G load does matter when you can make nutty shots and get kills in dogfights you otherwise wouldn’t get if it had a different G-load or characteristic.
Also, I must counter your 20-25G claim with the sparrow and 9J constantly and consistently missing if you know how to properly maneuver to get it to miss, but yes anything above that can’t be dodged. Regardless, it’s still an undodge-able missile, meaning to defeat it you will need to outrun it or fool it with countermeasures, just making it clear I’m only stating it as an advantage the missile has, not to say others in game don’t already have it.
The IRCCM would be more potent than anything we have ingame, again I think it would be wise to hold off on giving it its full effect just yet, similar to the AAM-3, as they would just be heavily overpowered compared to the 9Ms and R-73s around the place.
Yes I know it’s a “transition missile” given the time period it was developed at and used in, I believe in a early reply I mentioned that I understand the python-5 is more on-par with these modern missiles than the python-4 is, however I still think it’s a bit too advanced for the meta of this game, and that’s coming from an Israeli main here who wants nothing more than to see it in the top of the meta. I just think some counterparts for other nations is also much needed before this is added alone, and I also think Israel will be just fine without it in the mean time.
If it comes to a point where it does need to be implemented to help improve Israel’s win rate or something, than I could see it coming with its seeker being nerfed like the AAM-3 was, with it being given the 9Ms seeker.
I’d normally be against adding such powerful munition but Gaijin’s really pushing it with how much modern stuff it adds to the big nations, particularly USSR.
If they don’t want a powercreep, don’t add such things. But if they do add these, they have to add equivalents for everyone.
I mean to be completely fair, they can introduce it with only one of the two types of IRCCM and then it’ll essentially be an R-73 that turns less (somehow the R73 has almost no drag so it has insane range)
i mean when are they going to introduce python 4? alongside the 9x with Imaging IR seeker? against a damn late 80’s dual band seeker? jesus christ. this a damn war game, and which we all know, war isnt really balanced isnt it?
so stop with your calling for balance, and start being historically accurate. and hey, i dont saying that the fact that a certain aircraft carry’s an 9x for example should get it right away. i understand the concept of progression, i do. So thats why they are adding this weapons slowly. Currently we are at 4gen of missiles. same as the 9ms’ r73, and u prob guessed right - python 4. So python 4 was too far advanced for the game duo to gaijin added the both python 4 and 9ms to the files and decided to drop only the 9ms.- sure, balancing u said. more than a year passed, ppl got used to 9ms and all type of irccm missiles.
If i could bet, i would bet the next batch of IR missiles are 5gen simply because there is no other missiles. and i guarantee ya all that once all other 5gen missiles are in game, than, AND ONLY THAN, u will finally say that now its fine to add python 4. and we will have this argument all over again but in that case the subject will be python 5. Which makes me think that the fact Python 5 is currently the BEST, battle proven fox2 missiles IRL, it will never comes to the game based on your logic simply because he has no balance?
Thats pathetic.
To all that was against the addition of python 4, LET ME ASK U A QUESTION.
when, in your most honest and rational opinion, gaijin should add the Python 4? ofc explain yourself and dont just say in a few months. And if u cant answer that, than i have nothing more to talk with you. Clearly biased.
The R73 is pretty much unflarable inside 1 mile and can hit from extreme launch angles. If you’re shooting them outside 1 mile you’re playing them wrong
Soonest they will probably add it realistically should be in the second, maybe third major update down the pipeline, or roughly towards the winter and spring of this/next year. If they add it in sooner, it wouldn’t be balanced and the community would be in a tizzy as it always gets when something disrupts the meta, and if it’s any later it would be surprising they’d put off missile tech by that long considering the planes they likely would be adding by that point.
The irony of calling everyone disagreeing with you ‘clearly biased’ while you rant and rave with rather emotionally driven text is palpable but, regardless- if they were to add it at all in the current state, the range and maneuvering characteristics alone would make it among the best IR missiles in the current meta, especially if they give it a smokeless motor which I expect. Even if they give it the 9M seeker, the likely range of the missile will be amongst the longest for the short range WVR IR missiles from my understanding, making it something like an R-27ET in the sense of dropping onto someone without warning and without a way of knowing without MAWS fully being introduced on many aircraft save for a select few potentially coming into the game.
