The Meta is the Merge - Please Fix Our Game

[Vennem]

Question: In War Thunder, the “meta” is about the “merge” - the convergence of both opposing side in a “head-on.” Yet, it’s only certain nations that seem per-equipped with “head-on” missiles. What is one to make of this?

Answer: The perception that Russian vehicles dominate the head-on “merge” meta in War Thunder is largely driven by their early access to potent All-Aspect Infrared (IR) missiles and high-performance radar-guided missiles at various Battle Ratings (BRs), particularly around 10.7–11.0 with the R-60M and 12.0+ with the R-73 and R-27ER.

Here is what to make of this situation based on current community feedback and game mechanics:

1. The “Head-On” Missile Advantage (R-60M/R-73)

While Western counterparts (like early AIM-9Ls) were designed for rear-aspect engagement, Soviet/Russian missiles like the R-60M and R-73 were designed for high-agility close-range fighting and were given All-Aspect capability earlier in the progression tree.

• R-60M/MK: These possess high maneuverability and very quick off-the-rail acceleration, making them ideal for firing during a head-on.

• R-73: A later addition that excels in close combat due to its thrust-vectoring capability.

• Comparison: Players often note that at 11.0, Russian planes (e.g., MiG-21bis) can use R-60Ms against enemies only armed with rear-aspect missiles, defining the engagement.

2. The BVR “Merge” King (R-27ER)

In top-tier (12.0–13.7) Air Realistic Battles, the “merge” is often determined before planes meet.

• R-27ER: This SARH (Semi-Active Radar Homing) missile is frequently cited as superior to NATO’s AIM-7M due to its incredible speed and lofting capabilities. It allows Soviet planes (Su-27, MiG-29) to win head-on engagements at long ranges, often forcing opponents to dive or die before they can close the distance.

3. Alternative Viewpoints & Context

While Russian planes have an edge in the head-on, the overall meta is complex:

• Flare Susceptibility: R-60s have large seeker fields of view, making them easily decoyed by pre-flaring, unlike the more flare-resistant AIM-9M or Magic II.

• Energy Management: Many Russian planes (like the Su-27) are considered to have poorer energy retention compared to nimble Western jets (F-16/Gripen), forcing them to play the “merge” rather than sustained dogfighting.

• Other “Head-On” Missiles: The French Magic II is an exceptionally strong IR all-aspect missile, and the Israeli AIM-9L-equipped F-4s can also hold their own in a joust.

Conclusion

Players and data miners often debate whether this is intentional “Russian bias” or simply a design decision by Gaijin Entertainment to model missiles based on their intended close-in, high-agility combat doctrine.

If you are facing this meta, the advice is generally to avoid direct head-ons against Russian jets unless necessary, or to force them into a sustained engagement where their missiles are less effective.

---

If you chalk up this post as “AI slop” you’re coping, point blank per.

[你妈没有告诉你_撞到人要说对不起]

AI slop

[heheheHee]

@Vennem

If you chalk up this post as “AI slop” you’re coping, point blank per.

I don’t know about that
Why state that this is not AI slop when no one has accused you of it yet. If it ain’t AI, there’s no need to say it isn’t

[heheheHee]

uh, at least reword it

[Ion_492]

R-73s are abysmal headon, and R-27ERs end up losing out to ARHs above 13.3. If you really want to talk about pre merge advantages, compare the R-24s/Aim-7E-2s and other SARH missiles. Or bring up airframe quality as well.

@Vennem

In top-tier (12.0–13.7) Air Realistic Battles, the “merge” is often determined before planes meet.

• R-27ER: This SARH (Semi-Active Radar Homing) missile is frequently cited as superior to NATO’s AIM-7M due to its incredible speed and lofting capabilities. It allows Soviet planes (Su-27, MiG-29) to win head-on engagements at long ranges, often forcing opponents to dive or die before they can close the distance.

Mig-29s are bad, and are even worse at BVR. Su-27s are high enough that they will be facing ARH missiles almost every game, and combined with a poor radar/rwr, they can’t really BVR.

Anyways this feels like AI. It says a lot without saying anything at all.

[Morvran]

Yes Definetly Ai Slop. Its making very wierd comparisons

@Vennem

Flare Susceptibility: R-60s have large seeker fields of view, making them easily decoyed by pre-flaring, unlike the more flare-resistant AIM-9M or Magic II.

Yeah, I wonder why Aim-9M and Magic II have more flare resitance than the R-60. They have IRCCM the R-60 doesnt. R-73 performs very similarly to the Magic II and the Aim-9M only very very recently got front-aspect IRCCM. For the better part of the past 3 years. It was 1 flare defeat in front aspect.

You (or your AI) should be comparing the R-60 to the Aim-9L which is just as easy to flare and pre-flare as the R-60. Especially when you factor in CM performance of saying the Mig-23MLD vs the F-4s.

@Vennem

Other “Head-On” Missiles: The French Magic II is an exceptionally strong IR all-aspect missile

Yes, because it has IRCCM and is comprable to the R-73

@Vennem

and the Israeli AIM-9L-equipped F-4s can also hold their own in a joust.

Python-3 isnt that good, no harder to flare than a 9L. Compared to the aircraft it faces, its kinda DOA.

What you (or your AI) has failed to take into account is factor like this.

The Mig-21 or Su-22s operate with 6x All-aspect missiles at 11.0. comprable aircraft like say, the Tornado IDS, operate at 11.3 (and until the next BR change) 11.7 with only 2x 9Ls.

The Mig-23MLD has little excuse to be 11.7, when its direct equals are at 12.0. R-24R are the best SARH missiles below 12.0.

