It's time for Gaijin to finally reverse the ahistorical nerf to BOL countermeasures [Poll]

Dev Server "Leviathans" General Discussion - Dev Server
42

No, on the Harrier it was also annoying. It’s just that the Harrier is easier to lock down for a gun kill. Back when the Gripen was both a UFO and immune to all IR threats it was extremely annoying. Maybe it’s unreasonable to ask that missiles with IRCCM be capable of keeping track of a hot, high performance fighter engine even if they’re spamming flares from their ~500+ CM dispensers.

It’ll still be bad gameplay to just let BOL aircraft ignore any close range threat, just like the ridiculously overperforming L-370 system is also bad gameplay.

1 Like
43

Make BOL great again

3 Likes
44

It is potentially also worth considering that a multitude of advanced formulations do also exist for (some) other dispensers so it could be rolled into a wider push for (multi-) spectral flare functionality to be implemented. So it’s not as if non-BOL equipt airframes would be entirely left behind, if Gaijin went that way.

3 Likes
45

1280BOL countermeasures on the finnish MLU2 hornet:
(That thing is gonna be immune to IR missiles)

46

Oh my sweet summer child…It really wont be

47

Yeah. it might be.

But I still stand by what I said here

If the only issue with BOL being at full strength is the few aircraft with 4 or the even fewer that have 8. Then reduce their BOL count. Dont nerf all BOL even those with only 2.

Tornado F3 or Viggen DI with 2x BOL shouldnt suffer because the F-18 has 8x BOL or the Gripen has 4x BOL. Thats just unfair

4 Likes
48

in an air RB setting, I doubt it’s getting hit by an IR missile

49

I can tell you with near certainty it will, periodically dropping BOL flares will not save you

50

With full strength BOL… probably not, at least in rear aspect. It depends how they model it for front aspect.

With the current BOL, not if they stay sat on reheat, BOL wont work

51

Hmm… Wouldn’t that have an effect like the sun rising behind you? So the plane gets superimposed by the radiation of the IR-Cloud behind it from the view of the missile seeker.

Additionally this could also be the difference between full focal-plane-sensors (AIM-9X, ASRAAM) and line-scan sensors (IRIS-T) as the the IRIS-T can just ignore the scanned lines which are blinded by IR-radiation keeping only the few lines which actually show the plane. Same for standard flares as the IRIS-T would just ignore the few lines where the flare is falling preventing blinding of the other lines.

52

Voted NO.

Explanation:

Nah just dont. BOL pods should be as they are, as long as an R60M goes for flares in a rear-aspect shot, instead of a fully afteeburning jet even below like .8kms.

Once Flares are not just a “push to disarm any incoming missile” there is no real need to push older missiles into the category of useless.

The BOL pod wouldnt solve a problem, without creating 2 new problems, in a typical Gaijin style.

Also remember: many of the two top tier jets without their ARH missiles rely also on subpar IR missiles in TT before unlocking good ones.

1 Like
53

Problem with that mind set is many jets purposely now (Not Russian)

Have tiny internal CM stores and use BOL pods and protection systems to increase the number.

You should do a test and see how many BOL flares it takes to defeat an R-73?

6 Likes
54

R60M doesn’t go for BOL in a rear aspect shot. Heck against a harrier it doesn’t go for 8x regular flares, let alone BOL

2 Likes
55

How many flares out of the total how many should also be a factor.

Point is, that I did not put an absolutive no, but a circumstantial no.

Lower tiers, jets without good IR missiles would suffer.

Many times the BOL pods are an extra, not even a choice / option, they are an extra.

The point is at the moment BOL users suffer, which is not entirely true. You dont sacrifice a missile rack, or not necessarily. You can still totally create a screen of smoke and flares with BOL pods, but yes it is a lot harder to flare off a 73 than a 9M.

Buff the BOL pods, and everybody else would suffer, arguably.
-those without good IR missiles or good radar missiles are basically left to prey upon unsuspecting targets. Ive been doing that with a stealth Lazur set up (radar off, only 6x60MKs) and at times its a struggle. Jets flaring off a rear aspect missile within 800meters is stupid. Not even a blanket of flares, just one pop of flares. Same could be said about top-tierish vehicles who havent unlocked their better IR missiles, and either have bad IR missiles or too few.
-those with good IR missiles would arguably suffer less, but they would have a very limited flare arsenal compared to BOL users. If buffed, the same problem would apply as above, due to how heat signatures and seekers are programmed, in which case jets without BOL pods would suffer a lot more.

  • arguably the same could be applied to chaff, and radar missiles.

I support the change - as long as with it the larger system of heat signatures are reworked. Flaring/ chaffing off a missile should also include at least a minimum level of skill - arguably the 73 needs a lot more skill to be flared off, but its not totally impossible.

Currently, if you played lower BRs you will notice that its just a pop of flare that automatically mitigates an otherwise perfect missile launch, mind you I have noticed that the tornados with their countermeasure pods are much less likely to flare off even R-60MK than anything else, but it doesnt mean that they cant. Even then the proble. With those on Tornado is that they are out mounted far away, close to the wing tip.

Muiltipathing was nerfed for the exact same reason. It trivialized an aspect of the game.

Buff BOLpods, but then also buff missile flare-resistance in certain conditions, otherwise it upsets a balance between missiles and countermeasures.

1 Like
56

Wanted to say. I can’t remember when my last R-60M was going for flares in a rear-aspect shot. Exception being the enemy cutting afterburner and throttling down while popping flares and evading.
Side and front aspect on the other hand are quite hopeless as a single flare is enough to divert it. Even the R-73 get’s decoyed by a single flare in front aspect.

Edit:
Just had fun against an Su-27SM and a MiG-29 SMT in a turn fight in my F-16C. Every time they shot a R-73 I just cut the AB and popped four (standard) flares and the missile went haywire. All shots of them were side and above with an inclination to the rear (but far away from being exact rear). I just lost because a gun salvo hit my tail disabling the complete tail control.
Why the heck does the F-16 always loose its complete tail control if the rudder gets destroyed/ripped off? That makes no sense. They may be the same hydraulic circuit but they have fast shut-off valves preventing full hydraulic fluid loss and even if they would not, the fluid would have to be depleted first before you could not move your elevators anymore.

1 Like
57

Want me to send you replays, in which R-60MKs got flared off within 800 meters, with afterburners on?

Ive been grinding Germany with the Lazur M, my last couple hundreds of plays definetly has moments when it happened?

Or better even, just try to find my replays, Im sure you can search for replays, cause now you know my nickname.

1 Like
58

@MatrixRupture can you give you a replay of a r60m ignoring 8x flares fires rear aspect against a harrier at 3km

59

Unfortunately, i normally fire around 2.5kms or less, does that work?

Also sorry, cant exactly remember in which of it I played against a harrier, but we are talking about a large variety: Su-22s, Mig 21 variants, Phantoms, A-10s, F-104s… all of them flaring R-60MKs within a kilometer pal.

And also other times the missile just straight on ignored the flares within I think 400 meters, but thats a FOV thing. Good luck ever trying to get into 400 meters with an F-104. But thats another story. Front aspect in this case is a different story as well missile does not track right off the rail, and reaction times matter a lot.

60

Here ya go

@Morvran heres this one

6 Likes
61

Hell nah, let cas suffer

1 Like