Don’t forget that it was literally the only GBU equipt airframe(even though they were introduced Six whole patches earlier) the US had until the F-14B was added to the Tech tree, even though there were a number of potential recipients (F-4E, which still doesn’t have either of the TGPs (The, Pave Spike as found on the Kurnass 2000 & Buccaneer S2.B, or Pave Tack which would be shared by the F-111F and others) it could receive, the less said about how the HEAT Mavericks perform, the better )
And even then the US still has no option below 12.0 in the tech tree(even though they otherwise can be found at 10.3 or lower), and those that do are all classed fighters so causes SP related issues since SP costs are pooled, in GRB with specific setups, making CAP more expensive since the ADATS is a TD and the XM975 isn’t workable at higher BRs due to the range disparity further complicates things.
Also can’t forget that the A-6E was added in Apex Predators; the only attacker added that patch alongside a Tranche of tier VII Fighters, and further The F-4S was added in the Next Major, likely to double dip on the sales.
And that missing ordnance would give it the stand off range and armaments it could well use to convince various R-60M equipt Strike airframes and MiGs, to leave it alone or at least pause to consider the situation, I already catch more than shit enough in the F-105 from F-15s, F-16s, MiG-29s and Su-27s.
Compare it to airframes like the Su-25 which has better performance, sits a whole 0.3 lower, and has R-60Ms.
how about making the map range expended for AA? IF for tanks a map is 10km * 10km, and for planes the same map is 50km * 50km, then for AA, the map will be 15km * 15km. Then AA won’t be crowded near spwan, and have more places to hide, and will be more effective against CAS. Then those attackers won;t need to rise BR that much.
It has no stand-off weaponry and is inferior. Remember we are talking about the A-7E at 10.7, not the A7D at 10.3. So it’s two br jumps higher.
Giving the A-7E more advanced weaponry will make it “better” but it will also make it pointless because we already have existing options that are better.
This is already seen in game with the A-7K which has better weaponry but is utterly pointless because there are already better options. Nobody plays that thing for a reason.
This is true but frankly nobody cared about the fact that it carried paveways, regardless of how busted it is. Why would anyone pay $70 dollars for the A-6E when you have the A-10A that is more iconic and cheaper in the same lineup?
This is literally insignificant and does not matter. The fact they are fighters are a benefit because you have proper multirole capability. This is only a disadvantage if you run two fighters at the same time, but that is utterly pointless because there is no reason to have more than one in any of the U.S lineups at these battlerating.
Your complaints are that the A-6E is the lowest br attacker with Paveways the U.S has but it literally does not matter, because there are much better weapon systems at those battleratings.
Yes it is unfortunate in the historical sense that vehicles are missing weapon systems, but in terms of gameplay, this is beneficial.
So what Tech Tree Attackers does the US have that are better than the A-7E? The A-10 is a no go due to being to slow an so is unable to climb to altitude, F-111A / F-15D are stuck with MACLOS or Laydown ordnance which expose them to significant risk.
The only other viable option is the AV-8C solely due to the low altitude acceleration, but is limited by the number of ordnance stations available, and lack of the option to take the prototype GAU-12/A gunpod.
It’s an event vehicle? and has a multitude of inaccuracies in terms of ordnance and systems(AAR-45 LANA is a navigation pod and is either slaved to boresight or to the Radar, incorrect cockpit, should have F-16C HUD, etc.)?
The issue is that there are no low SP cost options for the US tree, you either pay an SP tax for equivalent performance at the BR, or have to make to with sub-standard options and hope you can make things work.
Like? The HEAT equipt AGM-65s do far less damage than they should due to an arbitrary 20mm RHAe overpenetration hard cap, erroneously track the ground. and have for the most part an overperforming Seeker (about ~4/3rds the range they should have), and don’t loft properly. The Linear Shaped Charge warhead of the Walleye I is modeled as a GPHE charge. The GBU-8/B’s seeker has similar issues to the Mavericks.
NONE. PLAY A MULTIROLE FIGHTER. You are allowed to bring them into ground battles even
If they are specifically not titled “Attacker”
You are just being dense.
This is completely irrelevant and changes nothing. A corrected cockpit would not make the A-7K any better. Yes it’s an event vehicle, but nobody plays it because the F-4E exists.
This is literally how the game works for every nation. More potent munitions COST MORE than the worse ones. You are supposed to be paying for EQUIVALENT options for the br. That is literally how game balance works. You are complaining that the game is fair, I don’t get it.
User error, they track what you locked onto. If you lock the ground they track the ground. They only fail to track vehicles when the vehicle is no longer visible or decoyed by another vehicle.
Why are you even complaining. These are some of if not the best guided munitions at their respective battle rating. Plus they are mounted on some of if not the best platforms available at their respective battle rating.
