That makes sense tbh, but it’s not “bad” like he said. In downtiers the fm is fine, only having real trouble against dogfight powerhouses like the MiG-19 and Ariete
https://youtube.com/shorts/pTmTKKA4hlo?si=-ikYsDBx0S1DDU5-
Taking out 11.7 Mig23s with Aim9Bs is pretty funny ngl. I would quit too
1 Like
Sometimes people just forget to look back, so anything will hit xD
Vehicle classification in WT is very inconsistent and does NOT reflect real classification/usage very well.
The Milan was designed as an attack version of the Mirage III specifically for Switzerland, which already used IIIS fighters and IIIRS recce aircraft at that time, but then decided to go for the A-7, which we then actually also didn’t purchase.
Adjusting the armament of a vehicle only so it fits the arbitrary classification in WT in my eyes makes no sense, and whoever flies the Milan as a fighter brought his suffering upon himself.
2 Likes
War Thunder itself classifies the Milan as a Fighter and matches it against aircraft with vastly superior air-to-air capability. If the game chooses to treat it as a fighter in terms of matchmaking and classification, then its performance and armament should be balanced accordingly.
Debating what the aircraft was originally intended to do in real life is pointless in a game that constantly alters BRs, roles, loadouts, flight models, and survivability for balance purposes. War Thunder is clearly designed around gameplay balance first, not strict historical accuracy. So trying to hide behind “historical role” arguments in a game that constantly buffs, nerfs and balances aircraft purely for gameplay reasons is honestly comical.
I’ve already said this multiple times, and nobody has actually answered it. How can anyone seriously appeal to an aircraft’s historical role in a game where an A-10 is regularly shooting down aircraft like the MiG-19 with AIM-9Ls? At that point, pretending War Thunder follows strict historical doctrine becomes absurd.
Because everyone is just confused why you keep insisting on making Milan A2A fighter. It was a strike aircraft, in game its balanced around its historical A2G strike capability, apparent by having larger A2G payload and weapon selection than fighter of comparable BR.
A-10 comparison falls short because unlike Milan it doesnt have speed to actually reach its targets or be competent in self-defense role, hence it gets 9L, similiarly to Su25 getting R-60Ms.
The gama balance is already applied.
If you wanted a fighter you shouldve bought a fighter premium.
2 Likes
It’s funny how you deliberately left out this last sentence and only quoted the part that suits you.
Somenone like you, who can defend the AIM-9L against the MiG-19 in one argument and then, in the same breath, justify his position by citing the historical purpose of the Milan, is a clown whose opinions have no credibility whatsoever.
Since you didn’t seem to understand their point, what they were saying is the A-10 gets 9L because it’s too slow to be viable otherwise. 9L is a survival necessity. The Milan is supersonic, it can dash through the map to get targets, that’s what lets it survive. Of course the 9L against a 9.3 isn’t fine, but that’s pure compression and it’s that way in every rank.
Also calling someone a clown gives you no credibility whatsoever. Remain respectful or leave the debate
1 Like
lmao.
Yet i will wake up tommorow and nothing will change about Milan.
You on the other hand, have yet to gain any significant traction for your cause.
Have fun.
1 Like
By the way @stanislavek1 now that the Milan is available again I test flew it and it confirmed what the stats told me: I felt absolutely no difference with the tech tree Mirages, it’s literally the same thing but with a different loadout. I have no idea where you and your youtuber pull the difference from but it’s either negligible or purely fictional.
And that brings back my point, if I was doing fine at 10.0 with my stock Mirage (only 9B) then you can absolutely do fine at 9.7 with what is essentially a stock Mirage IIIC
1 Like
You’re not actually addressing the contradiction in what was said.
If the A-10 “needs” AIM-9L to be viable because of its speed disadvantage, then you are explicitly arguing that balance tools should override historical fit and role limitations. Fine, that is a valid gameplay argument.
But then you cannot immediately switch and use the Milan’s historical purpose as a justification for its poor air-to-air performance. That’s applying two different standards depending on which vehicle you’re defending. Either gameplay balance defines the performance of aircraft, or historical role does. You can’t use both selectively when it suits your argument.
And as for “respect”: pointing out inconsistent logic is not disrespectful. Calling it out is part of a debate. When someone uses ridiculous arguments, they come across as a clown. Anyway, next time I won’t call anyone a clown and I’ll just describe it with plenty of elaborate wording instead.
I am. The Milan doesn’t need Magic 1.
The A-10 used AIM-9L historically though?
There was no switch here, the A-10 having 9L is fully valid (well balance-wise it can be a problem but that’s purely compression).
Here there are in fact 3 reasons for the Milan to be limited to 9B: historical use; balance (it has speed, that’s enough for it); variety (the Mirage IIIC and 5F already exist, the Milan exists partly to be a Mirage “early” and it’s fine in that role). Giving it Magic would mean breaking two of the points.
