No changes, still sucks. Datamine shows it’s getting improved SPO-150 RWR tho
3 Likes
weird I thought SPO-150 was only for the 9-19R, maybe this means its being converted to a 9-19R so we can also get the extra CMs?
let’s hope so.
Apologies they mentioned something about the 23 and I was tired and forgot what the thread was about
Said multiple times, it’s not a question of if it was used at some point in the service history, it’s a question of if it’s relevant to the representation of the period of service the vehicle best represents considering other variants and the aircraft’s historical relevance. The relevance of the MiG-23M is in the early-mid 70s and armament should represent that. The late 70s/early 80s loadouts are best given to late 70s/early 80s MiG-23s. Also the reason I object so strongly to the choices regarding the MiG-29A’s armament; yes, it could technically carry R-27ERs, but it didn’t in Soviet service, and as the representative of the Soviet MiG-29, it should be armed as it was in the period that makes it distinct from Russian Federation MiG-29s; without R-27Es and with R-73s, not with both or without R-73s.
1 Like
I feel MiG-29S would be the best MiG-29 to have added in general; Soviet and Russian are both represented and both get skins, gets everything up to R-77s when they’re added, it’s lighter than SMT, it’s just the most versatile variant in terms of who it’d satisfy.
1 Like
Gaijin doesn’t add or balance vehicles this way. Just wishlisting…
2 Likes
there is a Mig-29SMT (9-18) with 9-12 planer. And N010M radar. But it’s stil spo 15 and only 6 aam.
Best MiGs29 it’s MiG-29M (9-15) and modern (9-61/67) and MiG-29K (9-31) / MiG-29K/KUB (9-41/47)
Best planer, up to 8 missiles/6 agm. T-pod, powerful engine, L-150 RWR
9-41S
hope they give it its real life 56 additional large caliber countermeasures
1 Like
They should.
Currently SMT is the only Export version without any domestic capabilites with less survivability compare to F-16C or Barak-2.
Adding 51 Large caliber countermeasure will boost its survivability a lot.
Moreover, it is possible only to a certain extent (if ever). In this way, even the MiG-21bis (design from 1972) would lose the R-60M, and practically we would then have no fighter aircraft on BR 11.0. So I don’t think it’s a good idea. I personally hold the opinion of all the armament that the given aircraft historically carried + minor adjustments from the point of view of balance.
The ideal solution would be for an aircraft to have every armament it had and, based on the armament you choose, you get assigned a different br.
Eg: mig23mld would stay 11.3, but get assigned 12.0 if you carry r-73.
In general there should be an aircraft br and a particular AA missile minimum br. The higher br between the 2 is the br you will have in the matchmaker
2 Likes
MiG-29SMT — the RWR has been replaced with the L-150 system.
2 Likes
And still no extra CM. Shame
3 Likes
I don’t really like being forced to use R-60Ms on the 21Bis, I’d prefer playing it in a 70s spec at 10.7. That being said there’s no other variant (outside of 21ST, I guess?) that would be able to carry its end-of-life loadouts so I’m not as mad about this one.
Also not really representing what I said very well with that. I said that the loadouts of an aircraft should fit both a gameplay niche, and also try their best to be relevant to the period of service in which the model is distinct from other models of that aircraft. A good example of this being done in a way I like is the F-14A Early, which, using 7Fs and 9Hs, represents the F-14A’s early production run quite well in terms of historical narrative. But it could carry 9Ls and 9Ms, and indeed did, but if it got those, it would render it redundant with later F-14s that get the same weapons but are better in every possible way. It’s also for this reason I think the F-16A ADF should get AIM-9Ms, while the basic F-16A is good sticking with 9Ls. When a characteristic of the loadout would both affect the vehicle’s gameplay niche positively as well as making it more relevant to the historical period it is unique to relative to other variants, I think that characteristic should prevail over earlier or later representations of the loadout. With the current model, which works on much more arbitrary terms, we instead get very samey loadouts for very different aircraft models and the clustering of those aircraft at BRs they lose any semblance of being interesting relative to the competition at, to make sure it’s not unbalanced from its weaponry, when it was given that weaponry for no good reason.
Modelling the pods will take a little bit longer, this is just an internal config edit.
That’s assuming they even plan to though.
60CMs with invisible 9Ms is literally not enough to dodge even 1 F-16C spamming missiles at you
1 Like
I don’t disagree