Rockets no longer damage bases

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
,
162

Common sense.

I look at the suspended weaponry of an aircraft and can immediately venture a rough guess if it’s suitable for a certain role or not.

Having a basic knowledge of military aviation in general and the type in question helps as well.

Sure, but if you purchase a vehicle and don’t use its strength, but complain about its (obvious and easily recognizable) weaknesses, that’s on you.

Because armies always try to use their equipment for other things. The rocket armament was of limited use for close air support, but the J35 never was a real attacker.

Note also the designation J35, J standing for Jakt, indicating a fighter role. If it had an attack role, according to Swedish designation it would have an A for Atak in the designation, if it had also a reconnaissance role, an S for Spaning. Basically the equivalent of F, G and R in the British role designations (e.g. Phantom FGR.2).

See also the Viggen, which in WT comes as AJ37 (with ground attack as primary and fighter a secondary role), compared to the JA37 (with fighter as primary and attack as secondary role), and the AJS37 (like the AJ37, but with additional, in WT irrelevant reconnaissance role).

Or the Lansen, which comes in dedicated J32 fighter or A32 attacker variants. Also here the J32 has primarily an air to air loadout, with (even more limited than J35) air to ground secondary armament, and the A32 with a good, dedicated air to ground armament and no air to air weaponry.

If it comes to grinding btw, the A32A Röd Adam would have been a great and effective choice if you like ground attack / base killing as grinding method.

TL;DR: Use the aircraft for their intended role if you want to get the most out of them for rewards and grinding.

4 Likes
163

With the underwhelming acceleration, basically if you get slow you are dead because you have not much of a chance to get back up to speed without getting 3rd partied

164

When F-14 shoot their 54’s, best what you can see - it a trails, directing in your team at all.
You cannot know, that one of them fly for you.

Best what you can do (as i do) - its a flying not in vanguard (F-14 try launch missiles to closest targets), or fly in notch after seeing launch, just to be sure.

Well, my F-4S WAS a problem to enemies.
As MiG-23ML(D).

Just F-4S can see enemies on radar just from moment he taking off.
When 23ML just need to be higher then you.

Here’s no one.
But still, you get enemy on your “6”, and he have a opportunity to launch even rear-aspect IRs at you (forcing you to waste flares, and speed on evasive manouvers),
Or just pick you up by gun run (try flare guns, good luck).

Even if you try to be evasive and manouverable - you will lost all your speed in 3-7 seconds, after what enemy just climb, to recieve a position at your rear, and finish you.

That, why XS must achieve all-aspects.
If not 9L, so at least Aim9P-4, (20G, 9L seeker), to be able perform somehow.
I play not so lot on XS, but already feel that speed bleeding at any turn.

Well, idk about who you talk, but when i grind on F-4S/Mirage F1-200, i bomb the base (trying to use Fox-1 in process), and after gaining reward - join to fight.

So - double gain, for base, and for frags (on average - at least two).
Don’t see anything bad in that method.

Just now, i cannot use my beloved preset in Mirage (2xMM2, 2x530F, 1 big bomb, and 2 rocket pods.
Now i must use 3 bombs, what make me unable to take 530F.

165

so Gaijin removed one grinding option from one 60$ premium vehicle and solution is to go and buy yet another, newer premium vehicle for additional 40$? But this time one that is at lower tier so it’ll have tier difference penalties kick in for rank8 planes research …

right now Gaijin has decided that from now on vehicles with rockets won’t be able to damage bases effectively (unless they have crazy high number of those rockets). Why shouldn’t we expect them to do further “optimizations” to steer players towards using different group of vehicles next?
Now you can’t use rockets anymore, you should go and use bombs. Oh, wait, now you can’t use small bombs, you need to use 250kg+ to do damage to bases, enjoy using your stock loadout with 100kg bombs only. Oh, nevermind, it’s 500kg+ from now on. Wait a second, normal bombs are out, you need to use napalm only, if your plane can carry 4 napalm bombs you’re goood. Oh, what an unlucky situation, 5 napalm bombs needed for a base now, guess you’ll need to make two trips.

Or take heli PvE as another example … especially for the 7.7-9.3BR bracket this update basically removed the option to engage 1/3 of objectives available on map from pretty big group of helicopters. Because reasons. Yet another “oh what an unlucky coincidence the grind just became way more time consuming for these vehicles, why don’t you buy 60$ premium vehicle instead” moment?

166

That’s something completely different.

You can for example use 12x Mk.82 500 pounders or 6x Mk.83 1’000 pounders and get the same result on bases.

