In my opinion, yes it should. If it isn’t removed, it should have nerfed damage against bases. Base bombing in high tier air promotes low skill gameplay, and it has a negative effect on purpose built attackers.
Pros:
Attackers are more likely to perform their role.
Fighters will be forced to do what they should do.
Players will be forced to learn how to play the fighters they paid $80+ for.
And less players will become dead weight on a team.
Cons:
It’s ahistorical.
Certain planes (F-104s) might become less effective, but we have a BR system for a reason.
28 Likes
No, but maybe a RP bonus for fulfilling their respective role’s tasks. Like fighter actually going to air-to-air engagements and strike aircraft on ground, there’s no need to removal.
20 Likes
Forcing players into a role that is both incorrect of reality and arbitrary is what ends playercounts.
So no, this should never happen.
9 Likes
Even though I dislike all those MiG-23ML, MiG-21bis, or F-4S, which run on nothing but napalm when I fly with my beloved Tonrado IDS.
Honestly, I hate them. it almost feels like they are robbing our glories.
Those MiGs with napalm rush to the base mindlessly, drop bombs on the base, crash to the ground, and queue another MiG in another nation.
Then I am forced to dogfight against F-14A or F-4S with Tornado fuselage.
But, I am not sure that we need to complete removal of ground ordnance from fighters, or napalm bombs. When
- Stock grind of this game is painful as hell, and basebombing usually helps them well.
- There are some attacker aircrafts which are designated as fighters.
(if I know correctly, Only MiG-27M/K can be armed with a napalm bomb though)
Base Bombing and efficiency of napalm is a quite complicated problem in fooked-up level.
4 Likes
Is forcing a fighter aircraft to fight other aircraft arbitrary? Plus, this is a game. If your plane can’t destroy a base without napalm, you shouldn’t be bombing.
I mostly just want base bombing Mig-23s and Mig-21s to disappear, and this could solve that (as well as buffing attackers due to them having less competition).
8 Likes
Nah, it can’t solve the problem.
I think you also saw ‘That’ J-7D bomber who claims [F-4EJ are annoying, they stole base from me] while armed with no missile but 4x 250kg bombs (which is not enough to destroy base) in forum
They will bomb the base mindlessly anyway, even if we limit their ordnance to 1x 250kg level.
5 Likes
And I want players to think of inventive ways to play the game and play how they want, irrelevant of what shows up on my statcard for win rates [my F-5A’s win rate is pure dogwater].
I want realism and flexibility. I left the milsim community for the reason you want to push into War Thunder: Military rejects that forced their narrow will onto those around them.
And I know I’m not the only one cause the least popular shooters ever made are restrictive and balance unskilled and skilled players with Goldeneye 007 aim.
5 Likes
I don’t want all A2G to be removed, just napalm.
And apart from the Mig-27, none of those planes listed have napalm bombs.
1 Like
It will have minimal impact.
They will just switch to regular bombs.
3 Likes
And they deserve the lesser rewards that come with them.
Well, we all know what will follow up after removing napalm from the fighters.
If we remove napalm from the fighters.
mindless base bombing fighters will go to bomb with regular one anyway
(We already had F-5C fully armed 250lb bombs or J-7D with 4x 250kg as example)
Then some players who extremely want to play A2A only and hate every attacker/bomber in this game show up.
and suggest Gaijin about full removal of A2G or bases and force players to dogfight.
Sadly.
4 Likes
Winrates don’t mean much, I just want teammates that aren’t bad enough that they need to bomb in their fighter to earn rewards.
Removing napalm still allows for flexibility. You just can’t bomb in your Mig-21 anymore.
I just don’t think keeping napalm on fighters has benefit, and I personally only see downsides.
It’s… tough. I get the argument and I agree that napalm overly enables fighters to get away with base bombing. But I also hate the idea of restricting loadouts due to bad map/gamemode design.
I think the better solution would be to explore ways to improve ARB first or rebalancing napalm so it wasnt so… good. Also a solution to make it fairer (like adding CBUs for aircraft without napalm) is a must
(also as a final point, classifications are so… wonky, that it could be really unfair for some aircraft)
9 Likes
Yes. Flexibility of carrying regular bombs which isn’t enough for a single base,
and awaits someone else who will wash their dishes for the ‘base destruction’ reward.
https://forum.warthunder.com/t/annoying-f-4ej-rocket-spam/211667/87- Here is an example.
(look at screenshot which was provided by OP)
Removing napalm from Interceptor MiGs is nothing but a makeshift fix.
Long ago, when Napalm bombing wasn’t famous, there was some Chinese player who played MiG-23ML with 16x 100kg bombs but no missiles at all. which was extremely annoying.
Especially when I need to fight against shamelessly under-BRed F-14A with them.
(Edit: my memories are a bit fuzzy so there is possibility of their loadout might be 8x 100kg with 2x 500kg)
1 Like
Only if they didnt carry them in real life.
If they did, then no.
1 Like
Just wish that was enough to get them added onto aircraft. Buc S2 and Sea Vixen have 3 (ish) year old reports for them
Gaijin are indeed weird in what they will and will not add to certain aircraft.
I dont know why.
4 Likes
Yes. Absolutely. ESPECIALLY on MiG-21/23’s.
1 Like
only if they replace them with fuel-air bombs with like 20-40x the tnt equivalent
Some planes are allowed to have ‘possible but ahistorical’ weaponry
while some other planes are not allowed to have ‘historical and possible’ weaponry
:/
This example is a bit off-topic,
JAS39C (SAAF) Gripen is maybe one of the weirdest planes which I saw.
- SAAF never bought AIM-9L/M but granted because the Swedish company SAAB told that they are capable of using AIM-9 at brochures.
- SAAF used R-Darter but I heard that they refused SAAB’s offer and didn’t integrate Darter into Gripen fleet. But Gaijin granted it because they want to.
- While SAAB Brochures also tells JAS39 are AIM-120 capable but in game, no AIM-120B for SAAF JAS39.
‘The plane which filled with full of double-standard in hardpoints’
Anyway, back to original topic,
I am sure that removing napalm from F-4S or MiG-23ML will not solve the problem.
They will bomb the base anyway.
Removing napalm? They will bomb anyway with normal bombs.
no matter if they can destroy the base or not.
cut down the reward of the base bombing into halves?
they will still gonna bomb the base as long as they can reach the base faster than the opponents.
What if Tornado flies faster and reaches the base faster than their F-4EJ or F-4S to the base?
They will Teamkill the Tornado with a missile for guaranteed bombing.
If you want to fix this problem with ‘makeshift stopgap’
complete removal of the base (or reward of the base) only can stop them.
As I claimed earlier, I hate them, but they are not gonna stop even if we remove napalm from them.