So, you agree that the Harrier specific problems should first be resolved on Harrier level, before screwing up a very sensitive balance?
I stand by my point: the AMRAAM is the best mid and up ARH missile in the game - I have stated already, that I consider the R-77 a superior missile in close to mid ranges.
That assumes a position that the game shouldnt be balanced symmetrically, but asymmetrically.
BOL pods: they disturb that sensitive assymetric balance of the game by putting certain aircraft at a disadvantage, thus removing any semblance of balance, since at that point nothing can compete with the long-rage superiority of the Aim-120s we have in game, while opposing planes have to face a massive ton of flare and chaff before securing a kill?
I bet you have more CMs than Su-30 has missiles in that situation.
Unarguably BOL pods could be buffed - after they 1st rework how heat signatures work - and arguably some radars. There are radars that are capable of filtering through all the chaff in RL, and youd be surprised that this tech is not even very new tech, albeit newer techs do it even better. Heat signatures are extremelt borked, the Harrier is just as notorious an example, as the F-5s are.
After that, BOL pods could be buffed - but not to the level it once was.
A vast majority of aircraft wouldnt be a problem with their full strength BOL. Heck was the Harrier Gr7 that had just as many CMs as the Gripen considered OP even once in the 15 months it was in game bfore the Gripen was added?
F-18C might be with sheer volume.
Gripen A? Maybe in a downtier (though unlike before, you need chaff and its harder to pre-flare because of the reduced burn time that is actually accurate)
But everything. The other. 12-15? BOL carriers. Need BOL fixed. If those few outliers are too strong, reduce their BOL count, dont nerf BOL
You can say anything about the 120s, but thats part of the story. A lot depends on the carrying platform.
Objectively speaking, 120s are a generalist type of missile, although due to low G-load compared to others, it is perhaps better suited for ranges from mid to up, which is especially true considering their drag profile. I could talk about the R-77 for pages. But it has a lower effective range than the 120s, except when launched from a Hornet.
The thing is. those longer ranged shots where Aim-120 holds some advantage, are also the ranges in which any ARH, AMRAAM included, are the easiest to defeat. Meaning its generally better to wait until you are close, so that the missile has both more energy and the target has less time to react. At which point you are probably also firing from within range of an R-77-1 or MICA EM anyway.
AMRAAM were the best whilst people were getting used to defending against them and people were too use to defending via MP and MP alone. But these days? Its mid at best at longer ranges and one of the weakest at short ranges where most fights actualy occur. Its why Aim-120C5 should be such a major upgrade because it gives us ARH short range performance similar to the Mica and R-77-1
So denying BOL carriers better CMs just because some have AMRAAM is a bit unfair. Its like saying the Su-30SM should have regular sized CMs not Large CMs because it has 12x ARH missiles and a E-scan radar when most at top tier only have 4-6 ARH missiles and M-Scan radars.
The Hareier is an odd example here, for many other reasons and you know it as well - bugged heat signature, subsonic. Especially because of the latter, nobody really expects the world to be saved by a wing of harriers.
I found it to be an interesting niche role vehicle in GRB - as it can land and rearm on helipads, massively reducing travel time between FOB and AO, which is historic, and why the Harrier is so well-liked between USMC ranks.
The A-10s are similar in that fashion as well, as they can use less developed runways for take off, but not to the extent harriers could.
I would not necessarily bring a Harrier into ARB though, where everything else outranges it, and I admittedly dont care much about its ARB performance as much as its GRB performance.
For GRB…
Well against all these new fancy SAMs, pop-up attacks work miracles. Designated expected target area on the GRB map, pop up quick search, sneak around if you have to. Or fly outside of their WEZ - if enemy cant fire at you, you dont need BOL pods.
Even if you employ a 120 within 77-1 WEZ, the WEZ will lose more energy, making it easier to avoid. Those gridfins are extremely draggy, compared to 120s.
Even to a limited degree, defending against close ranged ARH shots in something like the Typhoon is almost impossible, BOL chaff is just that weak. (there might be concerns about BOL flares being too strong by mass-pre-flaring, but BOL Chaff also needs to be nerfed is really stupid)
Maybe the Gripen A would be too strong at 13.0 with 4x BOL. So just reduce it to 2. Gripen C is already pretty weak at 13.7 and full strength BOL would actually give it back an edge.
F-18C being added this major with 8x BOL could be too strong, but again, just reduce it to 4 or something to maintain balance. Dont nerf the Tornado F3s BOL just because the F-18C can carry 8 BOL. That is stupid. Its like saying the Mig-29SMT should be limited to only 4x AAMs because the Su-30SM can carry 14
Of all these aircraft, I only really have experience with Tomcat - I personally never had issues. Dumping 8 flares and chaff at once out of the plenty I have is a non-issue. Cut AB, obtain defensive posture.
I admit I was goofing around with the Phoenixes a lot though - the Sparrows are underwhelming compared to R-27s at that BR.
I never felt like I was playing an underwhelming aircraft, and I never felt like my life depended solely on the BOL pods and their effectiveness.
For that matter, the F-14B struggles, but its not because of the weakness of the BOL pods. Rather, its the fact that the opponents have access to better missiles, really forcing it to play extremely defensively. The Phoenix can be fun, and at times gets you a kill even in an uptier.
