Ah yes, insult the man that has played every vehicle you & I are talking about rather than learning something new.
1 Like
Your definition of ‘insult’ is really interesting tbh.
Btw you didnt played ever single vehicle in this game so stop lying please. You dont have F5C so how can you even claim that you even played that plane in the first place?
Not to mention Just because you played with something doesnt automatically means you’re the most experienced person when it comes that vehicle and judging your service record you’re certainly not my friend.
And i cant learn from someone who hasnt experienced certain vehicles while i did.
3 Likes
Cause I’ve test flown the F-5C for 2 hours, and played its infinitely superior younger brother: F-5E.
I’ve also faced hundreds of F-5Cs using Mirage 3, Mig-21, AJ37, etc.
1 Like
İ also tested F4S countless time, does that make me experienced with F4S? Of course not.
İ also faced Mirage F1 countless time in my other planes while i didnt flew with my Mirage F1 once, does that make me fully experienced pilot on Mirage F1? Once again it doesnt.
So if you dont own a vehicle dont act like you know it compeletly and next time dont lie about owning a vehicle if you dont have it in the first place.
2 Likes
No one lied about owning vehicles.
1 Like
Yes you did.
You claimed you played with every single vehicle in this game while you dont even have F5C in the first place.
Oh btw test driving a vehicle doesnt count as playing regularly.
Careful what you are writing next time.
2 Likes
I never said “in the game”.
And you changed your claim. You went from claiming I “own” vehicles to “play” vehicles.
Keep your claims consistent.
1 Like
Now you’re the one who’s playing with claims.
İn order to play with a vehicle you need to own it in the first place, since you dont own F5C all you can do is test driving which is not equal to playing with that vehicle.
There is a reason Gaijin calls that test drive not test play.
Try not to lower yourself next time.
2 Likes
Test driving gives me all the data necessary to its airframe performance.
And its guns & missiles are on other aircraft.
Which is why I never bought it, cause I didn’t care for an aircraft with its airframe performance when I have its missiles & guns on other aircraft.
Getting data for a certain vehicle before playing is something, playing with same vehicle is something.
You might have technical data but you never put them into practice in the first place.
Once again you’re playing with your words.
1 Like
I did put them into practice: Using Mirage 3C & 3E, jets that play rather identically to meta F-5C use while being faster [that can pull alpha if you really want to], and I won against every F-14A when they were still 11.3.
1 Like
Not the Same vehicle which doesnt apply what we are talking.
And just because you beat unexperienced Tomcat pilots doesnt mean Those vehicles are superior to Tomcat.
Your argument points are really weird tbh.
1 Like
Which is why I’m not a fan of aircraft being balanced based on efficiency. I think it’s not truly fair, if people suck they can continue to suck but stop reducing BR for vehicles that aren’t performing as well or giving them better ordinance to compensate. Vehicles should be balanced based on capabilities and performance of the vehicle itself. Players will learn and adjust their playstyle or improve sufficiently to use the vehicle better if needed.
Also due to this, any results you’re getting from random battles is pretty meaningless currently.
1 Like
No one claimed it was better than the Tomcat. Not sure why you brought that up TBH.
Especially since this is about Aim-9Ls and GR1A, which would make it 11.0 regardless.
Which is why I make direct comparisons of vehicles, and don’t use random battles.
Once again you’re the one who brought Tomcat into this discussion by telling how you beat it with Mirage series (which is pointless tbh).
Like said if you dont like it dont bring it.
Edit: Next time make your explanations more clear. İf you told me you had your experience with F5C by gathering data in test drive instead of telling me you actually played it, this conversation could have ended much sooner.
1 Like
With a full bomb load, its transonic, with no bomb load, then it can hit around mach 1.05. But it has poor energy retention and poor acceleration. Takes a while to get up to that speed
2 Likes
Well yeah, that goes for most aircraft with that wing & engine type.
Jag isn’t a mach 2 jet, but so are a lot of jets at 10.3.
Which is why I prefer Jag at 10.3, cause if it was given 9Ls it’d be useless in ground, and less ideal in air due to the new BR.
Begging for weapons is something that annoys me cause people don’t understand the consequences in a war game simulator that balances based on maximum weapon loads [which I do not want to change].
Plus you have to decide on fuel load.
20 mins is a lot lighter but those engines vacuum out fuel. 30 usually gives you enough to stay in the fight longer - especially now they fixed 30mms and they are lethal.
This is where the problem begins.
Adding Aim9L will not increase Jaguar’s ground rb effectiveness but rather will increase air rb efficiency depending on how playerbase will perform.
Gaijin can simply give Aim9L’s to Jaguar and wait for to see how good will it be before putting into higher br. After that they can either increase it br or they can simply remove Aim9L from its loadout by asking community.
I think maybe the best option would be to give it 9Ls but only allow their use if you get uptiered to 11.3. If you got your own BR or lower it locks you to 9Gs.
This keeps it fair at 10.3 but if you have to fight more advanced jets you get an advanced missile to shoot at them with.