Probably not, but if the vehicle is already performing middle of the pack (or better) why put time and effort towards it when there are other things that should be prioritized? (Like many of the new SPAA systems that has issues and need tweaking just as a quick example).
Oh, I don’t know, because the air to ground capacity is so abysmal that even I have a hard time justifying an attempt at using it in this capacity. You trade off virtually all of your offensive capability for a very paltry payload. Or perhaps the fact that this issue was present effectively since introduction and would take all of 10 hours of dev time to fix? Or the pretense of sensible balancing decisions?
2 Likes
Since the introduction of the new SPAA it will likely perform worse as CAS and if that shows in it’s effectiveness then it is likely going to jump up a couple of steps in the priority list to adress.
I personally haven’t had any issues with it in that sense but that is also anecdotal and others might be having a harder time.
In the past month i’ve only played it in Ground RB and the Swedish JAS39C as CAS (maybe 1-2 games as anti CAS for a task) but i have a 3:1 K/D ratio in it when only counting ground targets, if i add air i have 4:1 K/D ratio.
Great, good for you. Ground isn’t the only mode, and pretending it is will just keep the platform degraded. It should be brought up to parity with documentation so that it can be used as a multirole (which it is) in all modes to some semblance of functionality. A centreline pylon would at least present the opportunity to not have to give up the entirety of your offensive capacity for any payload worth bringing. Following the logic you outline, we shouldn’t have bothered to attempt (and succeed) to bring the AGMs on parity with other armaments at the BR and RB75T would have been your best option.
1 Like
It mostly already is, the center pylon bomb isn’t proven to be used in service so the versions we have in game might not even have the functionality. The document that shows the capability is SAAB’s promotional material so it’s just saying that it is theoretically possible, but that doesn’t mean that the countries operating the gripen has chosen to have that capability implemented. The only version that has been seen with center pylon bombs is the Thai version.
All those arguments are still valid to make, it just mens that the DEV’s don’t have to implement them as it wouldn’t be historically accurate but just put there for balance.
Great, remove the R-Darter from the SAAF JAS 39c. Remove the features found on later Gripen C upgrades found on it, that SAAF did not acquire. Remove AGM 65G from all present iterations. Etc. But you’re not vouching for that, because the Gripen we have is a bastardisation that they’re quite content to fudge to facilitate it. We have a demonstration of Gripen’s central pylon capable of carrying ordnance, so it should be brought to said parity. Or, Gaijin needs to start splitting hairs about which variant Gripen C we have.
So why, pray tell, should we not have a central hardpoint you acknowledge exists and is compatible with armament on at least one production run of Gripen where Gaijin does not bother to differentiate Gripen Cs? Balance is a poor argument, as you can take significantly more payload with an F16 AND still defend yourself, at the same BR, with a flight model that is so negligibly worse that it really doesn’t matter.
Following the logic you propose, RB75T could have been the only option to come and it would have been okay because the devs choose balance. This issue is not a balance issue, it is the devs not wanting to bother to touch an aircraft that the community collectively despises and would pretend their action demonstrative of favouritism. It is an easy aircraft to ignore and avoid that outcry because of the limited number of invested players.
A singular pylon carrying a bomb of even 125kg TnT equivalent makes the Gripen go from sacrificing all of its longer range armament and the vast majority of its countermeasures for air to ground capacity to remove at best 25 targets to being able to carry: 2 rb 99s, the associated 320 countermeasures, two pylons of your choice of air to ground munition, whilst facilitating a capacity for approximately 20 targets. Which is still worse than the F16 at the same rating in capacity with the only notable advantage being the CM count (except they’re bol so who cares), but it at least opens up even the modicum of multirole.
1 Like
They only implement non-historical things for balance, they do not go all or nothing. They pick and choose what they deem to be best option for balance at a BR they want it at.
If they were to go with this argument then all gripens would have all armaments and would be even more of a Frankenstein than it already is. The versions we have in game aren’t even denoted to any specific upgrade package (MS 17 to MS 22) but are just a amalgamation of functionality and capabilities it technically can have/has.
I haven’t proposed any configuration nor have i argued in favour for any option. i’m simply stating how it is currently being handled, you are free to agree or disagree with how they handle it, but that is how it currently works. I don’t see the need to voice my personal opinion on it currently as i haven’t played the SAAF version and have played to little of the Swedish one to know how i feel about it against the new SPAA.
1 Like
So an F16C (most equivalent platform at the rating) being able to take several times the efficacy in payload whilst not giving up all longer range defensive options is balanced, when we have iterations of the Gripen that could close the gap even barely but because it’s not flawlessly historical you think it is okay not to correct it to a known capacity? Yet every other change is okay because “It’s about balance”. Seems a pretty dodgy standard you’re proposing.
