I don’t think it should be limited to only the very top tier aircraft to get stuff like this. If it can carry them then it should get them, BUT make the modifications for them increase the vehicle’s BR. So something like a 9X mod would have something like +1 BR or however much is necessary. That way there’s no massive BR gaps since you can just uninstall the mod and go back to the previous BR but lose access to the 9X and there’s no need to just get another F-16C or something which the only difference is it’s missiles for 400k+RP.
2 Likes
Should be 13.3tbh, has no digital Rwr, a horrific radar and just isn’t worth it at all, it’s about as good as the SMT and it’s BR should reflect that
1 Like
maybe, but that still wouldnt make sense.
in fact it was bringed by gaijin, but on israel vehicle.
as i mentioned earlier
reason why US players wanted -229 engines - fact that theyre would be added on almost same F-15.
If there was no F-15I - that would be easily counterable as “that would be imbalanced”. But when F-15I gets added - thats impossible.
thats fact, nobody would ask, if gaijin told that it was unbalanced, unless theres such thing as same engines on same plane, but in different TT
We already know that’s a no-no for Gaijin, so the best bet would be to give these munitions to the very best planes, which would be increased in BR.
I like the dynamic munition BRs concept, and not just for top planes, but for all kinds of vehicles across all BRs; however, I understand that would make matchmaking and balance much more complicated, which is probably why Gaijin won’t do it.
2 Likes
honestly, having modifications change BR is such a great idea, the only issue is how much harder it becomes to balance the game, but other than that it works so well, you can tailor your own BR to get better matches or try aircraft in combinations you wouldn’t normally be able to, like guns only top tiers for example
2 Likes
It wouldn’t make it much more complicated in reality, basically “If X mod installed > Increase BR by X amount” and whatever the final BR is is what should be used for the matchmaking. If that’s something the devs can’t do whether it’s a game engine limitation or just dev limitation then a fix or alternate solution should be looked into. It’s better for the grind in the long run otherwise we will either end up with massive BR gaps or the exact same vehicle but with a new missile for 400k RP, it wouldn’t be needed so bad if they weren’t afraid to put things in folders.
you can’t do an additive method because then something like an F-15C with just AMRAAMs ends a up lower BR than one with AMRAAMs and AIM-9Ms which doesn’t make sense
I am not talking about technical complexity! Rather, about balance one.
For example;
Leopard 2A7HU with DM53 is 12.0 material. Armed only with DM33, though, it should logically be a lower BR, right? So now it’s 11.7 instead of 12.0.
Now you got 10.7s like M1, T-80B or Challenger 1 Mk.3 facing Leopard 2A7HUs… with a worse shell, sure; but Leopard 2A7HU would be way too much for those 10.7s, even limited to DM33 only.
1 Like
Honestly i’m all for having better ir missile instead of fox 3 with even more range, tho if wikipedia is not that far from the reality mica ir would still be 50km against 20km for all of the others.
1 Like
The MICA IR will still be limited by seeker, but it’s like the R-27ET in terms of range, and that missile isn’t causing a huge fuss, the G load stops mattering as much at long range so it’s not much different
Anyone can tell me if these changes will be a huge buff for it?
At first glance it look like some good buffs but on the other hand i dont get half of these changes.
- J7W1:
- instructor crit multiplier: 0.8 → 0.9
- max instructor AoA: 15.6° → 17.55°
- wing zero-lift drag coefficient with retracted flaps: 0.009 → 0.0077
- fuselage zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0079 → 0.0074
- horizontal stabiliser Oswald’s efficiency number: 0.9 → 0.7
- engine thrust direction is now slanted 3° downwards instead of being dead-centre backwards
- compressor power constant RPM curvature: 0.7 → 1
- compressor manifold speed multiplier: 0.7 → 0.4
- empty mass: 4400 → 3990 kg
In War Thunder, from what I’ve seen, the ability to pull high G turns matters WAY more than theorical range.
Most engagements end up taking place at <15km ranges, because it’s what the game naturally leads to. Missiles launched any further away end up being easily dodged and evaded because you just have so much time to defend against them…
Which is why I don’t care that “muh AIM-120 has a 9,217,310 km range advantage over MICA”; because, realistically, pretty much no missiles launched past 20+ km away will ever hit their targets anyway.
On the other hand, you get missiles like MICA literally pulling 180º turns on actual gameplay ranges to hit planes pretty much behind it at the time of the launch.
That’s why I always found absurd people complaining about “missiles having longer ranges” and claiming that that’s a huge advantage over extreme G overload capabilities.
1 Like
You can use datalink so as long as you keep lock and the target is in range everything is fine and you can launch it with irst so no one will know you launched a missile.
That was kind of my point, the MICA IR having a longer range than other IR missiles is not that important, and everyone gets 50G+ missiles, so there isn’t a huge imbalance there, we’ll just have to see how big a difference there is between 50G and 100G in game, but all modern IR missile will be both very good, and also still not as important as Fox 3s I think
I will say as well that the seekers on all modern IR missiles will likely have to be nerfed quite a bit, just so the game remains playable
1 Like
Yeah, not wrong
Spoiler
Spoiler
Gajin might ready add Python 5 for F-15I Ra’am in 2 years or 2027
But decompression BR to 14.7
Exactly, it’s what makes the Mirage 2000s and Rafales the decider of matches currently, MICAs when used correctly can shut down an entire team of enemy jets (scored a 4x multikill against EFTs in the taiwanese mirage earlier) all due to the maneuverability of the missile in combination with HMD
1 Like
DL on IR missiles may end up being an issue though if they add IRST launch to Fox 3s that will be less of an exclusive issue, and so far they don’t let you DL through IRST in game afaik anyway
They could but they definitely won’t as Britain just got the EF. you should know this.
I can see China getting it at the same time as the USSR though.
Yep, my point too.
Agreed!
Many nations are getting on the realm of +50G thrust-vectored missiles that will turn 180º angles to hit you wherever you find yourself to be, while others are limited to sad basic 30G things that can be evaded by gently turning most of the times, not to mention they won’t even bother to try to track at closer ranges because they just can’t pull tight enough to follow.
This is why I haven’t felt very encouraged to play Eurofighter, hahah. It just feels like a cooler-looking F-16C as long as it’s limited to 9Ms and 120Bs. Sure, it has very nice flight performance- but everyone knows Top Tier is a missile meta. No nice flight performance will help you outturn a MICA that will break the fabric of space and time to hit you.
And I repeat; I am not even asking for Meteor or IRIS-T; I think I would settle even just for AIM-120C, which, as far as I know, is basically a more reliable AIM-120B which can pull up to 40Gs. It’s also the variant Eurofighter ACTUALLY uses as well in real life.
1 Like
Devblog when?