With regards to the issue with base bombing in air battles, here’s an idea, MAKE FIGHTERS REWARDS BETTER. The only reason people bomb bases or use rockets on them is because its the most consistent and effective way to grind a tech tree, the grind has become so annoying and tediously long that instead of playing fighters and fighting other aircraft in an aircraft they got more often than not purely for grinding, they would rather bore themselves to death attacking bases rather than aircraft. You’ve created an environment where the grind is so bad, that even if people find the gameplay boring, they’d still rather do it. Everyone knows that managing the economy is almost purely to make people give in and spend money on premiums, but you don’t actually make the game any fun. I cant remember the last time in the past 2+ years of this game that I actually had fun. That purely stems from the grind. I played this game cause I love tanks and aircraft and wanted to relax after work, but because of the grind its like a second job. Fix the gameplay, if you want people to actually play your game in the long term, make reward players for fighting other players more so than bases, the problem as I have stated numerous times is the fact that when it comes to grinding out an air tech tree, its more effective to bomb and rocket bases or ground targets than shoot down other aircraft, and its more prevalent than ever at higher tiers, I know there is the JU288 problem but people have grown tired of that after so long, and the same thing will happen at top tier. At mid to low tiers people actually dogfight and I personally have way more fun than the missile spam base rushing environment of top tier aircraft. Fix the gameplay, please stop hurting this game and the player base, ya’ll have genuinely been doing so good recently and listening to the player; the ones that actually matter. I love this game, so please don’t kill it with stupid decisions that do nothing but hurt the players.
The entire point that I am making is the strange lack of efficiency with SP that the US has at a Meta level which only impacts them of all nations; that second aircraft spawn from the same pool has an increased SP cost, which makes that reactive spawn less likely to occur which limits their flexibility where other nations wouldn’t have an issue spawning their reaction loadout.
Say for example you do manage to scrape the SP together to spawn in a CAS loadout with the F-4E, and proceed to get intercepted due to poor Flight Characteristics so have to dump the ordnance to lighten the airframe that means time and opportunity to have an impacted is wasted returning to rearm, or just simply have bad luck since HEAT based F&F ordnance is a crapshoot.
Or take that CAP loadout from the start them have little impact if there was an opportunity due to lacking ordnance to take full advantage presented, also the F-4E’s arbitrary lack of the AN/ASX-1 (TISEO) and Pulse only AN/APQ-120 radar limits the usefulness of Sparrows, comparatively the AIM-9Js aren’t much to write home about either really limits its potential at low altitude.
The F-4J has the opposite problem where it’s great as a CAP fighter but very poor at A2G in comparison due to being effectively stuck with only Laydown ordnance, and only access to the gunpod on Centerline.
There are a multitude of half-steps that could / should exist but don’t (e.g. B-57G Tropic Moon III, OV-10D, OV-1, A-37, F-102 / F-106, F-4B / -4D etc. GPHE warheads for 2.75 / 5" rockets, etc.)
As per;
Here is Developers answer
Seekers like these can track optically contrast objects. As it is not possible to implement true contrast edge tracking in the game we allow seekers to lock on any point on the ground. So any point on the ground is considered contrast object.
Therefore, this issue is considered resolved
I don’t think you understand. They had it working properly in game but adjusted it for game balance purposes.
From
Unlike the seeker of the Maverick missiles, the Kh-29T missile and the KAB-500kr guided bomb are equipped with a TV-correlation seeker, the main feature of which is the difference in the visual image of the captured area and the rest of the background. This means that such seeker will not be able to lock on single ground targets such as a tank, but they will be able to capture any point on the land surface.
This should be paired with a reduction to lock on range.
And of course the “warhead” it does less damage than a warhead that is almost 5x smaller by weight (5" ATAP), and has less penetration than those 10x smaller,(AGM-114B) even though both should be very much questioned as to their accuracy.
Because we have sufficient evidence to prove that the ordnance should be modeled differently, Also the US lineups lacking flexibility at the Meta level can only have negative flow on impacts on win rate among other things, and since these changes impact support vehicles BRs they impact the options that are available and thus are relevant.
The point is that the ordnance’s characteristics are erroneous, and so after being corrected; should be appropriately balanced by either BR decreases or appropriately performant ordnance being provided pending the impact of the change.
Its not that what is present being wrong that annoys me the most, its what is missing that wouldn’t change that much on the high end, but provide options and so that the response can be best tailored to the situation at hand.
Yeah, cool, separate BR for planes in ground battles, but what about finally increase needed points to spawn plane in ground RB? Don’t take me wrong, I love playing CAS and very enjoying bully idiotproof unbalanced things like Finnish premium KV or overspeeded wheeled rats with it, but it’s pretty dumb to have enough points to spawn plane just after cap point with AA truck and then J out in start of battle…
The player wants to increase the revenue of shooting down planes, not decrease the revenue of bombing. Why do you so subtly misunderstand what the player is really thinking? In short, lower returns are unacceptable.
