There are plenty of vehicles without weaponry they used. The reason the Mirage 4000 shouldn’t get them isn’t because it didn’t use them, but rather because it couldn’t.
1 Like
That’s also a good reason
The issue with premiums is this.
People have spent “X” number of pounds/dollars/euros on said vehicle in a perticular state. Such as the F-20A at 12.7 with 6x Aim-9Ls. Or Mig-21 BISON at 12.3 with 2x R-73s and 2x R-27R or the Su-39 at 11.7 with its loadout and then the BR of that aircraft were to suddenly change to be far higher than it was originally due to the addition of a Fox-3 missile (which in all likelyhood would be bad, very bad for each and everyone of them) then it fundamentally changes their original purchase into something they might have chosen not to purchase. Should they be offered refunds?
You wouldnt be happy if you bought a laptop and then 3 months later discovered that the developers decided it will only work if used upside down. You’d be pissed.
The community is also apprehensive about Premiums being added with Fox-3s due to both their strength and complexity of use. It is hard enough to deal with players with no experience trying to figure out how to fire an Aim-7 from a F-4. Imagine trying to explain how to use an Aim-120. All the posts asking for help with the Iranian F-14A is evidence enough of that
In the past, changes to any Premium have been a long fought battle. Like getting the Challenger DS its historically accurate L26 shells, That took like 2 years of fighting for what is a relatively minor upgrade and that was only a 0.3 BR increase.
If those premiums are truly struggling at their current BRs, then the solution is not to increase their BRs with better weapons and hope its a good enough band-aid for them. It is to advocate for a BR drop for them next BR change. Maybe F-20 is getting curb-stomped in full uptiers at the moment, well then fight for it to be 12.3.
Even the Non-premium options you gave have issues like the JA37D
- Ifs not good enough at 12.0, then it’ll be DOA at 13.0/13.3
- It’ll leave a void on the swedish tree
The better solution might be to add a JA37D “late” or JA37Di. A second version of the same aircraft with AMRAAM. Much like they did for the Tornado F3. That way players are left with a choice of whether to play at the lower BR without Fox-3s or at a higher BR with them.
As a final note. Dont forget we will see even better Fox-3 carriers coming at 14.0 and 14.3 soon enough. If an F-20A is barely managing at 12.7 with no Fox-3, it would be DOA at 13.3 with 4x Aim-120B vs the current 13.7s and would definetly be DOA vs aircraft like the Typhoon with Aim-120C5s. Unless you expect the F-20A to get a continuous stream of upgrades to keep it at top tier forever
2 Likes
Yes, I think planes should get their actual armament, as much as possible.
For me the main example is the Italian F-16ADF, the whole point of this plane irl was the introduction of AMRAAM platform for AMI waiting for EF-2000.
But Hungarian Gripen basically replaced it as ARH carrier in the game, even despite “subnation additions don’t come instead of the nation’s vehicles”.
4 Likes
Same thing with the f16a mlu except it was a j11a that nobody asked for.
1 Like
This topic is about adding missiles to planes that could supposedly carry them, to my knowledge the Yak-141 never carried an R-77 just as the F-20 never carried the AIM-120.
There is a document announcing a carrying of 14 “advanced missiles” for the Mirage 4000 and given the time of its development we can assume that it is Mica
The yak141 did actually carry them, but couldn’t fire them.
And the f20 carried mockups.
The mirage4000 project was abandoned before mica’s existed.
1 Like
So can’t receive them
So can’t receive them
The Mica program was initiated in 1982, so the Mica and the Mirage 4000 did indeed coexist
It also never had a radar, HMD, IRST, and a bunch of other systems, yet has them in game, so it can get them, actually.
So I don’t see the problem with the Mica for the Mirage 4000. If an aircraft that has never received a radar can receive R-77s, an aircraft that had one can well receive Mica.
You know very well that the situations of the Yak-141 and Mirage 4000 are very different. Don’t act like they’re the same.
For me these two planes are in the same situation, they are prototypes that never entered service. The only real difference I see between the two is that the Mirage 4000 was much more accomplished and ready for service while the Yak-141 was never really finished.
The Yak-141 was never combat capable, and was thus given what was planned. The Mirage 4000 was combat capable, and is thus as it was in real life. The only liberty that was taken was it being given Super 530D’s, which it never mounted, however it still could use them. Again, they are very different situations.
1 Like
On top of what Shay said…
Citing Yak-141 means nothing as it’s following the same standards set with the game’s launch that haven’t changed.
Ho-229 and Kikka are the OGs.
People need to stop taking the spotlight off of Ho 229 just cause they really want to post about Russian equipment.
So we remove it from the game
You don’t want weaponry invented in the game, fine, then we remove planes that can’t fight IRL.
There are multiple vehicles in game that weren’t combat capable, so no.
1 Like
So you want to add missiles to a plane that is not capable of combat under the pretext that it would make it better but not to a plane that could “potentially” use them.
So you want to remove Ho 229, Kikka, Arado 234 C-3, XP-50, Swift F7, J7W1, VB 10-02, SO8000 Narval, G56…
How about no…
Incomplete prototypes is a category of vehicle.
Complete prototypes are a separate category of vehicle.
I’m not necessarily in favor of removing them from the game, but rather of not adding completely fanciful weaponry to them.
This is what I said, not that I want it to get them.