To all players across every nation, and to the game developers:
If you fly the US or German tech trees, invest in premium vehicles for a top-tier experience, or feel the compression at 12.0 BR (especially regarding the FA-18’s impact)—this analysis is for you.
Table of Contents
1. To the Reader: Who Should Care About This Proposal?
2. Core Conflict: The Unbalanced State of the US F/A-18
2.1 The Reason for Writing This Article, and the Pursuit of Differentiated Premium Vehicles Across Nations
2.2 The Frustrating Comprehensive Inferiority of the US F/A-18C Premium Vehicle: Beyond the 60-Countermeasure Dilemma
2.3 The Role Positioning of the F/A-18
2.4 Why the US F/A-18C Performs Poorly
3. Solutions: How to Balance Fairness and Uniqueness?
3.1 Basic Request: Upgrade to Standard F/A-18C (Remove “Early” Tag)
3.2 Uniqueness Enhancement: 2-6 AIM-9Ms + Dynamic BR Adjustment 13.0-13.3/13.3+
3.3 Feasibility Comparison: Why BOL Pods Are Currently Infeasible
4. Player Voices: Dual Demands for Premium Experience and BR Health
4.1 Core Value of Premium Vehicles: Real Combat Power for Real Money
4.2 The Pain of BR Compression: Decompressing the 12.0 Environment Is Urgent
5. Suggestions to Developers: A Win-Win Adjustment Roadmap
Body
1.1 To all players across every nation, and to the game developers:
If you fly the US or German tech trees, invest in premium vehicles for a top-tier experience, or feel the compression at 12.0 BR (especially regarding the FA-18’s impact)—this analysis is for you.
2.1 We know that with the release of the new update, the German FA-18C premium vehicle, MiG-29 premium vehicle, and a series of other premium vehicles were simultaneously introduced. However, the performance of the American F/A-18C Early premium vehicle released in the previous update is comparatively less satisfactory.
Let me state this emphatically: The German FA-18C premium vehicle must not be weakened!
This article is not published to advocate for weakening the German FA-18C premium vehicle. Instead, its purpose is to ensure that while the game developers release new vehicle packs to generate revenue, all players who purchase premium vehicles can have a better experience.
The newest premium vehicles for each nation should ideally offer a very good or unique experience. Exceptions should only occur if unforeseen Battle Rating (BR) issues or balance problems lead to a significantly compromised experience.
2.2 The American F/A-18C Early is at a disadvantage in almost every aspect compared to the German FA-18C premium vehicle, except for weaponry, yet both share the same Battle Rating (BR).
What is particularly frustrating is that this disadvantage manifests in numerous small ways: radar performance, half the countermeasure capacity, engine power, RWR detection bands… The cumulative effect of all these aspects is quite discouraging…
Looking at the recently released MiG-29 premium vehicle, it boasts superior top speed, can effectively gain experience by bombing bases with incendiary bombs, and can engage effectively using its better R-27ER missiles with datalink capability.
Its advantage in bombing bases is currently unmatched by any other premium vehicle it might face.
Aside from any radar lock limitations of the aircraft itself, the R-27ER missile’s exceptionally low drag and good propulsion allow it to excel: it’s arguably the best among non-active-radar missiles, and even against active-radar missiles, its speed makes it competitive, enabling Beyond-Visual-Range (BVR) combat against them. This represents a unique advantage.
2.3 Now, let’s look back at the FA-18 premium vehicle. Ask yourself, what do you perceive as its strengths?
It should maintain air combat capability while also being able to bomb uncontested bases when the opportunity arises, or provide reasonable ground attack capability in Ground Realistic Battles (GRB) even for players without an air tech tree unlocked. Undoubtedly, the German FA-18 premium vehicle achieves this.
2.4 However, the American F/A-18 offers a significantly less satisfactory experience. The primary reason for this? Its severely limited countermeasure capacity.
In Air Realistic Battles (ARB), the US F/A-18C Early’s mere 60 countermeasures significantly impact its survivability. Its two powerful engines make it a prime target for infrared missiles (IRMs). The poorly implemented downward-firing countermeasure dispensers mean its flares are not always effective, often requiring more flares to be expended per threat.
Furthermore, when facing higher-BR opponents equipped with active radar missiles (ARHs), the F/A-18C Early often has to fly very low (“nap-of-the-earth”) to survive. This low altitude, combined with the downward-firing flares, drastically reduces flare effectiveness. Some players even resort to carrying minimal chaff, loading mostly flares, and flying constantly low to conserve chaff while trying to evade incoming ARHs by terrain masking.
In Ground Realistic Battles (GRB), facing top-tier threats like numerous terminal IR-guided SAMs and many ARH-equipped anti-air vehicles (SPAAGs), the 60 countermeasures – which need to be split between flares and chaff – are woefully inadequate. This severely diminishes its effectiveness and utility in the GRB mode.