I still have to disagree with the raising of the A-6E TRAM as it is. It compresses horribly and you will more often than not end up in the effective range of SPAAs while waiting for your GBU to finally arrive on target. In the case of an uptier to 10.7 (which is extremely common in my experience) you are going to be facing the Tunguska which is easily able to shoot me down while I wait for a GBU to hit. (if I even get close enough to drop one at all)
I have also been knocked out by Strelas at distances exceeding 5km a number of times meaning it is at least. Additionally putting it to 10.7 means inevitably fighting the pantsir which you cannot in good faith argue is a fair match up at it will literally clap it out of the sky before I can even locate it.
Not to mention the lack of a lineup at 10.7 (meaning 11.0 would be the only choice making it even more redundant) Simply claiming that you will add something to help it at a future date (namely not the same time as the BR change) is not good enough.
They face lots of flareless aircraft in downtiers. They do not always get downtiers. In uptiers It’s the opposite. They’re not competitive against aircraft with flares since they rely heavily on their missiles.
Moving stuff down solves one problem but creates another. It’s not a good idea without BR decompression. That’s what we need.
They are not meant to be effective, nor competitive in an A2A role against dedicated fighters. The missiles are for self defense and not to club flare-less planes with them.
And the first step towards decompression is giving the planes from 9.0 to 10.0 a rest from the all aspect slingers.
They are not meant to be effective, nor competitive in an A2A role against dedicated fighters . The missiles are for self defense.
None of this matters for war thunder because it’s not a simulation game. Air battles is mainly an A2A mode so all aircraft need to be competitive in the role they are played.
If you want to make strike aircraft reduntant for the sake of realism, there needs to be a mode where attacking ground targets is attractive and rewarding. Air RB is not currently since the ground targets are all located in the middle meaning you’re incredibly exposed and vulnerable to fighters that will see you an an easy kill. It’s also incredibly boring and repetitive to destroy pillboxes, AAA, and artillery game after game. Enduring confrontation is a good solution but it’s incredibly rare right know. It needs to become the new normal for these aircraft to have a purpose and to be enjoyable.
Isn’t this game supposed to be realistic? Wasn’t this the whole premise of this game? If I want an arcade gamestyle I go and play AirArcade or World of Warplanes. But not War Thunder.
Ground RB, just saying. Since you all don’t seem to want a tank only mode.
Making whole BR brackets compressed as hell, just so 5 non fighter aircraft are effective in fighter roles. If you argue in that way, we would have to lower a lot more vehicles and compressing everything way more. Only solution.
First then anything elase i well love to 6.0 prop plane and 6.3 6.7 not fighting jet i mean like spitfire mk 24 fighting jet is not enjoyable just because a couple player are good with dosent make good to be at 7.0 jet need to be separated frome prop plane justblike you guys did with apdf shell for tank. and the battles rating need be decompres lole way extended to at least 14.0 to start with this great vhance to dod that even do if take longer take out the timer on air battles and ai finish the gane for you. Disable the air field aa if only one player left and he been there for wile it be a relly good chnage.and another’s fact if you extend the battles rating to at leat 14.0 there alot plane and jet they well benefit frome inste of lowering them donw now they can go up because just like the mig 15 bis at 8.3 it a joke …and when come to gun in the plane even after real shudder fix they still relly bad wjen hitting a target also the mig 19 after burn 🔥 still look relly cartoons like the after burn look relly bad.but withball this see this a good change and good chance to decompres the br for at alot plane as well balanced them and i still think the 104 for the Americans it way to low of br that thing if player know what he doin it pretty much untouchable at 9.3 so plase gajing make way higher like at least 10.0 make this changes 👍 good for everyone not only few player .and fuel slider need to be where you can decreased the fue load i thing alot prop well help them to be little lighter i mean good have fuel sliders but what good it is if canot reduce fuel the you dont wants like come on with fanly get one with cant getblower fuel for some plane they are alredy relly bad beging with dont mean randomly rampage about all this but all im sayings are posive changes can be implemented with new br.
This is not something exclusive to the US tech tree. This happens with every aircraft when carrying ordinance. That is the nature of the game.
Also I cannot take seriously the fact that you are complaining about having being inconvenienced and having to rearm or having bad luck. How is that a problem in any way?
We have custom loadouts. You don’t have to take all of the munitions. These additions you are discussing about wouldn’t add more flexibility than we already have.
From playing CAS myself there are very few possible situations at hand, only three. There are either lots of planes, lots of tanks and SPAA, or a mix of both.
SP cost and SP penalties from spawning additional aircraft is a game mechanic that applies to literally every nation. This isn’t exclusive to the US tech tree.
In fact this affects the the US tech tree the LEAST, not only do the aircraft offer incredible flexibility, but also it has excellent helicopters for every high tier lineup, so you can spawn either a fighter or a heli reactively based on a situation without having to earn more SP to compensate for a second spawn penalty.
Are you stupid? The point he is making is taking an aircraft labeled as a fighter twice costs multiple times more than than 1 labeled as a fighter and one as an attacker.
