Hmm? XP-50 doesn’t have ground armament and thus irrelevant to this topic.
And Wyvern’s armament is equivalent to F-6F’s.
Lower BR strike aircraft will be addressed later as per the devblog.
Id agree with all (even my beloved Sea harrier, though would need a few little buffs, which it should get anyway)
The only one im slightly tenative about is the Buc S2B which carrying 2x 9Ls is rarely actually done I think and it gets no other A2A weaponary like a gun
A-10 does have Fire and forget but its capability is hampered thanks to how slow that aircraft is and at 10.3 most AA can just shoot it down with Roland
the Early Mavericks also sucks really bad thanks to gaijin reducing its effectiveness with random hit location. Now not only you have a plane that cant dodge roland with more range than the Maverick lock range, you now lack the basic capability to effectively OHK enemies while Su-25 retains that with the big rockets that are super accurate and dont need to lock to launch
Ehhh tbf that one can stay, it’s a one trick (technically two of the same trick) wonder that’s useless against flare planes and is absolutely useless when it’s outta missiles.
(Oh, I mean unless you’re that one buccaneer main who got a 1:1 kill ratio from bombing enemy planes. That’s guys a legend and mega chad btw)
Awesome changes, but can you please do something about strategic bombers hardly ever being used anymore? The B-29 and Tu-4 are prime examples of planes that are able to perform at their current BR.
What I think they should try for the A-10/Su25 in GRB is another airspawn location, further away and maybe at a lower alt. Might give them a chance to spawn in and come in at a better angle
1 Like
S2B really shouldn’t move up, arguably should be 9.7 with the provision it can’t be downtiered.
Yep that guy is a living god for anyone playing Britain. :D
But yeah, even fairly weak 10.3 9L launchers like the FRS1, could maybe just about eek out 10.7. Though id hope as hell for a decompress fast.
2 Likes
The missile range is instead 6 - 10km instead of 20km due to its lower speed.
In comparison all 10.0s have a <3km range for CAS, and half of 10.3s have a <4km range for CAS capabilities.
AGM-65Ds aren’t early Mavericks.
And A-10A premium is going to 10.3 with the other <4km range CAS.
it’s balanced.
Su-25 equivalents are staying 9.3 - 10.0 in 7 tech trees, it’s not special.
1 Like
Following this logic, spike carrying helicopters should be 10.0 as their post impact performance is notably worse than an AGM 65, and they can be shot down by Rolands.
AGM 65s kill most things they hit, and the Frogfoot takes significantly more effort to guide in without being shot down. The missiles are heavier, but you have GBU 8s if you want a similar effect. Btw, those are guided too. Rockets from a frogfoot are effective on near misses and direct hits, or light vehicles. Hydras are effective on direct hits or light vehicles, and you get significantly more of them.
Your reply is so full of emotionally charged bias against Su25s, it’s really funny.
The Su25 tanks some missiles on occassion, but often loses the ability to maneuver and dies a bit later. Just because you don’t get an instant kill message doesn’t mean you didn’t effectively destroy it. “more armor than the mouse” is needlessly hyperbolic.
S25Os are strong and kill on near misses, but they don’t kill from 150m. and to properly get even a near miss, you need to fly into AA range and fly straight at your target. You don’t even need IR missiles at that point, you can just shred it with cannons.
Just because they sometimes fail to kill doesnt mean they’re useless. And the bigger problem is that you can kill any AA <10.7 with them without even exposing yourself to enemy missiles, because you can turn around and peace out before any roland reaches you, even if you dip inside their range.
I can accept the Pantsir being overpowered, but even at 10.7 you rarely ever see them (premium A-10 at 10.3 still won’t see them ever), and the Tunguska has a similar range issue as the Rolands.
Plus SPAA should have an advantage over jets to begin with, since it’s what they’re build for. I’m tired of SPAA unable to kill planes because they all outrange you. Makes you wonder why you should ever spawn one. The 10.0 Su25 I can at least still hit even if I sometimes only get a crit. An A-10 late staying 6+km away from the battlefield? I can’t do ANYTHING about that in any 10.3 and below SPAA.
They still use the arbitrarily undermodeled HEAT warhead instead of the SAP design later variants do.
HEAT warheads should have a TNTe equal to ~80% the weight of a similar mass HE design.
Q5L should obtain 2 rounds of PL5B and 2 rounds of PL7 to maintain its counterattack capability, and place both BRs at 10.7
Also, Gaijin, you forgot J11
1 Like
Don’t forget that the lower speed of the A-10 actually helps since you have more time acquiring a target and launching a Maverick without dipping too far into SPAA range, so their missiles need more time to reach you and are less maneuverable at the edge of their range.
And yet they(and their 2.75" / 70mm counterparts) only have their HEAT warheads available, omitting entirely the HE variants.
Oh no, one thing America doesn’t get like they don’t get almost everything they want (Alongside Russia) whilst minor nations are begging for scraps.
You’ve entirely competent options, and if you’re struggling with them, user error.
Seems pretty good for the most part except for two concerns of varying sizes.
The problem here is that this statement makes no sense for balance since this analysis is not holistic because it excludes missiles as part of their kit. The flight performance on these aircraft is largely irrelevant because they rely on their expanded arsenal of extremely potent missiles to score kills. Advocating for aircraft with vastly better weaponry to have the same battle rating as aircraft with similar flight performance and worse weaponry is not balanced.
By this logic, the MiG-29SMT should have a lower battle rating than the normal MiG-29 because it flies considerably worse. The Yak-3P should have a lower battle rating than the Yak-3 because it has worse flight performance. The F-16C should have a lower battle rating than the F-16A because it has inferior flight performance. Many aircraft with inferior flight performance often have higher battle ratings than those with superior flight performance because of their WEAPON SYSTEMS.
Exceptions for certain vehicles should not be made, especially now that we are getting split battle ratings, as is already done with every other vehicle, their efficiency should be analyzed HOLISTICALLY, without excluding certain features of an aircraft to justify its battle rating.
My second and less significant concern is the battle rating placement of the A-10A Early and A-10A Late in Ground battles. In terms of ground strike capabilities, the A-10A Late is not superior the A-10A Early, and thus they should at least share the same battle rating. The A-10A Early, carries a wider array of ground ordinance, and the AGM-65Bs on the Early in practice are superior to the AGM-65Ds on the Late model because of the D’s extremely poor optic, its low zoom makes it unable to combat AA at longer ranges like the B’s on the Early model can.
4 Likes
yeah but the E/F/G/J/K models are straight up better and much more reliable for kills
I am quite aware of this. I simply find it hilarious their only justification is missiles that are a coin toss if they kill what they track.
Do I need to point out the;
- A-4N / A-4M
- AV-8B(NA) / Harrier GR.7
- AV-8B+ (ITA) / AV-8B+(US)
- Kurnass 2000 / F-4E Late
Each of which would constitute literal C&P, and that doesn’t even touch on absent Stores (e.g. F-16C, AGM-154, GBU-39 / -53, etc.) or counterparts like the A-10C / Su-25T, etc.
I’m not personally, but please explain what a A-7E is supposed to do about an Su-25T with its R-73s and IR jammer since it arbitrarily only has access to Rear-Aspect Sidewinders?
1 Like