Lastly, Israel is in a fairly balanced state of affairs with the overall game, and Gaijin has been known to use non-finctional/historical things to maintain that balance artificially for better or for worse. The F-4F for example never did carry the 9J/P from my understanding because Germany never bought the missile, but the wiring was in theory there. Israel having the 9M is likely due to similar rationality and/or proof of this to make up for the fact Israel would otherwise be stuck with Python 3’s in the current meta of IRCCM WVR IR weapons. I doubt we’ll see the Python 5 for a very long time only because it would be one of the newest missiles in public circulation, which is likely why it is regarded as among the very best, and thus would have the most advanced capabilities over things like the AIM-9X’s which have been around since the early 90’s or so.
“If they add it sooner it wouldnt be balanced”. wtf? and one year after it will be balanced? could u care to explain why exactly those timeframes? what dont we have now that we’ll have later? heck, what gaijin dosnt have atm that prevents them from adding the missile? clearly a finnacial choice ofc. but please, care to explain besides telling that it “would disrupts the meta - therefore the community will
be angry” ? ( i mean like every other new tech missile that was never in the game? aka fox-3 right now?)
Stop hailing the Meta like it some divine entity that cant be touched or changed. War thunder is the game you playing, as we all know war is dynamic. why not balancing the game with only 1 missile for every nation, only props cuz jets aint far you know… , and exactly 240 flares so u can flare all this 9D missiles.
maybe give some “aim assist” and some auto piloting that control your computer by an AI if you are bad at the game so u can compete and keep the game balanced.
i aint calling anyone biased only because they are disagree with me, i call them biased soon as they stop answering to the points im trying to touch and acting like a child who’s shout “balance” soon as other child may touch his precious cheese.
What is your point than? you keep saying that at the current state of the game, the game is not ready for the missile duo to his characteristics - fine. what is your solution ? add with it some counter missiles? 9x? r73m? irist? u do realize that those missiles are far beyond any dual band irccm that the python 4 have right? and there are we back at the beginning with python 5.
Or maybe are u saying that magically the commuinty of war thunder will develop a brand new brain with some 9K Ace pilot IQ that will allow them to compete with the python 4?
Sorry brother nothing personal but i am trying really to find your answers regarding the points ive brought up in my comment. about that the israel air is pretty balanced well its basically because of gaijin copy paste US weapons into the israeli aircraft even tho they have their own unique AA,BOMBS,GBU,etc…
Btw dont forget the 9x got vast of upgrades throughout his life span.
Btw 2. actually according to Rafael, the stated range of the python 4 is 15km. which in-game prob half if not less, not really a r27et range mate.
take a look- https://gszabi99.github.io/
mica IR with image seeker already in the files as u can see, no python 5 to counter so it seems israel will get both 9x+python 4 at the same time
In a year it is likely they will have added better flaring methods, perhaps MAWS or primitive forms of electronic countermeasures to counter those sorts of seekers at least slightly more effectively if they don’t nerf the seeker for the current aircraft/vehicles in the game.
People are telling you the same thing because that’s the core problem with the proposed implementation. It would not be matched by much of anything unless it was gimped so heavily that it may as well not even be the missile it’s labeled as in the first place. I would personally wait a bit longer and see it at full potential instead of having to wait a year or two for that after technically ‘having the missile’ before that. Having a missile by name alone isn’t much my style.
My point is that adding it in name alone would be a lot of work without any real payoff, and if it was added without any nerfs to bring it in realistic line with what would be practical in a 16v16 format, or even a 8v8 format, it would need significant counters like the 9x or r-73m. The IRST is too advanced yet with the range it has surpassing the other two by a significant margin if memory serves. Israel having mostly copy paste US weapons is both A) somewhat realistic considering a lot of their stocks are likely still going to be foreign due to a limited manufacturing base compared to the US, and B) Easier to code, maintain, and run at reduced risk of breaking itself or something else compared to going through all the work to add indigenous weapons that are similar in performance or slightly better in the case of most ground strike ordinance save for maybe ATGM’s. I’m not knowledgeable enough to speak past that.
The R27ET is a significantly larger, heavier missile that’s currently limited to a maximum of 2 missiles to an aircraft instead of the potentially 4 or more missiles carried on things like the Baz or F-16 for Israel.
And the F-2 for Japan has been in the files for over a year now, that doesn’t mean it should be switched on without a second thought. The Python 4 has been in the game files for a while now, and there are custom missiles where you can try it out and actually access it; to save you the trouble, the missile performs like a UFO compared to anything else and would have to be either brought in line to be better, but not absolutely performing leagues above anything else for the sake of gameplay enjoyment (this is still a video game after all, historical or not, if people aren’t entertained they will eventually leave.)