- Therefore, I propose that the American F/A-18C Early premium vehicle receive some strengthening. Here are several potential solutions:
**3.1
- Provide the US FA-18C premium vehicle with its missing countermeasure capacity and rename it simply to “FA-18C” instead of “F/A-18C Early” (I have verified historical sources; the early F/A-18C models were indeed converted from F/A-18A airframes and did not have the 120-countermeasure capacity. In other words, to get more countermeasures without using BOL rails would require a different model variant).**
2. Upgrade the US pack vehicle to match the German FA-18C premium vehicle in all aspects, including airframe, radar, avionics, targeting pods, engines, countermeasure capacity, etc., and rename it to “FA-18C”. (This might essentially be a straightforward copy-and-paste process.)
**3.2
3. Grant the US FA-18 premium vehicle a unique advantage, such as the ability to carry 2-6 AIM-9M missiles (e.g., enabling at minimum the two outermost wing stations to carry AIM-9Ms) alongside an upgrade to a later model variant airframe, accompanied by an increase in its Battle Rating (BR). Equipping it with 2 to 4 AIM-9Ms could correspond to a BR increase to 13.0. Should you wish to place it at a BR of 13.3 or higher, it might require the capacity to carry six AIM-9Ms; conversely, granting it more AIM-9Ms would necessitate accepting this corresponding BR increase. (This approach could also address the issue raised by many players regarding the FA-18 disrupting the gameplay environment at BR 12.0 and below.)
Personally, I believe a configuration featuring approximately 4 AIM-9Ms, the upgraded later model variant airframe, and a BR increase to 13.0 represents a more balanced approach.
We have already seen the F-2A premium vehicle at 13.0, equipped with four AIM-7M radar missiles (weaker than the AIM-7P) and four AAM-4 infrared missiles (superior to the AIM-9M, with longer range, higher G tolerance, and better counter-countermeasures resistance). The F-2A’s airframe performance surpasses the FA-18C’s, offering agility below Mach 1 second only to the Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale. While its agility above Mach 1 is worse, and it can only reach about Mach 1.05 at sea level with a full combat load (similar to the FA-18C), it possesses a superior dogfighting airframe, better RWR, and a very powerful AESA radar… though it lacks some ground attack capability. Thus, their strengths and weaknesses are somewhat balanced.
Given this context, equipping the FA-18C premium vehicle with 2 to 6 AIM-9Ms and raising its Battle Rating (BR) to 13.0 or 13.3 appears to be a reasonable adjustment. Additionally, the AIM-9M performs well, particularly in Ground Realistic Battles (GRB) conditions.
**3.3
4. Provide the US FA-18 with BOL countermeasure pods. This would solely enhance its survivability by addressing the countermeasure issue, without needing to rename the “Early” model. However, it would still retain minor disadvantages in other areas, such as the RWR being less capable at identifying locks from systems like Pantsir and other advanced SPAAGs compared to later models. Moreover, the excessive countermeasure load could negatively impact lower-BR gameplay. Also, the precise performance characteristics of various US BOL pods are not fully understood. This solution is rather extreme and potentially unbalanced, so it is presented only as a tentative suggestion.
- When we pay real money for a premium vehicle, we expect competitive performance—not a compromised experience."*
4.1 Perhaps some feel the issues mentioned earlier are insignificant. But if you play the US or German tech trees, ask yourself this: If the contents of the US and German premium packs were swapped, would you find that acceptable?
No one actively advocates for outdated vehicles. With the German FA-18C premium vehicle now released, it should not be too late to present this proposal.
As players, regardless of the nation we play, we rely on premium vehicles to accelerate tech tree research. For a premium vehicle purchased with real-world currency, the armament and equipment it provides are its tangible value.
For instance: If the A-10 were equipped with AIM-9X missiles, a significant number of aircraft at higher Battle Ratings (BR) could not afford to ignore it. After all, the kinematic energy of an AIM-9X launched from an aerial platform surpasses that of the same missile fired from current ground-based air defense vehicles.
As the game gradually moves towards better balance, the vehicle’s BR will ultimately be adjusted to match its armament.
During the feedback period for this draft within the player community, some alternative suggestions regarding the F/A-18C Early emerged. For example: not increasing the countermeasure capacity but lowering its BR to 12.3 instead.
However, the feasibility of this suggestion appears low. Furthermore, highly-upvoted posts within the community discuss the FA-18 disrupting the 12.0 BR environment, indicating significant player opposition to lowering the F/A-18C Early’s BR. Therefore, if you feel pressured by the FA-18 at 12.0, supporting an increase to a higher BR could be a viable option.
Even if its BR were temporarily lowered to 12.3, this would likely be short-lived. It would inevitably be raised again in the future, and without improved armament, its performance at that higher BR would be even more challenging.
