Found it, 2km+ lock range for super small targets
1 Like
Tell me, which requires more skill and is just objectively better from a gameplay standpoint?
A proper joust where neither person shoots the other missiles down or the “hurr durr hurr who can press launch missile more often?” Iron dome playstyle?
7 Likes
“The absence of proof is not proof of the absence” is a very dangerous logic you most definetely do not want to get into.
Nontheless, my stance is basically that realistic or not, this mechanic should be either removed completely or hampered to such extreme to the point its removed in practicality. It does nothing but harming the already trembling state of the game both in short and long term, rendering future additions such as 5th gen fighters completely useless. Imagine an F-22 with only 6 or 8 missiles, going up against a su-30sm2, or F-15C GE with 12 or 14.
2 Likes
What would you prefer the F22 to be untouchable bar to the most advanced planes like the Typhoons and rafales.
This is not a matter of invulnerability, but rather the usefulness of future additions to the game.
My example can be applied even to some vehicles currently in game like the F-16 PoBIT. It already suffers heavily because its capabilities are clearly not good enough to compete against the other vehicles at similar BRs. Now add the fact it only has 6 missiles, what is it supposed to do if someone shoots them all down?
2 Likes
I would like a meta that actually rewards positioning & tactics that goes beyond “lol just shoot down all a whole salvo of missiles” or “shoot a whole salvo of missiles at a single target”.
But hey…if you want to kill a game mode that you do not play because of some off case about potential plane in the future…be my guest…
15 Likes
Yeah no, screw “skill”
Why do we need that?
Just let us shoot down all missiles because it’s easier
Things being easier definitely are always good for the game
Why should we try to get skilled at a game?
That’s boring and lame
Spoiler
/s
10 Likes
1 i do occasionally play sim.
2 I do not want to see this ridiculous missile spam continued in any game mode, be it sim or RB.
3 some off case plane which A i never brought up and B will absolutely dominate, expecially sim, is not the answer to the current issue.
I never said that at all.
I’m merely stating your response about the F22 seems as if you want it to he untouchable especially in relation to sim.
F22 when added will absolutely dominate sim, only being displaced again by the very top end of upgraded systems like the latests typhoons or Rafales.
That’s my point.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Trying to shoot down missiles with your own missiles should be very difficult to accomplish and considered an emergency/last-ditch effort.
It’s hard to detect AA missiles even with advanced radar systems. It is also hard to hit a fast moving target with a low RCS. Maybe this is possible irl as a last resort (everything else failed so let’s try to intercept the missile), but I am sure it’s extremely difficult to do this because we don’t see this tactic as a standard in modern air warfare doctrine.
Considering Gaijin doesn’t implement weapon failures, I suggest we maintain the possibility of incoming missiles being detected by the radar, but greatly reducing the locking and firing range. By implementing something like this we could accomodate all aspects of this issue. On one hand, it would effectively end the iron dome meta, since intercepting missiles would be much harder and far less reliable. On the other hand, it would satisfy players who claim air to air missile detection and interception are realistic.
In any case, notching, chaffing and electronic countermeasures (when they are added to WT) seem to be the way to go irl (much more reliable) and it should be the same in Simulator Battles.
Because it is irrelevant. The original claim was “shooting down A2A missiles with A2A missiles is not a thing in real life”
The IRIS-T presence (or lack thereof) in-game doesn’t matter for this claim. They are unrelated, it’s goalpost-moving. Therefore I ignored it.
“I can’t provide any 100% success rate of any AAM; therefore iron dome meta bad”
This makes no sense. Unless you want RNG implementation, which I bet you don’t, then the same argument can be made about missile-aircraft intercepts as well.
If a launch is within parameters, why shouldn’t it hit? Pick a lane.
Once again… every AAM is an interceptor missile… not every interceptor missile is an AAM.
It is absolutely an unnecessary risk. I often get kills from people trying to do this, more often than not, because I don’t make my missile easy intercept. It is not more effective than countermeasures unless you don’t know how to notch.
I’m not saying it is a good tactic, but the arguments being made against it can be summarized into “I don’t like this plz remove”
1 Like
You are making up the definition that aerial target only aircraft.
“Aerial targets” can range from aircraft to munitions.
“aerial” = anything in the air.
As for your second point, I could say the same, sans internet, as basic logic seems to be lacking before hitting “enter”.
1 Like
I didn’t bring up this point, others did. I just challenge the notions by challenging claims and faulty logic by asking for receipts that aren’t “I don’t like this plz remove”.
People say “this isn’t possible IRL”, get proved it is.
“There aren’t any missiles IRL that can do this”, get proven there are.
“But this is not a real life tactic”, which is an irrelevant argument given that IRL the stakes aren’t a death count on a scoreboard, which is why other retarded tactics like flying solo, radar off, sitting in a notch at 10m AGL waiting to dogfight someone who just took off are also not real life tactics.
“yeah but it’s not 100% success rate”, well, nothing is, unless you want RNG, this doesn’t mean anything.
“BUT IT’S BAD FOR GAMEPLAY REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE”, debatable. From most arguments it’s just a case of “I DONT LIKE THIS PLS REMOVE”, there is no consistent formal logic beyond opinions being presented.
You cannot control player behavior and tactics. The core issue is the risk in game is nowhere near the risk you would be taking IRL. If the physics is sound, and we aren’t rolling RNG for reliability for every single stage of the missile (ignition, tracking, cruise, pitbull, end-game, and fuze), which we aren’t, then it is always going to be reliable when in parameters.
There is no way to go around this issue without adding either RNG, for mechanical changes, or higher penalties for dying or other game design choices to change player behavior.
Pick a poison.
1 Like
ill pick a lane. Iron dome is bad for the game. period. realistic or not, don’t care.
There should be something done to remove or nerf it. Realism out the window i don’t care. people are tired of it at top tier and it absolutely is having a huge negative effect in the game mode in sim and can make its way elsewhere… if this is difficult to grasp please let us know where the lapse in understanding is.
7 Likes
There’s nothing dangerous about pointing out flawed logic.
Finally an honest argument. You have an opinion, based on vibes.
I do not like “iron dome meta”. But i also don’t think 5th gen fighters will be remotely useless because of it. any stealth plane would be able to launch from an angle or aspect which wouldn’t be able to be countered by this tactic, as they would be able to position themselves without being detected unless in close range.
You could give the F-22 an AIM-9B and it would still dominate.
That’s certainly an opinion.
And as with every opinion that isn’t backed up by anything else beside “i don’t like this”, disposable.
If you don’t like realism, I suggest maybe Ace Combat.
1 Like
Can you do this IRL? If so, no reason to remove in simulator.
Definitely not. Massively overrated
4 Likes
not with any of the missiles that are ingame rn
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
I’m exaggerating a bit here of course. My point is that positional play is a more important to secure a kill than missile count.