Ultimately, the Python 4 is ahead of the time to be added now, unless it was made into such a weakened state of itself, that calling it a Python 4 would be akin to mockery. Israel isn’t suffering, and doesn’t need the missile for the time being as it stands. If anything you should be arguing that the Derby needs to get fixed to be practically functional instead as currently on the dev server that isn’t the case.
I’ve got other things that need doing, you’re fine to argue as you wish, but ultimately if you still cannot see the other side of the argument after it has been reiterated in multiple formats, there doesn’t appear to be a way to have a proper argument at all. Have a good day, and cheers.
I agree. For instance, US got the F-14 with ARH, and that was a massive technology leap in game. Russia got the R-27ER which is in a league of its own in terms of SARH missiles, and was the uncontested king of BVR for a year with it. Israel can most certainly have a missile that is better than others in a category, and this is not an infringement on balance in anyway, As someone else has pointed out, none of the technology used in the Python 4 is different than other IR missiles. It does not have thrust vectoring, and R-73s have been shown to loop. There is absolutely no problem in adding a missile of the same generation is current IR missiles. It is simply an indigenous Israeli missile with slightly more range than a Python 3 and a better seeker.
Don’t pay attention to what he says bro literally came in MICA EM thread to say the MICA should not get fixes because R73 still flatspins in some scenarios… he’s just a biased russian player.
The thing that imo justify Python 4 not get added is it’s capability to get 2 hit occasions while most missiles in the game won’t. You can tell all you want AIM54 and R72ER/ET were tech leap they didn’t change the general way of playing like Python 4 would/could because until recently AIM54 were easy to trash as they couldn’t maneuver and suffered multipath when closing to ground, for the 27 okay it is a super fast missile than can go far and has DL but the missile could be trashed by going low aand as all CW missiles ion game could be decoyed by using multipath everyone was resorting to multipath to dodge all missiles. Here Python 4 would bring a new stress element that is the inertial guidance, because you can tell me what you want about AIM9M the kind of inertial guidance it uses when it IRCCM activates is trash compared to Python 4 inertial guidance because the inertial of Pyton 4 is performant enough so that even if you decoy it once it can acquire a second time and get a second hit chance, an advantage no missile in the game has and that is way more problematic than any problem AIM54 or R27 caused because as an IR missile Python 4 don’t suffer multipath and except if you have a MAW most of time in battle you will never think a missile can hit you a second time hence why my opinion about the missile is mixed.
At least i don’t join threads to just to complain or tell people they are stupid. For all i could notice your forum activity is just about telling people they are either dumb, handheld morons or the fact R73 doesn’t perform enough. You mainly complain about Russian stuff not performing enough or not going to Russia first. So excuse me but even if you are not Russian by nationality you are biased about Russia and only consider Russia issues and tell everybody to F off when they remind you Russia is not the only nation in WT but i won’t say more this thread is not an elementary school playground.
Okay. A few things to point out that you, and a lot of people seem to be misunderstanding. The Python 4 is not the Python 5. The 5 has a datalink which allows the missile to reacquire after it has missed a target. The 4 is not. The 4 is capable of performing a 180* turn due to its g tolerance, potential thrust, and most importantly the larger seeker fov. The Python 4 is able to keep tracking a target past what the AIM-9 or Python 3 is capable of, and performing a 180* turn. The Python 4 is however NOT capable of re-engaging a target after missing. That is the difference between the 4 and 5.
I’ll advise you to reconsider because i never talked about DL but puerly inertial guidance because even when decoyed a first time python 4 in it’s systems remembers the potential last path it’s inertial guidance system remembered and it’s seeker remains activated. AND this means that even if you decoy it once Python 4 will perform its 180° turn and if the plane that decoyed it didn’t thought of changing path once again the Python seeker will have the chance to re-acquire. This doesn’t need any DL as long as seeker is active the missile can engage a target if it still has burntime so basically even if this is restricted to some cases if you shoot your Python 4 let’s say at 2-3 kms it’ll close in to it’s target quite fast get eventually decoyed, use INS to perform it’s 180° turn and if plane hasn’t changed path after decoying, the seeker can re-acquire lock and as some burntime will be left can do a last little acceleration that will be able to give it the second hit oppotunity. This process doesn’t involve any data link. Just the seeker and inertial guidance system.