This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
If you think there is something wrong with a vehicle or munition in game then you can bug report it here (just search a bit first so that you don’t report something that is already reported and known about): (Gaijin.net // Issues)
A guide on how to report bugs can be found here: ([Navigation] Technical Knowledge Base | War Thunder Wiki)
Please note the requirement for changes to vehicles and munitions:
Gaijin doesn’t “nerf”/“buff” things in the game in that sense.
4 Likes
they do nerf things artficially balance things at brs looks at F14 with no AIM-9M and no duel plane but they do it spratically and makes things worse
11 Likes
Although it’s a very situational feature (AOA), absence of Aim-9M is for balance purposes, in this case any weapon is added, modified or removed from a vehicle based on balance, this was been spoken about multiple times. Given that no F-14 is top tier, there’s no reason to give it top tier weapon, although A-10C as example can carry up to 4 Aim-9M, not equipped with such would create a unbalance for the vehicle itself and consequently it would be at lower battle rating, with all its feature would also create a unbalanced scenario for the planes it faces. This might not be noticeable, but it’s very much clear in air simulator battles whereas A-10C is not very uncommon to see.
F-14 with AIM-9Ms would be 13.3 in decompression. I’d much prefer F-14D be that and force Gaijin to finally admit 13.0 needs decompression. Cause if anything can make them realize that, it’s the F-14D being the same BR as the F-14B, OR the F-14B being a different BR to Su-27 and F-15A.
Dual plane isn’t a feature in-game, and hasn’t been changed thus isn’t a nerf.
1 Like
I wrote “in that sense”.
Giving or taking away munitions is one of the ways they can balance vehicles, reload rates is another, giving or not giving prototyped/trialed things is a third. But they don’t change vehicle or munition characteristics to “nerf” or “buff” thing in the game (at best maybe the absolute most modern things if there are no sources on what a characteristic should be then they might pick something balanced, but that’s just a guess from my side).
There is no need, completely balanced.
Especially when constantly seeing basic players going 1-1.5kd on top tier planes, but then MICA launchers KD is 3+
1 Like
My personal opinion is that I’m not a basic player. A friend of mine, a DCS master, taught me how to fly these aircraft. And while my hours aren’t enough, I think his 6,000 hours of combat time in DCS can surpass mine and some of the other players. He also mentions that the Mica missiles are unbalanced and overpowered. Of course, I don’t want them removed. But the problem is that either the power of these missiles should be balanced with other missiles—which would only upset the main French players who use these missiles—or the introduction of American-Russian missiles that would be comparable. One solution is to suggest solutions like the AIM-9M example in the same discussions. If there’s a missile in real life that the war machines of the two most powerful countries in the world can’t defeat, the problem isn’t the countries themselves, but the missile itself. In this equation, we’d be afraid of Rafale fighter jets instead of the F-22 and SU-57. Rafale pilots are afraid of dogfighting an F-22, F-16, or F-18. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Thank you.
1 Like
I hope you could smell sarcasm in my post.
2 Likes
Isn’t the MICA the only ARH that has a unique seeker? Either MICA should get the same generic seeker every other ARH missile gets, or other ARHs should get their unique seekers modeled.
If the AAM-3 got it’s duel channel seeker but all other missiles that have that did not people would be understandably upset.
Also this match maker doesn’t help, 14.0 max on enemy team and 6 rafs and an EFT on ours, maybe it’s time to split the French between both teams.
12 Likes
Most problem are :
-
every rb game there will be a furball and will finish at medium/ short distance where the MICA is designed for and will dominates other missiles in this area, if we could have map like this or the biggest EC map MICA would be less dominant.
-
Notch missile is simpliefied and very easy to do in war especially at long range, so it’s a minus for missile like 120’s
-
they should adjust the seeker of other missiles to the seeker of the MICA, actually the seeker of the Mica accurate as it should be IRL.
-
As Rafale main I can clearly said i’m not afraid of dogfighting any planes in the 14 around BR I even try to go for the dogfight but there is very few opportunities in ARB, and from my experience the F16C and F18 are the least dangerous 14.0 around for me to dogfight.
As far as i know your are technically correct in that MICAs seeker has some differences to the others, but honestly those differences are VERY few (but might be enough to make a difference, i don’t know).
Here is a player made spreadsheet (i have no idea of it’s validity) with all the missiles in the game and their characteristics:
" But they don’t change vehicle or munition characteristics to “nerf” or “buff” thing in the game"
-Brimstones.
-Sraam
-Original R77 drag at supersonic speeds.