Its that the only missile useable at such a high BR is a missile that is doctrinally outdated, besides being the worst SARH missile.
The F-14B struggles from the same syndrome, the Me-262s do: too good for a lower BR, to bad for a higher BR.
Thats why most people play the F-14A, or the IRIAF Tomcat or the F/A-18A - a more forgiving BR for the capabilities of those aircraft.
As for the Harrier: not all planes have to be good at ARB. If I have a plane that fills a niche role, or it is good in GRB whereas struggling in ARB, Im still okay with that - I can still have fun with it.
Tornados… well. Iconic, and underwhelming, suffers the same problems that say the Mig-21s can suffer from: the ADVs/ Fighters were always more interceptors than air superiority fighters, and their main target is missing. Dont get me wrong I still find enjoyment from my Mig-21s.
The Tomcat with the BOL POD Buffed would actually cause a dilemma - its CM count with so strong CMs would outright make it go up in BR as it would be an aircraft that vastly outperforms most others at that BR.
But it doesnt have anything in the weapon loadout that would make it viable at higher BRs - especially after a BOL pod buff.
So the BOL pod buff, would also nerf several BOL pod carrying aircraft, as there would be a valid argument for putting them at higher BR - the strength of BOL pods.
Now the F-14B Tomcat can face… F-4E? “Early” Mig-29s, Su-27s. The F-4s in this case would have truly subpar weapons, especially considering the stronger BOL pods.
Pushing those aircraft to a lower BR would cause more issues for lower BRs.
Out of all these aircraft, only the Flanker would have enough missiles to burn through the countermeasures count of a Tomcat - although if a single pop of 2 flares / chaff is enough to fool any incoming missile, than not even a flanker.
I think the top-tiers are decompressed enough.
First spawn CAS - so you just want to curbstomp players without any challenge? Or in that case, everybody would start as CAS - meaning that there is no need to grind / play ground war thunder.
Well. If im not allowed to play the Harrier Gr7 in ARB/ASB because its too weak with the nerfed BOL. Then the only place I can play it is GRB. Then I want to be able to play it without having to spawn the crappy tanks first.
There are gamemodes other than GRB btw. Just because you can use an aircraft in GRB. Doesnt mean it only can be used in GRB.
Would stronger / buffed BOL pods help the harrier?
If you die to AI, its on you.(even if AI in sim is borked).
If a player wants you dead, BOL pods wont help. You are flying a subsonic ground attacker.
Crappy tank? Whats your problem with them?
If you dont want to play GRB, than dont - there is non reason to suggest ideas that would make it worse for GRB players.
For other purposes, why would you bring a ground attackern/ bomber into Air battles, a scene which has been dominated by fighters for years now? Thats a generic problem though, totally unrelated to the BOL pods though. I understand - at times I play CAS in ARB too to chill - but then again why?
Yes. It would actually mean that the Harrier Gr7s 12.3 BR was actually warranted. If not it should be 12.0.
Sea Harrier FA2 is 13.0. Hard to justify it being even 12.7 at the moment.
Hu?
There are enemy player aircraft in Sim too…
They would mean you could actually flare an incoming IR missile and then you could dogfight them. At the moment, good luck flaring an R-60M, let alone an R-73.
So aircraft, with 0 CAS ability (like the Tornado F3), must be artifiically nerfed to the point of being nearly unplayable in Air only modes because other CAS aircraft are too strong in GRB?
That is litereally the most stupid argument I have ever heard.
Because there are ground target?
In Air Sim. the battles are more often than not won or lost by the ground attackers, not the fighters…
And why should aircraft only be playable in GRB? Why should should a mudmover like the Harrier Gr7 or Tornado Gr4 be artificially nerfed in ARB?
People say all the time “if you want to play aircraft, play it in the air modes” and yet im now being told not to play an aircraft in air modes and only play them in GRB? (which then leads me back to my early point. If the I can only play an aircraft in GRB, then I should be able to play it without playing tanks first)
and again. Doesnt address pure fighters like the Viggen D/Di, Tornado F3/F3 Late or Sea Harrier FA2.
(though for the record. Harrier Gr7 is an excellent fighter in ARB/ASB, even with all the nerfs it has to carry)
The tornados have been bad since introduction in WT. The F3 late is overtiered even, not necessarily because of BOL pods - see F-4F Ice also struggles. An old airframe, with modern weapons. They are both closer to 3rd gen than 4th gen, even at best they are gen 3.5.
That is made worse by the fact that they are NOT air superiority fighters. They are interceptors (Mig 21, 23, 29 are also, the 29 had ASF features as well, the 23s FM is vastly overperforming, and this I admit). Mind you: the Tornado fighters were long range interceptors or strike-interdictors. Their primary targets are missing from the game, although the Su-24M makes for an interesting case here.)
The Harrier you mentioned : you acknowledged they have a borked heat signature, something that could be fixed by… fixing the harrier 1st, and then see if that helps it without the BOL pods.
The harrier as a fighter. It is subsonic. It would probably fare well as a dogfighter, but at a BR where BVR already starts to take shape.
The Viggen - another gen 3 jet.
Btw it does very well even without BOL pods I see it flaring off missiles.
The DI is… another problematic jet - its overtiered but not because of the BOL pods.
About Sim: I cant help. I have no experience but I have a feeling that even if the BOL pods were buffed youd have eaten those R60s.