Yes, that’s to simulate the vastly more infrastructure damage napalm does over standard bombs.
Which strike aircraft benefit from more than multirole aircraft.
I get that you’re frustrated and understand why.
Plenty of people have solutions that aren’t making the game more frustrating for players you allegedly disagree with.
You’ve been out-sped by bombers this last year or so, I’ve been out-sped by bombers since 2018.
I know exactly what it looks like to see faster jets go to bases.
You know what I did? I endorsed more bases, faster respawn times, and learned how to delay my entry into the battlefield to around 5 minutes when the bases respawn.
I never, NEVER, once considered harming the rewards of players I personally disagree with.
So, Then, in current shitstorm, getting stabbed by those ‘fighters-with-lightweight-payload-who-abuses-napalm’s-effectiveness’ bastards forevermore will be answer. :/
Fighters will do better in A2A than strike aircraft because it is what they were built for.
Fighters will do better in base bombing than strike aircraft because napalm rewards should remain for the greater good.
Fighters will do better in dictating which side will win because the current ARB meta is nothing but focusing on TDM deathmatch by Gaijin, while tickets have the slightest impact on it.
Strike aircraft might be able to do better in taking out the ground target than fighters, but it is worthless as long as strike aircraft are useless without any air cover, because they usually act worse than fighters in dogfights.
It really seems that Strike Aircraft needs to sacrifice forevermore and rot in hell for keeping the TDM meta fighter heaven alive.
As one of those who maining the nation which nearly never used the napalm bomb after WW2.
Seeing the defence about napalm bombs feels annoying, and arguing with it is boring as hell.
Feels like “Who cares about bomber, nobody plays it. just focus on new jets” kind of shit.
Not necessarily, especially if the multiroles were built from interceptors, as interceptors tend to have poor airframe performance outside of speed.
Like the correction to the flight models of Mig-23Ms [not MLD] made them about as bricky as F-111F.
“Fighters” are also on average worse in the races compared to strike aircraft so far from the testing.
I can do a full test of all of them, but the fastest strike aircraft of Su-34, F-111F, and F-15E are going to be the kings of speed.
F-16A ends up about as quick as Kfir.
And some strike aircraft are hilariously better than some actual fighters in the fighter role… looking at F-111C for that one.
Still, it will act better in a2a than the majority of strike aircraft, which were solely built for striking and didn’t consider air-to-air at all.
I think you know what I tried to mean.
By the way, it is slightly off topic as long as the original topic was concentrated about MiGs and ZB-500.
There really is overperforming napalm bombs exist.
somewhat similar to King-of-Napalm.
Chinese 250-2 with 60kg explosive(135/60kg), but which needs only two for a single base, just like ZB-500(374/250kg) or BLU-27B(401/358kg)
it seems it is on ‘Bugged Small Calibre Rockets’ level and needs to be taken care of.
Maybe requiring 4 would be fine?
Mister infamous Tiger guy who craves it on every Chinese jet would be mad about it though.
I don’t think you will think that it is fine to see 270kg of napalm bombs with 120kg of total explosives (2x 250-2) has the same power as 2230kg of normal bombs with 1360kg of total explosives (5x LDGP Mk.83).
This sounds extremely wild while I see Brits with no napalm at all.
equal treatment to everyone else…
Really…? :(
Do you really think 120kg of napalm should be enough to kill a base while others need at least 500kg?
If we consider that there are some Chinese planes, excluding J-7II need to mount at least 4 of those, thanks to the loadout (H-5 or Tu-4-CN can be an example)
nerfing the effectiveness of them is better because lower estimated damage will give a higher base multiplier.
Only J-7II will be doomed.
Even compared to other big napalms(not with 1000lb bombs this time for arguing’s sake), 250-2’s effectiveness is strange as hell.
It’s to give China equal treatment to everyone else.
Still does not sound like equal treatment.
Even if 60kg of filler is an underestimated placeholder, you can’t expect a big enough filler from 135kg bombs.
Chinese napalm bombs are even lighter than those US/USSR counterparts and giving a disadvantage on the ‘base bombing multiplier’ because of overrated-ish estimated damage.
I want my H-5 back alive from these gelded bomb loadouts compared to the original soviet counterpart IL-28.
It’s only loadout which can take base out is 8x 250-2 because all other bombs have significantly lower TNT than soviet bombs, but thanks to overperformness of 250-2, its reward multiplier is gelded into 3.6x.
As I told you earlier, I believe that napalms are overperforming.
But the current status of 250-2 is overperforming over overperforming.
Even lighter than those silly ZB-500 but has the same efficiency…
If we consider Aerea 559 from Italy, which can’t take base with 2, even with 208kg of napalm in each, 250-2’s effectiveness is nonsense.
I will stand with my idea of nerfing 250-2 into ZB-500 level unless Chinese guys provide extra information about 250-2’s special napalm batch. :/
I also wants to nerf overall effectiveness of other napalms too but discussion about this will be goes infinite flatline with you, so I will try to pass it for now.
Man, I think you should’ve read the whole comment.
EVEN IF WE COMPARE JUST WITH OTHER NAPALMS
250-2’s effectiveness is way overperforming than the rest.
Other napalms need 500kg-ish of flammable things to burn the base down while 250-2 contains 60kg in each and needs 120kg in total.
Even if we consider it was underrated, as long as 250-2’s weight is 135kg, we can’t expect the warhead will be heavier than 135kg.
So, Chinese 250-2 napalm bombs need to be nerfed unless Chinese guys provide that they used a special secret batch of napalm which acts quadruple the effectiveness of the US-built napalm bomb.
Do you really think 135kg of napalm with a 60kg warhead needs to have the same effectiveness as a 374 kg napalm bomb with a 250kg warhead in the name of ‘reality’?
While you bring reality to defending Napalm’s general overperformance over conventional bombs?
I think this became a bit contradicted thanks to lazy Gaijin.
So, It would be great if i gets bigger answer.
Get that but like the fact that I need 5 1000lbs bombs to take down a base and 2 napalm bombs just seems a bit weird. Sure wasnt like that before the buff.
I don’t remeber but they have changed the effectiveness of napalm a couple of times. Still it does seem a bit too powerful especially if no planes in the country you are playing even carry napalm.
