This post is about air, not ground
Well, it would probably be a new air to air missile like the ARH R27’s or the R-77-1, but either or those would have other counterparts added to the other nations
My name is bait meant to get people talking in game about something I think is funny and true. It has nothing to do with nations suffering. The Italy Suffers name was the same exact thing but with a different context
1 Like
Honestly, thrust-vectoring engines on newer platforms should significantly increase their performance, following some variants with slights improvements on some missiles.
The thing is, if it doesn’t meet their standard of unbeatable (same as the F-15 gang), they’ll begin this exact outrage in the future whenever the Su-30 arrives.
Thrust vectoring engines on a bad flight model isn’t really something I’m excited for ngl, I’d rather have good flight models made better with thrust vectoring, how they should be
You’re closer to get thrust vectoring than better FMs on current airframes.
The quicker you learn to deal with that reality, the better you’ll work around with the hand you were dealt whenever playing Soviet/Russian stuff. I’d bet you’re closer to get slight buffs on missiles than a workaround on FMs.
You’re entirely right, the likelihood is very small of flight model buffs. They’ll probably buff anything but that for some reason. But I made the post for the chance Gaijin sees it, can’t blame a man for trying.
2 Likes
Why do you think this
It has been proven since the MiG-21 vs F-4E era that Gaijin is not in the precise will to model Russian airplanes ‘appropriately’ as claimed by many people, even with documentation proving some capabilities.
I’m not a Gaijin insider to know the exact reasons, but it followed something along the lines of keeping this artificial ‘balance’ of raw flight performance vs reasonable ordnance advantage at short quarters/BVR, yet Gaijin in their delayed and great wisdom, forgot that Seek and Destroy democratized BVR engagements to all of tech trees, and forgot to give Russian-related airframes some new interesting workaround (not a straightup advantage) to be at least interesting against BLUFOR stuff in relation to gameplay, not for being just op.
2 Likes
That’s not me dawg
Isn’t that the point you would use an ARH missile? The point being from the longer distance shots, you would use the ER since it’s faster than the ARH missiles.
In this scenario you’d be playing your weaker hand against their stronger one? It’s like using an aim7m at close range when your aim9m would be the better choice.
You’d use your ER at long range much further than 10km and then within 10 you’d surely switch to your ARH.
1 Like
Correct
It all started when Gaijin refused to give MiG-29s their R-73s, made them grind through regular R-60s, gave them the R-27ERs to try to compensate (they overcompensated), and resolved to nerf their flight models for “balance”.
7 Likes
And that happens when Gaijin decides to apply the ‘we only accept documentation as methods of balance’ card but then screws around the entire environment instead of adding a weakened version of the R-73 and then buffing it over time.
3 Likes
Which is dumb because they never reversed it. Atrocious balancing.
Which they totally should do. The MiG-29G is what Fulcrums always should have been, minus the R-27ER/ET and the nerfed fm.
Give us release 29 FM with a 4x R-73 / 2x R-27T/R loadout at 12.7 and I’d be very happy, maybe 13.0 if it holds up enough (the unnerfed FM)
4 Likes
We can only hope the addition of the MiG-29K having the OG flight model, as it shouldn’t have major advantages over its competitors.
Problem is gaijin will likely compare it to jets like the F-15E
I could not agree more. As for the the 29G, since it’d pretty much just be a copy of the 9.12, well… move it off to the side bar or fonder it. Gaijin loves giving Germany event vehicles (M23MF + MFG) or removing vehicles but allowing played to grind them on certain dates (Maus).