Calling someone a clown is pure disrespect. I don’t see what kind of ambiguity even exists here
Just because you don’t agree with someone doesn’t mean they are a clown and doesn’t give you the right to insult them.
Well that’s better I guess
Whether the A-10 historically used AIM-9L is not the point. The argument was explicitly about “necessity for viability in-game”, which is a balance justification, not a historical one.
And that’s exactly where the inconsistency appears again. You’re mixing three different frameworks at once - historical usage, gameplay balance, and “variety” and treating them as equally valid depending on what conclusion you want to reach.
If balance is the primary driver (as the A-10 example implies), then historical constraints and “variety” are not decisive arguments. If historical role and lineup variety are decisive, then the A-10 AIM-9L justification becomes invalid under the same logic.
You can’t selectively switch between these frameworks to justify opposite outcomes. That’s the contradiction being pointed out.
Oh gosh, then what is the argument? If you acknowledge that the A-10 and the Milan both have what they historically had, why did you bring up this comparison while talking about historical accuracy?
Did you read anything I said? The A-10 needs good missiles, it used these good missiles historically and they let it fill the right role in game. It’s fine.
The Milan doesn’t need good missiles because of its excellent speed. What else is 9.7 with better speed AND missiles? It also didn’t use the better missiles historically, so that isn’t a reason either. And giving it the better missiles would also remove its entire purpose as a lower BR Mirage 5.
The Milan is not a balance concern, it may be mid but it’s certainly not garbage.
The A-10 used 9L historically so I still don’t know what you mean in the second point.
And the third stands despite your apparent inability to understand it, the armament is commonly used as a tool to create variants at different BRs. The Milan is there to be a 9.7 Mirage 5, and that’s mostly why it’s in the game
Again, I never switched. Did you read any of what I said?
The A-10 is a very slow aircraft, that without Aim-9Ls would probably be more appropriate down at or around 9.3? There is actually an argument from some that this is where it should be with Aim-9Gs, but it was also one of the first to get Aim-9Ls and so was placed higher. There is certainly a compression issue where you have Aim-9Ls vs flare-less aircraft, but compression overlaps happen in a lot of places, so its not really unique.
Though even when looking at the A-10As, there is ahistorical loadouts for the purposes of BR placement, the Premium version is limited to only 2x Aim-9Ls so it can be 10.3 instead of 10.7 where the TT A-10A sits with 4x Aim-9Ls, there is no reason for this difference other than Gaijin chose it.
With the Milan, it could have Magic 1s (if it did actually use them, it probably did) which would increase its BR to 10.0 alongside the Mirage IIICs, but im of the opinion that for a ground attack aircraft, a lower BR is always preferrable to better A2A weapons. Milan is first and foremost a ground attack aircraft.
I have just purchased the Milan in the recent sale, and whilst ive not had a chance to take it out yet, I think I would personally prefer it retain its current BR over a BR increase for now. I would hold off on any changes until:
-
A meaningful level of decompression occurs, especially sub 10.0 which never happened, we only had 10.0+ partially decompressed
-
Better A2G gameplay within ARB and ASB. I’m hoping this might even come this major update if ARM do make an appearance.
TLDR: Milan has Aim-9Bs because Gaijin want it at 9.7 and unless you can both convince them otherwise and rally meaninful community support for the change… its probably not gunna happen. So I would focus on making the game better for the Milan, like decompression and ARB overhaul
1 Like
This sentence is gonna trigger the same reply he has been pulling since the creation of this topic xD
Aka “the in-game role is fighter so it must be a good fighter” (nevermind the MiG-27 and the Mirage 5 btw)
2 Likes
Hot take? but attackers at minimum should be on par with fighters in A2A combat at their BR as Gaijin has not added meaningful gameplay for them in ARB otherwise. For the Milan specifically any BR increase would hurt it as it would face much more powerful missiles more often, but it also shouldn’t be decreased too.
1 Like
I disagree because to get many on-par with a fighter, it would often require making it boarderline OP. Moving away from usual points of conversation on this like the Tornado, and instead looking at something like the Buc S2, it just gets really really messy. (let alone something like a Buc S1)
The problem is expecting ground attackers to be on par fighters in the first place. Square peg, round hole.
Dropping the BR down, or giving big buffs interms of weapons is just making the hammer bigger to force said square peg into said round hole. The only viable long term solution is just to add a square hole (an actual purpose to a ground attacker in ARB). That way, they dont actually have to compete against fighters in a role they werent meant to compete in
This I agree with though. Magic 1s wouldnt be unreasonable, but it would end up at 10.0 and the net outcome might not be advantageous
3 Likes
Honestly nah, what attackers need is a proper gamemode. A lot of them are really interesting to use as fighters, but the rest of them are imo not possible to get in a good state on that matter, they need a proper gamemode to do their role
1 Like
Milan with magics would be a nearly exact copy of the Mirage 5F, only difference would be the gimmick canards (not sure what they even do, I think they increase aoa?).
At 9.7 it’s at least unique