“It’s okay to balance it by adding random bits from different versions but when we ask for a compatible pylon demonstrated to be compatible by the platform’s production and deployment with the capacity, that’s going too far”
Frankly, we either need to keep it on parity with it as iterated through production, or they need to start splitting hairs with specific standards. The current iteration is effectively just telling everyone involved to get shafted and they’ll only implement the bare minimum functionality whilst ignoring any semblance of reality regarding available functionality unless it suits their ends of telling us to get shafted. Thing’s already a bastardised mess, and if they won’t specify a variant, providing us with the capacity demonstrated by the platform is the most sound and logically coherent implementation.
Never claimed it was.
I never stated my opinion on what i think should or shouldn’t be done.
I haven’t proposed anything, just saying how it currently is.
Not what i have said at all.
1 Like
Hyperbole when used to highlight the flawed nature of an argument can seem like that, but this does run in the same vein of what you’re telling us is the case. Whether you said it or not, this tracks with the logic outlined. It is a capricious logic intended only to screw us out of better opportunities, which you don’t really have the capacity to influence. I will acknowledge it was slightly unfair to direct at you, on that account, but it is effectively what we’re being told.
Unfortunately, by virtue of defending the position that these changes could only come in as balancing, and indicating it may not be necessary you are defending the status quo. Which is, at present, an aircraft at the same rating with significantly more optimal capacity for multirole (arguably even focusing on either role), whilst we’re not permitted any advancement in opportunity for Gripen.
Whilst you may not have explicitly claimed it, the nature of the beast means this is really the only assumption I can fairly make regarding your position. If that is not your position, great. But as a generally sharp interlocutor, I feel you should be able to grasp how the claim is extrapolated from the arguments presented, especially when you offer little pushback towards the state you’re appearing to defend.
Proposing is the wrong word, I’ve not slept for a notable period. However, he logic outlined by your explanations are generally leading to a poor standard for anyone but the most vocal and dogged of communities.
Probably part of the reason this discussion has forward progress to a resolution that would not be unfairly described as “glacial”. Not offering much position does make it difficult to engage with the interlocutor in a fair manner, which I will acknowledge I’ve failed somewhat in this, but again; The hour is late and has been for a day and a bit.
1 Like
If you want my position on it it’s this:
I would like the JAS39C to actually get their denoted MS version upgrades. I would like for them to be as historically accurate as possible (given currently available in-game mechanics) with BR placement being the absolute largest balancing factor. I wouldn’t even mind a “early” and “late” version at different BR’s. But i also acknowledge that that can’t always be feasibly done so i will have to accept minor additions/subtractions based on what a vehicle technically can do and/or has been tested with IRL to make the BR placement reasonable. I would not however like them to get whatever they possibly can do as that would mean that they would in the end all have access to all the munitions possible no matter what the vehicle IRL is actually capable of in a specific configuration for that country. That would just feel weird to me.
For context this is some (not all) of what the C would then have access to (2 versions available depending on date of retrieval, minor differences):
1 Like
I agree with this in principle. However, in practice, I do sincerely doubt we are going to get this and with that doubt accounted for, I feel that a central pylon for a paveway is not really all that much of an ask compared to the fudged state of it at present. I also tend to have a different use case for aircraft so see them a bit differently to most, I value a half adequate air to ground payload quite highly and the current state of Gripen leaves you very fragile in a rating where the compromises you have to make barely appear on other platforms. Decompression could help resolve this, however.
In the current climate, I feel a singular centreline hardpoint for a paveway (or even just some extra 120kg bombs) is not that much of an ask. The request doesn’t add any other types of ordnance, just opens up a pylon which would stop it from being so heavily hindered in the event you wanted to strike ground targets. I do acknowledge that this is primarily because of my particular inclinations in the game, and the addition of NG would resolve this limitation pretty comfortably, but they seem intent on not adding a new gripen until we’re fighting F22s in the Gripen C (see: Fighting f16s in a viggen).
I’m generally against them getting ordnance they shouldn’t have (obviously with the 65G as an exception because of the rating), but I do have to wonder how an extra pylon for ordnance already present on the platform introduces an issue like this. We aren’t exactly suggesting we get SPEAR 3, or MICA, on this new pylon. Just the opportunity to have a loadout with room to breathe. I do acknowledge this entire issue could be resolved by introducing the NG however.
I agree with most of what you say here.
I think the NG is going to come earlier than that, the E however is a different question. The NG is also the version i would have the least objection to being Frankenstein as that is what it was IRL as well, there are so many different configurations and the three (4?) prototypes all look and function differently as they were used to test different things. In-game it would be a good way to fill a BR gap between C and E.
I personally hope they wait with E until it can actually get the electronic warfare suite. The biggest selling points of the E are the digital upgrades (datalinks, electronic warfare and things like that), if those can’t be implemented in game then i don’t think they should add E, better to add the NG as a stopgap in that case.
But now i’m getting off topic.
Great, because I am going to pass out now.