Yeah lets ruin those 11.3 thats great! /s
it would not be staying at 12.7 with 9Ms
To preface: I acknowledge all of your concerns and love that you spoke your mind in that post, Khorne.
I have my own concerns with the post as well as agreements.
1- The tech tree 12.7s are at least as good as the premiums, and 1 - 2 of the 12.3 tech tree vehicles are as good as the Netz at the least. Not pay to win.
2- F-18C is the 3rd best airframe with among the best missile kit. That’s not worse than the competition. Or is your post referencing Su-30SM?
3- Brimstones don’t have IR channels. IR AGMs being OP is an issue that new SPAA will alleviate.
I am anticipating when Type 81 gets a search radar datalink as a off the top of my head example.
4- Why would SPAA be nerfed when it’s already useless at destroying weapon carriers?
All ten tech trees need SPAA better than Pantsir IMO.
5- ? F-18C being 14.0 is a strong indication they’re using vehicle and weapon specifications for balancing as the primary method.
6- ? Stormer AD is a slightly better LAV AD due to being tracked instead of wheeled. Why does USA and Britain have an alleged tax cause the ADs are 10.0?
IDK if they’re bad at 10.0 as I’ve been using the LAV AD on and off, but if you think they’re bad for 10.0 I’d love to read your explanation, sir. Especially since 9.7 CAS has a ~4km range usually.
7- Probably an issue.
8- Compression means to reduce the volume while having the same material; in the context of the BR system that would be changing 1.0 - 14.0 to 1.0 </=13.7.
The movement of BRs causing power creep at lower BRs is an issue that I want them to address. Bad BR placement is not helpful for the playerbase.
9- We haven’t had CAS capabilities that exceed existing SPAA capabilities since 2022; all CAS added has continued being OP and SPAA never caught up.
SPAA needs to catch up IMO.
10- Maybe an issue that I can acknowledge.
1 Like
Even now that planes like the JAS39 and J-10A also have the funny button?
1 Like
Yes, the F-18C accelerates faster than a Gripen while retaining similar energy. J-10A hasn’t been fully tested on accelerations, but its energy retention is worse than the Gripen and F-18C.
F-18C also has a superior radar to J-10, and a superior weapons kit.
No, it’s not the fastest in top speed, and it’s not the only one; however matches are more than top speed.
The F-18A at 12.3 is blatantly OP though, it easily takes the reins from F-16A and EJ Kai, which are themselves still OP for 12.3; the 12.3 powercreep is getting annoying.
The Gripen has an incredibly easy time handling the F-18 in a dogfight, the energy retention isn’t comparable in the slightest.
F-18C energy retention at minimum fuel: ~20.3 degrees per second measured at 550kph.
Gripen energy retention at minimum fuel: ~20.4 degrees per second measured at 550kph.
Gripen energy retention at 400kph is ~18.3 deg/sec.
And in the dogfights, the Gripen was almost tied with the F-18C having slight advantage in results.
F-18C vs Rafale, Rafale had more results than F-18C, but it wasn’t guaranteed wins for Rafale.
F-18C vs Typhoon went as expected.
Maybe Gaijin thinks Python 3 outside JPN TT has IRCCM. /s
If armed with Python 3, guaranteed ticket for being overrated.
only Thailand F-5 seems exceptional.
Maybe Grumman fanboying of Gaijin beats Python hating?
4 Likes
The 20deg/s on the F-18C is at speeds that the gripen will enjoy 23.5 deg/s. And if the hornet tries to rate fight at that speed the gripen can just beat it in the 1C comfortably. The slowest the fight gets, the more advantage the gripen will have.
All the gripen needs to do is to force the F-18 in the vertical once or twice, and then it’s an easy kill
I wonder if they will give the AOA limiter the option to only turn off when held and not toggled. I feel like it would be a nice feature mainly for air sim
1 Like
Yes but they still cant pull Cobra’s lmao
To explain some of my points
click here for many words
1- I was referring to the fact that the coming Netz and for example the F-4S before they standardized the features on the Phantoms ingame are flat out upgrades over their “free” counterparts in some aspects without being worse in others.
2- is about the Harrier T.10 vs the AV-8B (NA) (and the Su-25T/39 to a certain degree)
3- well, the thing is that Brimstone 1s weren’t laser guided either. Gaijin could have made them IR homing or given them a TV seeker and it would have been just as much of a fantasy fiesta as it is now.
This is more about Gaijin adding the Kh-38MT, acknowledging that certain CAS weapons are too powerful for the game, but then refusing to get rid of the biggest offender (the Kh-38ML should be enough)
4- the fact of the matter is that the Pantsir is both a CIWS and a SAM with more range than any other nation currently has. They haven’t adressed this imbalance ever since the Pantsir was introduced even though a nerf was warranted for the longest time.
Giving everyone something comparable or even better than the Pantsir would be better than nerfing the Pantsir, of course
5- yes, initial BRs are determined by specs, but for adjustments afterwards the specs seemingly are irrelevant
6- I based this mostly on the fact that the Gerpard 1A2 is 9.7 using the same Stingers, while being much better at defending itself and that the LAV-AD has access to the Hydra pod, making it a great multi purpose vehicle. Sure, the having tracks gives an agility advantage, but in terms of overall mobility I am fairly certain that agility vs speed (and being amphibious, even if that is extremely niche) is a somewhat fair trade.
I’m not saying either of them is bad, rather that I can see more of a reason for the LAV-AD to be 10.0 than for the Stormer AD.
8- I know it isn’t overall compression, but moving certain vehicles down in BR increases the compression in certain BR ranges. If there is a better word to be using here I would welcome a suggestion.
Your point here is true as well though, power creep is a growing issue as well.
9- yes, SPAA needs to catch up, but pushing the ground BRs of every top tier plane down to 12.7 seems like a very poor decision to me.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. Even though people seem to disagree with you a lot, I still value your input.
Spoiler
It’s almost like everyone is allowed to have an opinion and others don’t have to agree with it, hey
edit: added a spoiler to make the reply smaller lol
2 Likes
Of course they can’t lol
Doesn’t matter that they were the first ones to pull it off ;)
I saw an opportunity to test my ability to respond tactfully to see if I could, and I’m glad it seems to have worked.
I appreciate your explanations, so thank you.
It’s good to read the reasoning behind your thoughts.
1 Like
But it would lose 2 7P to balance it out
Early version did use avionics from the lavi and im pretty sure the radar as well
F/A-18A would be better at 12.7 with 6+2 or 4+6, since half the planes in 12.3 are CAS aircrafts who does not have a clue of what is energy fighting or what is a SARH(GR.7, GR.4, JH-7A, K2K), or fighters at least half a generation behind(EJK, F-20A), the only two that can put up a fight then has to rely on their missiles(BISON, M2KCS4) and getting their better missile off first
Eh, C early could lose 2 AIM-7P and replace 9L with 9M and be fine
The F/A-18C Early should receive 9Ms and then move to 13.0 really, it would be the closest US counterpart to the SU-27, not that it is particularly close, but that high missile quantity, high AoA, low T/W and lower speed, platform would be interesting to see for the US at 13.0
1 Like
If it loses the 2 aim-7p it could get 9m and stay 12.7 though I think