simply shoot from a meta position. If among the opponents there is also an experienced player who smoked them out, from their rooster perch, they immediately lose interest, get offended and leave from the match, justifying themself by saying that “we’ll lose anyway, there’s no point wasting time”, even if team really gets tryhard to win.)
It was launched from an Aircraft Carrier. If any aircraft was to fight the Su-27 over Europe, it would be the F-15 and F-16. The F4U did not fly over Europe just because it could. Your entire point is realistic fights, but this would never happen.
And no Mig-21 should really fight the F-14 Tomcat, but Realistic Matchmaking would mean it could fight even some props.
How about ASU can respawn at any place on the map due, to its air mobility trait?
And against Chieftain (if i get it right) must be at least ASU-85, or even BMD-1/2, with ATGM.
Su-27 can be not only over Europe
In theory - it possible
But in reality it will not happen because of soviet union politics
Dude, the complete opposite. You also cannot claim “level (Insert number here)” has any actual meaning. It doesn’t. Never has and never will. You can be a guy with Level 100 and perform just as badly as people new to the game. Level means nothing. It’s just a silly way to look professional and that’s it.
Gonna ignore the rest of what you said since it has little substance for me to bother reading. Gonna take a page out of Uncle_J_Wick’s book but your welcome to express your opinion even if it is wrong.
1 Like
The Russian one would not be anywhere other than Europe realistically.
No. You’re coping hard to prove a point that would fundamentally break the game’s balance. You do not understand what is actually best for the game when you suggest dumb ideas like this.
I am not going to sit and watch as you earnestly try to spread this idea of “Realistic” Matchmaking being our “savior” just because you want to try and weasel and unfair advantage where none actually exist. Your Su-27 would not be better if the game had realistic fights, it would actually be buried in the dirt after being hit by the latest generation NATO ammunition that no Russian Engineer can physically compete with. Russia is already being given things that most of their equipment do not have just to compete. Their tanks rarely have thermals in real life and the T-80BVM doesn’t get the upgraded engine most of the time IRL either.
The idea of Realistic fights would not be fair for anyone and would unnecessarily complicate the game’s matchmaker to a point of absurdity. It’s not only physically impossible, but incomprehensibly stupid to think it would improve the game.
2 Likes
More AlvisWisla gobbledygook
1 Like
yes, many youtubers start by doing this on their channels. not only that myself and my squadron members have brought many players along to help them out. its how i met most of the people in my squadron in fact.
1 Like
Seen so many Squadrons from smaller CC’s fail to understand their job as the Leader of a squadron if your squadron is welcoming all types of players from AB-Transitioning to RB, from RB transitioning to Sim. You gotta be there and act as a leader.
One squadron I won’t name was the case, barely anyone ever joined unless the leader was there and even then it was solely for Sim. So it defeated the point of AB and RB. Since they didn’t enjoy either which is fine but if you’re gonna welcome all 3 then you have to put your thoughts aside and tolerate it. Other wise you need to make it fair and damn clear that you are a Sim Centric Squadron but Ab and Rb who are transitoning to Sim are welcomed.
Yes like I said. If people want historical matchmaking they would need to remove all prototype and paper vehicles.(Arguably even all vehicles that never saw combat cause including them would be ahistorical.)
1 Like
I’ll just answer you for this last time. I’m not in favor of such mode, it wouldn’t be a great experience for underdogs. However i exposed a formula that could potentially atract people on playing the underdogs for a good buck if you manage to outsmart your disadvantages and earn resources.
You don’t like it? Don’t play it. You find it unfair? Again, don’t play it. Furthermore, criticize it as much as you want, but don’t target me like i’m someone defending such implementation here. A theoretical historical matchmaker shouldn’t be well thought around balance, that’s why the game has a br system that places both SAV 20.12.48 and M4 Shermans at the same BR range yet they served at literally different eras at their respective technological apex.
Grab some freaking reading comprehension and don’t bother me anymore.
To be fair, the gamemode which the historical matchmaker mechanic would work the least is in Air, that’s why the conversation naturally shifted to ground battles.
1 Like
Ah yes, the usual “Don’t like it don’t play it” aka deflection. This isn’t a case of "Don’t play it cause you don’t like it, it’s called it makes NO sense to waste a company’s resources on a mode that a niche minority would only play. It is a waste of time.
This is the equivalent of cooking 15 tons of rice and expecting a group of 150 to eat it all.
Mind you this picture I’m posting is only 1 ton
D-Day Event, April Fools, and the crummy World War Mode are game modes that ARE “Don’t like it, don’t play it”. These are optional, but the mode you’re demanding to get added is not nor even counts at all.
AB/RB and SIm are necessary modes of basic requirements
“Historical Matchmaking” is not a requirement, and April Fools isn’t either not one of the modes I mentioned above is a requirement. So please by all means and I insist try to justify that HIstorical matchmaking is needed.
Everyone before you 365 days a year has said the same thing your not the first and never to be the last to bring this up and it will never be added. Gaijin made their stand on this and seems like even the Paid Volunteered(You get paid cause you deserve it, you deal with our and excuse my French “crap” all the time)Moderators(Thumbs up for your work) have seemed to relay the same message with you folks always ignoring it.
Before you think “I am defending Gaijin” I am not i do not agree with a lot of their decisions nor how they write articles and such which are almost always written in corporate English. Rather than straight-to-the-point blunt English on what the new mechanic or whatever means. However, that are also sometimes translation errors.
Got hidden despite it being relevant to someone else’s post they had made.
2 Likes
I might have said last year “OK do it then no problem”
Since then I have played Sweden and had a lot of fun with it. That is what means the most in War Thunder.
There are paths this game should have taken but it did not and we have to accept that.That is the answer to the OP and the perfectly acceptable question they ask.
The era mess is a mess no doubt but what is muddled is the fact that it is intentional.
Some people say the game was always like that from its inception others say no it was all WW2 at some point.
My point really is that if WT is so proud of the era situation, why do they always have same era vehicles in their adverts on a map related to that era.Why not an add showing the Tiger versus the M109 in Sun City or an A10 in WW2 on the Normandy 44 map?
If era means nothing then why not make a physics that gives the Tiger 2 200 mm armour at 6.7 but 400mm at 7.7 ? Why use historical fact when making tanks only to make the game a complete fantasy? Is that not madness pure and simple. You cannot even claim there is balance when 6.7 up tiers to 7.7 Etc ,it is debatable at best.
2 Likes
You’re again making assumptions. Get lost soon.