But it gets absurdly irrational if you expect that 128x 57mm rockets with a combined explosive mass of 1/25 (!!!) of the bombs you need, would get the same result on a base.

1 Like
167

I wouldn’t go so far to give it all aspect missiles. But since it’s the finish version it could take R-13Ms which are similar to Aim 9Gs which would it already make it more competitive.

image
image1920×1080 131 KB

2 Likes
168

The most convenient excuse when there is a shortage of normal arguments.

I too. And i see, that i can use 4 IR AAM, and reasonable amount of rockets.

But now, rockets is almost useless.

You really don’t want go in this ring with me.
Because, you will have a really bad time, trying to explain, why almost every fighter plane have rockets/bombs implementations.

Oh, but i was.

I have pretty clumsy fighter, which can destroy a base by rockets, and then, try make something with rear-aspect missiles, not-so-comfy gun, and punishing speed bleeding, when i don’t fly straight.

Sounds more like attacker, tbh.

And now, XS is still a sh… pretty bad fighter, and even not a rocket deliver ay all.

Bad try.
MiG-23 is a pure fighter due to your classification, but only removal a radar, with installing a PrNK (and rearm to GSh-30-6) make it a MiG-27 - attacker.

F-15E/F-16 is F-Fighters, but they using GBUs, and AGMs.
And you cannot say “tHeY MuLtIrOlE”, because, by your specifications, they - fighters.
F/A-18 (Hornet) - multirole.
So what now - players must not use Mavericks and GBU, because their planes is “Fighters”?

Or maybe, if we go to props, P-47 is attacker, not a high-altitude fighter?
Because most of players use Thunderbolt as attack aircraft

So, as we see, your take is invalid.
Classification it’s not about plane - it’s about how you use it.
Just some of them better fit to the role, they predicted.

Yup.
But same time, they give this classification not due to plane abilities (what it can do, but to it armaments).

Like late jet will be J (Jakt - Fighter), if it have radar, and A-A missiles. Even if plane, without missiles, still can shot down targets, what fighters do.

It can be A (Attack) if carrying AGMs. But all jet, with even rockets - not AGM can provide CAS as attacker.

And it be called S (Spaning - Recon) if have targeting pod, with FLIR, which allow aircraft to recon enemy positions.
(And it the only classification case, i can be agree with).

So as we see - classification ain’t designate full plane potential.
If Draken designated as J - Jakt, it ain’t mean it can only be fighter (especially, for late modification, with seriously improved systems).

And this is what i did, before this patch is broke really good, and fitting to this aircraft tactics.

Just be honest - J-35XS, is a fighter, who can fly fast (if fly straight), and deliver ordnance, but cannot fight effectively, due to speed bleeding, in slightliest turns, and lacking of armament, provide the head-on capabilities.

It just can’t intercept planes in front, and can’t dogfight (without stalling after first turn - energy saving tricks just dont work here). So it VERY hard to implement as fighter jet.

So i use him as rocket train, and after using all rockets - as speedy interceptor, trying to picking unaware enemies (what means “be forced to play from enemy mistakes, not by my own skill”).

169

Aim9P-4 is all aspect

2 Likes
170

Yep, thanks, i just forgot the accurate name of modification.

171

Not really. I was specifically talking about Swedish aircraft designation, comparing it in part with the British designation.

The US designation system is very unusable in this aspect: We have e.g. F-111 or even F-117 which are dedicated bombers/attackers, yet they are not B-'s or A-'s. No-one in his right mind would call the Nighthawk a fighter, only because it’s got an F in front of the 117.

Also, “multirole” is a term coined relatively late, appearing iirc around the time of F-16 / F/A-18.

(Note: F/A-18 even makes it worse: the additional A designation was added mainly for marketing purpose, and makes the Hornet in no way more multirole than the Fighting Falcon.)

Later Dassault went on toeven call the Rafale “omnirole”, to market its versatility, being able to perform “any” job. In general, todays military aviation technology indeed allows to much easier combine different roles into one airframe that before used to be performed by different, (more or less) specialized types. You had Tomcats and Intruders and Corsairs on the Deck of US carriers, then there were just Hornets, taking over the job of all three…

Of course, there were multirole types before, P-47 being a good example. So for example in German slang the Thunderbolt is called a Jagdbomber very often, not a fighter.

3 Likes
172

Not covering yourself in glory stat shaming here buddy. If the first thing you check when I give a generally applicable tip on how to play the game is my stats you need to get a life.

173

Use 2 magic 2s, 2 2000 pounders and one centerline 530.