Raising its BR to 13.0 would mean facing opponents like the Typhoon and Rafale at 14.0. It’s important to note that the Typhoon and Rafale, given their performance which is arguably second only to 5th generation fighters like the F-22, Su-57, and J-20, will almost certainly not remain at 14.0 as BRs continue to expand. However, the improved weaponry acquired through this change would remain with the vehicle permanently.
Remember: The superior weaponry obtained by spending real money represents a tangible and absolute enhancement. Battle Rating, in contrast, is a temporary and relative metric.
4.2 This also brings to mind the BR compression issues around 12.0 previously discussed on forums. Within the 12.0-14.0 BR range, aircraft such as the F-4 Phantom, F-14 Tomcat, Su-27 Flanker, and currently highly advanced fighters like the Typhoon and 4.5-generation Rafale are forced into combat within this overcrowded bracket. As a result, battles around 13.0 BR have become exceptionally fierce.
We may need further decompression of Air Realistic Battle BR. From the game’s existing balance framework, we observe a pattern: Aircraft carrying average-performance radar missiles like the AIM-7F coupled with relatively better IR missiles (e.g., AIM-9L) for their BR are pitted against those equipped with fewer but superior radar missiles like the R-27ER plus lower-performance IR missiles (e.g., R-60).
However, aircraft armed with R-27ERs can even engage in BVR exchanges against active-radar-homing missiles due to their exceptional missile performance, particularly when carrying multiple R-27ERs. Consequently, a new dynamic emerges: Aircraft loaded with numerous weaker radar missiles (e.g., AIM-7P) and better IR missiles now face opponents carrying either few or many superior radar missiles (R-27ER) paired with inferior IR missiles.
Yet the BR distribution of these aircraft remains insufficiently spread out. This fails to provide adequate BR separation for less competitive aircraft, preventing optimized gameplay experiences.
Thus, we consider: Historically and going forward, the AIM-7P should not be exclusive to the F/A-18. Could other aircraft also be equipped with the AIM-7P?
This would create isolated BR brackets featuring aircraft with few AIM-7Ps + better IR missiles versus those carrying few/many high-performance R-27ER radar missiles + IR missiles or other active-radar missiles. Such isolation could reduce the probability of lower-BR aircraft encountering overpowered active missiles (though full isolation may not be achievable). Additionally, it would provide long-overdue equipment—the AIM-7P—to nations using American weaponry.
As this involves weapon systems not from my nation, input from players knowledgeable about their respective countries’ arsenals may be needed to refine this proposal. We welcome everyone to initiate relevant discussions below.
- For the developers: Why are so many players eager to purchase the German pack, while interest in the US pack is lukewarm? Why was there even an unconventional discount applied to the US pack just one update later? (This discount effectively undermined the value for players who pre-ordered the US pack. You had another option: to give the US F/A-18C premium vehicle the same configuration as the German one after the German FA-18C was released.)
Within the player community, I have observed a segment of players (myself included) expressing reservations about purchasing the US F/A-18C Early premium vehicle. The reasons for these reservations align with the points raised above. Their diverse perspectives and feedback were instrumental in shaping this proposal, and I offer them my specific acknowledgments.
I believe it is essential to communicate this widely shared and objectively grounded sentiment among the player base to the game’s developers.
If you wish to boost sales of the US F/A-18C premium vehicle, then strengthen it to bring it at least up to the standard of the German FA-18C premium vehicle.
Let me state this emphatically: The German FA-18C premium vehicle must not be weakened! This is absolutely critical – weakening it would create a lose-lose-lose scenario for players, the developer, and community moderators alike.
Additionally, let’s address an aside regarding big data and players’ genuine perspectives. While big data can partially assist game balancing, it should not be the primary method—it cannot reflect players’ true sentiments, being merely cold and often outdated statistics.
A prevailing notion within the gaming community suggests that Version XXX was both the most balanced and fastest-growing in new player acquisition. Players believe reasonable balance attracts more participants. Developers could cross-verify this by examining backend big data. More new players directly translate to greater revenue.
In fact, if a proposal were made to halt major content updates for 1-3 versions, focusing solely on optimization and balance adjustments, significant player support would likely follow. (A community vote could be initiated later, though I’m unsure how to implement this on forums.)
There are multiple ways to increase revenue. Given Revenue = Quantity × Unit Price, boosting player quantity remains a viable strategy.
Furthermore, if developers insist on creating a new game, the consensus would likely point to “War Thunder 2.” (We urge you to carefully analyze your product’s core appeal and identify the user demographics it attracts.)
The hope is that while the developers successfully generate revenue, players can also enjoy their experience. So that players don’t have to spend significant time researching and writing articles like this one.
This article has been translated with AI assistance and optimized for language expression.
