Care to elaborate?
It doesn’t “fight” the F-117, it can end up in the same match, sure, but what is the F-117 going to do?
The Mig15 is going to slaughter the F-117 in every engagement they have. The F-117 doesn’t have ANY offensive weaponry, it only has two bombs, that’s it, that is the only armament it has.
i’m not pretending about anything, i just don’t understand what you are trying to achieve.
Either you want theoretical matchups in some cases (like now) or you don’t. You have to choose either of the two.
If you are okay with it in one case but not another then the matchmaker isn’t the issue, the issue is then with the specific matchup.
It so far sounds like you have specific issues that you are trying to blanket fix which is going to make thing so much worse in all other cases than those you’re trying to fix.
So then there are MANY planes that would never come to the game, or you would have to accommodate so many different types of planes that the game mode would be a jumbled mess, and I don’t think either one is reasonable.
Oh absolutely, but that doesn’t really have anything to do with your base point of historical matchmaking. just because there would be more logical targets doesn’t mean it would ever get there while facing top BR planes, you’re just trading the base for a new target but keeping the main problem of the plane not being able to bomb it.
That… that is what you started with though?
Here:
1 Like
In 6.0, the german team almost always has 4 ju288c, the 6vs6 setting is so common because of them. The 2 remaining teammates will also most likely be ground attackers. TL;DR the american team will have them as a burden, unlike the ju288c, they cannot fight back
2 Likes
Because it’s incorrectly modeled! Take it up with the devs, not me Xd
Ok i see what your saying now. Best thing Gaijin could do is limit it 2 or 3 a match.
If it’s labelled as a bomber, only a total of 4 such class vehicles can be spawned in one battle
1 Like
100%
Air RB is pure team deathmatch where bombers are RP/SL pinjatas and can’t meaningfully contribute to the battle. This has to change
2 Likes
Nah, I like my pinatas. My SAAB-105OE specializes in bombers. It would only exacerbate the bomber issue.
I mean, the ÖE is an attacker which happens to also work in PvP versus other planes
That’s lucky, I guess
This would also give a use for ap anti ship bombs
2 Likes
People still need some way to grind it
And from what ive heared it will have stock unguided bombs
Without any countermesures
At 10.0
Semantics. Replace fight with meet, it doesn’t really matter.
It’s not a black and white, 0 or 1 matter. It’s not the kind of thinking you should adopt. It’s about a healthy ratio of realism and balance.
F-117 at 8.7 is nowhere near the sweet spot.
Yes there are many vehicles in general that shouldn’t be here.
A prime example being modern artillery such as M109 or Vidar. We already have artillery as a call-in strike. They simply don’t fit the game the same way there is no place here for transport or recon planes.
Currently there is really no place for bombers and CAS in air battles either, but the difference is that there should be a place for them.
Right now the game mode accommodates one type of plane. I think making space for 2 more (CAS, bombers) is very much achievable. Recon planes may be hard, they would only make sense in sim maybe. Things like playable AWACS wouldn’t work.
This just further proves that you think in binary and can’t comprehend shades of gray.
Once again, the “most sensible approach” part doesn’t mean that realistic MM is the most sensible approach to MM. It means that service entry is the most sensible approach to realism in the context of MM.
It means that, if I say realistic when talking about MM, I mean similar in terms of service entry. I also added a caveat that it’s different when given planes were widely used in the same conflict.
1 Like
This already happens with trainers/light attack planes
That ship has already sailed
Common sense dictates that 1st gen jets shouldn’t be able to see stealth planes. Pun intended.
1 Like
And I want to it to sail back to port.
That’s changed, 6v6 matches are quite rare at the moment.
I do agree that it won’t be good for American teams.
1 Like
I hate to break the news to you but stealth has been being experimented all the way back to the 40s.
If you’re referring to the Ho-229, then I regret to inform you that’s a myth
That said, I’m not at all invested in this argument, just wanted to counter a common misconception
1 Like
The YB-49
And I like pancakes, but I don’t see how either of these statements contribute anything to the discussion.
1 Like