174

Do you not read the OP’s post?
Did you not actually read my post? Hint: I’m not only referring to this one specific issue. Gaijin does this all the time. Airfield AAA for instance.

175

that’d make sense if you actually needed to hit something. But you don’t.

Base hitbox extends pretty far outside the actual base, so if it is perfectly acceptable to dump bomb load of the tiniest crappiest bombs into the middle of empty field half a mile away from base and pretend it somehow magically does damage to the base then why are we putting extra scrutiny on rockets? When developers already missed even tiniest resemblance of realism by several light years there is not much point arguing about millimeters.

If devs make actual hitboxes that matter and give bases (or base parts) somewhat acceptable “damage model” that would explain resistances then we can debate what number of what kind of weapons is needed to destroy them. With current implementation, it really doesn’t matter …

Before this change quite a few aircraft were able to rocket a base before going into air combat (and get easy 20-30k SL & 4k RP). Gaijin hates that and so they are removing this option. That’s the complete extent of the “realism” here. “This particular kind of nonsense is baaaad and unrealistic, so it should be changed to different kind of nonsense that devs like better because it is gooood (and just as unrealistic)”. That makes sense.

176

True, and I would very much love to see this changed to individual point targets instead of a too arge area target. Would also make the use of GBU’s more interesting and relevant.

1 Like
177

…especially also the people piloting dedicated attackers/bombers hated that. The taking off and trying to get to their targets, fulfilling their role for which they were designed, before the fighters snacked all those targets from under their nose.

1 Like
178

F5C is too slow to even get to bases, that was my experience in it.

179

but this didn’t really solve the problem of dedicated attackers/bombers, instead of having their targets snatched from under their nose by fighters with rockets they will now have their targets snatched by fighters with bombs/napalm. It’ll just change the meta a bit and steer base bombers to little bit different group of vehicles.

and the concern about attackers/bombers is really touching, especially when you look at planes like french Vautours, or F-84F where devs have no problem with their targets being snatched by much faster planes (or the stupidity of tier differences where F-84F in US tech tree has air spawn while other variants don’t). Or general balance of things like il-28 or tu-2 vs other bombers/attackers at their BR when it come s to base bombing and having targets snatched.

2 Likes
180

That is probably true for RB, but I personally really always recommend for people who enjoy attacker/bomber playstyle to try out Sim instead.

AB/RB meta really favors and focuses on fighters, but in Sim you not only have more possibilities to evade enemy aircraft, but especially also bases respawn reliably and quite quickly so even with several players going after them have enough to “feed” on.

in AB/RB on the contrary bases are often very close to the “Big Furball” in the center of the map - not a healthy place to go for the often only moderately agile

181

Yep.
Or even more, will replace only four bases, by numerous sub-missions, like “Search and destroy enemy camp/ammo or fuel silo/field radar station/artillery positions/SAM emplacement” etc.

Without base marker - only a grid, where must be target (work for targeting pods). Like pilots have only a only approximate coordinates, from reconnaissance reports.

And a reward “Forward coordinator”, for revealing those targets by find them with targeting pod.
(Dont make marker, but apply one on map, for allies with assault armament, can destroy targets, without wasting time searching. Like finding targets in sim battles.)

And while the dispersion of targets will ensure the need for units of unguided missiles.

A crowded target like a field radar (and, optionally, a crew of a long-range air defense system next to it) is really better to bombard with a one but large guided bomb/missile from a decent height/range.

For crowded, but less dangerous for the aircraft (TML emplacement, preparing for launch (are you ready for “SCUD hunt” vibes?)), repair facility, or helicopter base (even with missions like “intercept group of helos, which arriving to frontline”) you can give a one, or few large-caliber unguided bomb.

While a dispersed camp, field airfield, artillery battery, or ammunition/fuel depot is much more effective to destroy with short but multiple salvoes of unguided missiles/more numerous small bombs.
(And, surely, supress AAA-emplacements, which guarding those “points of interest”. It can be a ZU-23-2/VADS - type AAA, with slightly weakened damage.

(If gaijin don’t want to really model toughness of carcass, armor, and armor penetration for aircraft - strategic bombers/A-10/Su-25, must be way sturdier than they are now).

Sounds like a new gamemode.
A real “Operation” or “Frontline”
Without markers, but with AWACS/ground radar support etc.
Like Sim battles, but with Realistic controls, and 3rd person view.

And all that give a more feeling of real battlefield - not just bunch of planes, trying kill each other, and if want - kill some ground targets.

2 Likes