All good, just wanted to bring your attention to it, sorry if I came off a bit cross.
Personally, I don’t think AASM Hammer should be added, nor do i think Kh-38M should remain as a weapon that can be used in GFRB. Weapons that not only outrange everything currently in-game, but everything that could be player controlled in the future as well should not be added to GFRB, it just makes ground players unwilling victims and is bad for gameplay imo.
That being said, I can understand the complaints of russians having a standoff weapon like the Kh-38 while nobody else does.
The issue is not that the weapons outrange any system it’s that the render distance at whicch you can lock on a target is 20km. At this distance only the pantsir is able to hit. At the same time the only nations that have a 20km+ weapon that is sure of hitting as such distances is… Russia and soon UK with Brimstones but Russians have FnF weapons for those ranges while brimstones are laser guided. S obasically the issue lies in the fact the only AA that can intercept long range AGM users is Russian and the best AGM is Russian at the same time. The real solution to this problem would be to increase player vehicles render distance but also add multi vehicles AA systems able to hit at long ranges. But in any way AA VS planes is going to be incredibly hard to balance in top tier.
Would 2 MICA IR combined with a gunpod really be as gamebreaking as people make them out to be?
Many of the modern missiles were having issues upon introduction or were either nerfed or buffed after a while.
At 13.7 2 MICA IR should be acceptable. There likely is some leeway regarding it’s specifications, due to classified information anyway.
MICA IR is a step above the Python 4, and the Python 4 isnt even in-game yet. Combine one of the best airframes with one of the best avionics packages with the best IR missiles in-game, its pretty obvious itd be busted, though limited in its missile count.
Effectively just 2 free kills when in range, and unlike the IRIS-T (w/ analogue bus limitations only) i have advocated for on the F-4F KWS LV (to make it a viable top tier instead of the balancing nightmare it is atm), the MICA IR would have more range and a much larger launch envelope, with over the shoulder shots being possible unless gaijin significantly nerfs the MICA IR.
MICA-IR launch range for 2000D RMV will be limited by seeker lock range, at least because I didn’t find any information about Antelope-50 having datalink
In game it would effectively be a improved R-27T.
ET already might have more range. Depending how certain IR or radar guided missiles are being launched you are left without a chance to defend against them already anyway.
SU-34 will be able to carry 6 R-27ET.
Regarding 180° launches it would depend on the avionics available on Mirage 2000D RMV.
Would MICA not be a long range Magic II in game?
They only just fixed the wobbling off R-73 didn’t they?
Kfir with Derby/Darter and Python 4 would also be a good first implementation of a relatively modern IR guided missile though some seem to think it is overestimated.
Mirage 2000D RMV would be limited by having to carry a gunpod while only being able to carry 2 MICA IR of course. Adding MICA IR on a 2000D exclusively first would certainly be a reasonable entry even if that ends up being multiple patches in the future.
Remembering how Magic 2 performed on the stockgrind of Mirage F.1CT…
It used to be a guaranteed kill even during a headon if the launch range was not to high.
AIM-9M also was busted when it had been newly introduced.
from the bug report about the mirage 2000 rmv it is in use by it, so yeah i guess that is why those two gbu has been added since gbu 50 can also be used. Community Bug Reporting System