-F5c getting weapons it never fielded and COUNTERMEASSURES it never had, then the Yak28 getting its fake countermeassures removed.
-etc.
4 Likes
None of that counters my answer.
I didn’t respond to other claims because they are all true.
“Giving or taking away munitions is one of the ways they can balance vehicles”
True,- Mig 29 getting r60m instead of r73
-Su34 gettings its Grom1 removed .
-Jas39a getting skyflashes it never used.
-Same thing with early 4th gen
“reload rates is another”
True, M1a2 getting 5 sec reload, hstvl, strv103, Chally 2, type 90, Sturmtiger :skull
giving or not giving prototyped/trialed things is a third.
True, basically all of the Yak 141. R73 missing, getting irst, hms etc.
A lot of top tier apfsds darts still not ingame.
(at best maybe the absolute most modern things if there are no sources on what a characteristic should be then they might pick something balanced, but that’s just a guess from my side).
Eeehhh, f117 and kh38mt full stop.
I still don’t understand your first post then.
A case of a mechanic not being in game yet. Same as the CV90 tracking for example. Or the New AKERON missiles nose camera that the gunner sees through and can manually aim with.
Don’t know what you are referring to with this one, i’m not as knowledgeable with that one.
If there is actual proof if that being wrong it shouldn’t be an issue to report it. It needs to be actual direct proof and not assumptions or player made calculations.
As said:
in my opinion even staying at 13.0 wouldn’t be that bad or wrong.
I mean, they do tho. The AMRAAM’s seeker and kinematic range vs both maneuvering and non-maneuvering targets have been bug reported with airtight primary sources and accepted, but gaijin has refused to buff them for whatever reason.
Theres also the more recent case of smokeless motors being nerfed to be more visible (defeating the purpose of them in the first place while also making the missiles look incredibly stupid in-game since the change).
IRIS-T SLM just had its seeker range dropped from 10km (which was already too low) to 4km (a MASSIVE nerf) with the devs outright lying about it by saying its to “improve its resistance to IRCM”, which is a total lie.
Witholding a buff or buffs from a missile is fundementally the same as nerfing it in the case of the 120’s, and in the case of the smokeless missile nerf and the IRIS-T SLM, gaijin has very much, and very recently, nerfed missiles directly with no actual source to back the nerf either.
The MICA and the Rafale are just gaijins favourite child, exception to all rules and exempt from all bug report scrutiny.
3 Likes
A report being accepted doesn’t mean it will get fixed right away. Many also mistake the “accepted as suggestion” as if it’s going to be fixed when in fact those that are accepted that way are not good enough to be straight forward fixes but can be used by the DEV’s together with other sources to maybe get a ballpark of what something should be. it’s often not enough on it’s own or is a thing that’s up to DEV discretion in the first place.
I have no idea about the reports on AMRAAM but you can always PM a Technical Moderator to ask if there are any updates to a reports progress.
That’s game convention though and not a specific munitions characteristic.
There are zero shown sources (and i have been helping quite a bit in the search for info about this missile) about when it sheds its nosecone. zero available information means that this:
Applies.
Unfortunatley this happens often, which leads to a prevalent ammount of half baked features.
I’m not saying that it’s a good idea to buff brimstones since it would be unparalleled, yet, they could be oversimplified and given some type of fire and forget capability, just like how ccip and ccrp gps bombs work in war thunder its oversimplified.
Other types of features or mechanics missing?
B66 radar turret gone, reduce to atoms.
Strv 103 dual engine layout? 1 Engine, take it or leave it.
Type 25 RCV (P) MASSIVE TELESCOPIC SIGHT? Engine limitations.
Regenerative steering? That’s too damn bad.
Apus? one of the main things about the Leo2a7 powerpack? No where to be seen.
Data link? Not here either.
TONS MORE TO LIST.
Gaijin does not accept bug reports based on data mines.
Just like how Spanish avenger has tried for YEARS to fix the type 90s steering gaijin doesn’t accept her bug reports since most of the innacurate information that she tries to point out come from datamines.
Like wise, the drag coeficient from the original r77 came from data mines so they were not accepted.
This is a big can of worms which i dont agree with in a lot of cases.
Challenger 3td still not in service same thing with the 2s38 but you can understand the desicion to a certain extent.
But these?:
For example Sweden has the Mi28, why? Because they trialed it
Same thing with the copy pasted wrong varient of the oplot for China vis Pakistan.
Makes no sense in my opinion.
And if you apply that line of reasoning then 90% of top tier would have BOL pods and other prototype munitions.
1 Like