Just play ARB in an F15E or a Typhoon and you can have your hand held too.
Might give you some closure.
1 Like
ARB is nowhere near as busted for NATO as GRB is for Russia
Main reason why is that the teams are almost always mixed
Maybe you’d have a good argument if ARB teams were as homogeneous
Ik flarak is better but its still stupid that u can lunch 6 mach 2 misslies from over 12km
Maybe you’d have a good argument if you weren’t so biased yourself.
Those 2 planes simply fly up high, go mach 2, shoot their missiles (which happen to be the best, longest range FOX 3s in the game) and turn around to rearm with practically zero risk. Far more busted, as these planes deny half of the other top tier jets that can’t do that a level playing field.
But for you to admit that, you’d have a quandary on your hands, with your argument that Russia being the only nation that has “bias” seeming less legitimate.
I guess swedish ground is biased for having great MBTs, too, right? Israel biased for FnF helicopter missiles? China also has more SAM range than any NATO nation, is that biased too?
What does ARB have to do with GRB?
The whole “bias” argument is a poor one.
If differing capabilities is “biased” and the game is “biased” towards Russia, how does the “bias” in ARB being towards NATO support that argument?
I mean, we’re focusing on the KH38, a missile carried by 2 boats that are food for an AMRAAM. It’s goofy.
You’re exaggerating, AIM120 are not that good and neither are their airframes. They’re also not that hard to defeat. Yes NATO has an advantage at long range but Flankers are far stronger at close range. I’ve been having a great time with my Flankers
b-b-but if they allow NATO to be superior in ARB then russian bias isn’t real
Not really, it just means that even their chauvinism has a price tag, there’s too much money to be made from wannabe Mavericks, so Russia takes a backseat. Also russian jets don’t underperform as much as NATO tanks.
Look at the Su27SM. Not doing well? Let’s just add 30% more thrust and fictional double racks for R77.
Now look at US GRB win rate. Below 30%? Not low enough, let’s add Kh38 on a supersonic jet to face the fucking ADATS. Hilarious tbh
1 Like
Bro.
You’re exaggerating, AIM120 are not that good and neither are their airframes.
Lmao.
And you and I both know why US winrates suck. It’s the premium top tier noob nation.
Nope. Because in ARB enabled “all against all” mode - AMRAAM carrier is playing against the same AMRAAM carrier.
Even in GRB with high probability AMRAAM carrier will playing against the same AMRAAM carrier.
Sure, but what about the planes that don’t carry AMRAAMs? I guess it just sucks to suck for them, right?
I love this argument. Let’s imagine that US players (premium or not) are magically inferior, why shouldn’t they be buffed to balance out the game?
Flankers were doing poorly with 10 missiles and obviously that’s a kit issue, but it’s totally different for the US so they should stay in the gutter? Definition of bias.
1 Like
There is no problem to dodging AMRAAM. At GRB distances ARMAAM is not much more dangerous than the R-77 or MICA.
“let’s make the vehicles stronger to compensate for poor players and just hope that no good players start taking advantage of horribly unbalanced vehicles”
sound argument.
3 Likes
Sounds like the Su-34 tbh
Same thing could be said about Russia, regardless of why the vehicles are overpowered in the first place.
And when the AMRAAM carrier is on their airfield rearming, and the planes that spent the first half of the game defending are finally in the AO, what then?
And the F15E carrying 6 mavericks, a full air to air loadout, and some GBUs on top of that is any different?
If you can’t launch an FnF missile as response to AMRAAM launch, then that’s your personal problem.
I have absolutely no problem shooting down any ARH missile carrier…
I mean you can stat check me and determine that for yourself, if you like.
But your argument is about as sound as wet toilet paper is useful.
You’re the only one crying on AMRAAM here.