The R-27ER was stupidly OP and oppresively strong during the latter part of the Fox-1 era. Fighting those missiles was stupid and tbh, remains rather stupid now. There are many aircraft that simply should never see them, but are forced to because of compression

The Su-30 premiums are clearly under BRed, even a blindfolded blind man in a pitch black cave can see that.

The Su-27s and Su-30s have a number of very questionable additions, such as double rack missiles or the Su-30SM2s choice of both engine and radar.

The meta at top tier heavily favours the Su-30SM2 because it handles just fine, has one of the best radars, the second best ARH missiles (the “meta” heavily favours shorter range performance over long ranged performance) and carries a metric ton of them. (it also gets a very fast spawn speed). When you compare the extremely favourable treatment of the Su-30SM2 to something like the Typhoon that is still awaiting its Cockpit UV filter among other things, you can rapidly see why people get very very annoyed about the current performance of soviet vehicles

P.S. Side mention, Soyuz and BMPT. I dont think I really need to say much more than that.

[Zulizia]

@Vennem

If you chalk up this post as “AI slop” you’re coping, point blank per.

If you don’t even have the patience to type smth when starting a discussion, then you don’t deserve a discussion. AI Slop.

[Whos_ligma11]

[Kievskiy_Minipig]

I can smell “author of text didnt play the game” even from andromeda galaxy. This and formatting easily tells us its post made by AI. Its so obvious that if it was course or bachelor work, inspector would just spit on it and reject it without using any tools.

And if post header has “please fix”, where is your proposition for fixing the issue? Usually if you want something changed you offer way to implement that change. Instead all I see is players think that, players debate on that and some weird advice. Which is bad advice btw. ChatGPT would know that if it played the game at least. Instead of sucking random opinions from reddit or this very forum.

@Vennem

If you chalk up this post as “AI slop” you’re coping, point blank per.

Its sad that you are creative enough only for LLM prompt and this sentence.

[Sakyuz]

Flare Susceptibility: R-60s have large seeker fields of view, making them easily decoyed by pre-flaring, unlike the more flare-resistant AIM-9M or Magic II.

• Other “Head-On” Missiles: The French Magic II is an exceptionally strong IR all-aspect missile, and the Israeli AIM-9L-equipped F-4s can also hold their own in a joust.

Players and data miners often debate whether this is intentional “Russian bias” or simply a design decision by Gaijin Entertainment to model missiles based on their intended close-in, high-agility combat doctrine.

If you are facing this meta, the advice is generally to avoid direct head-ons against Russian jets unless necessary, or to force them into a sustained engagement where their missiles are less effective.

If you chalk up this post as “AI slop” you’re coping, point blank per.

brother this shit cant be real.
im gonna quote our lord and savior
“i dont rage bait, i bait the rage 🗿🗿🗿🗿🗿🗿🥱🥱😈😈🐺🐺🐺🦍🦍”

[kizvy]

@Vennem

• R-60M/MK: These possess high maneuverability and very quick off-the-rail acceleration, making them ideal for firing during a head-on.
• R-73: A later addition that excels in close combat due to its thrust-vectoring capability.
• Comparison: Players often note that at 11.0, Russian planes (e.g., MiG-21bis) can use R-60Ms against enemies only armed with rear-aspect missiles, defining the engagement.

yeah definitely, it’s why shotgunning r-60ms are actually quite good at mig-21bis br range (shooting r60m at around .8km) Though I’d argue it’s more due to the fuse delay being super low and not its actual maneuverability.

@Vennem

R-73: A later addition that excels in close combat due to its thrust-vectoring capability.

yeah true, but really only rear aspect. Side aspect and front aspect they’re usually one flared unless very, very close.

@Vennem

R-27ER: This SARH (Semi-Active Radar Homing) missile is frequently cited as superior to NATO’s AIM-7M due to its incredible speed and lofting capabilities. It allows Soviet planes (Su-27, MiG-29) to win head-on engagements at long ranges, often forcing opponents to dive or die before they can close the distance.

yeah, also true. Not only that, it’s much more maneuverable than the sparrow. Plus unlock relock capability makes it super strong, imo all su-27/flankers should go up one br step, while the mig-29s are usually mid enough even with r-27er that they can stay at their current br.

@Vennem

Flare Susceptibility: R-60s have large seeker fields of view, making them easily decoyed by pre-flaring, unlike the more flare-resistant AIM-9M or Magic II.

eh if you shotgun them close enough it doesn’t even matter if it sees flares, it will still proxy on em. And yeah ofc its less flare resistant than 9m or magic 2 with no irccm.

@Vennem

Energy Management: Many Russian planes (like the Su-27) are considered to have poorer energy retention compared to nimble Western jets (F-16/Gripen), forcing them to play the “merge” rather than sustained dogfighting.

su-27 has better energy retention than those planes

@Vennem

Players and data miners often debate whether this is intentional “Russian bias” or simply a design decision by Gaijin Entertainment to model missiles based on their intended close-in, high-agility combat doctrine.

it’s moreso that russia had these kind of missiles early on, and don’t necessarily get a good era accurate counterpart (not including prototypes like aim95). like the nato counterpart to r-73 is the aim9x which is obviously too good compared to r-73 unless it comes with a omega-nerfed seekerhead on par with r-73

@Vennem

If you are facing this meta, the advice is generally to avoid direct head-ons against Russian jets unless necessary, or to force them into a sustained engagement where their missiles are less effective.

that really only works in omega busted planes like eurofighter or rafale

@Vennem

If you chalk up this post as “AI slop” you’re coping, point blank per.

it’s fine to use ai, just don’t deny it