Would you like the Tornado GR.4 to receive BOL countermeasures?
Yes
No
0voters
We’re now well into the dev server and there is still no sign of BOL countermeasures being added to the Tornado GR.4. For those unaware BOL is the countermeasures dispenser built into the missile Launch rails on the Tornado F.3, and some other aircraft. Each BOL rail can hold 160 countermeasures, meaning they would increase the GR.4’s countermeasure load by 320.
I feel the addition of these dispensers are important as they are one of the key advantages the Tornado GR.4 had over the GR.1 in real life. The Tornado also lacks long range fire and forget stand-off munitions compared to other top tier aircraft (Brimstone’s range is somewhat lacking), necessitating it to spend more time closer to the battlefield to be effective. This would make the increased countermeasures load from BOL even more important.
Here’s a photo of a Tornado GR.4 fitted with BOL countermeasures dispensers, feel free to share any more photos you can find:
If it was 11.7/12.0 then I could almost accept not getting them, as 2x TERMA is plenty for 12.0. But at 12.3 in ARB and 12.7 in ASB its going to struggle and thats without even mentioning the GR4 with a limited FnF loadout having to take on 13.7 aircraft in GRB
Its going to need every single advantage it can get. That should 100% include BOL. Especially with their current modeling, they arent exactly a big buff, but one that would make a difference.
BOL is a necessity for such an aircraft, it does not have the luxury of being super maneuverable or have an untouchable stand-off range and must therefore come equipped to defeat many airborne threats that it will inevitably encounter.
Also it is a huge upgrade over Gr.1 and therefore further makes the aircraft unique.
320 Large calibre but short burn flares ontop of 480 standard calibre chaff from the 2x TERMA, might make a bit of a difference ,at least defending against enemy aircraft.
But yeah, the lack of stand-off weapons in the GR4 and the lack of equal AAMs to fight back against enemy aircraft is going to be the most serverely felt
Yeah… We’ll have to see how that RWR change impacts “normal” gameplay, but im dreading how bad it could be. Thankfully. I think the RWR in the GR1 is the same in the GR4 and I think Gunjob/Flame have the manuals for the GR1 so that should be fully reportable and we can keep it at full performance. Just feel sorry for the nations in which those docs are classified
I am sincerely hoping they get negative reviews once the change goes live.
There’s nothing you can do to fix it without classified documents to give names to each threat, and what they had before was as true to life as we can get without those lists. Maybe they could have made it more accurate in naming the radar than the platform, but either way. Was better than this shit.
I dont necessarily have issue with the premise of the change, which is to make it more realistic, but it definetly feels assymetrical and rather unfair that there is such a blanket assumption that things cant be identified.
I have no issues with the premise. But the implementation is incredibly poor. If we can’t verify names for threats, then why bother implementing the change? Really just screws over most attackers for a change that in theory is realistic, but in implementation is nothing of the form.
Yeah, it does. Especially as this change is coming before many aircraft even have historical performance for their RWRs, Britain alone, Jaguar GR1A, Sea Harrier FRS1 and Sea Harrier FA2 all have the wrong RWR.
I think it seems like it was in “good faith,” but honestly given the nature of the weapon systems they keep deciding to introduce to the game they really should stop trying to do 100% historical accuracy based on documents that may or may not be classified at any given time and start going for best estimations based on as much information as can be found. If 15 different secondary sources all say that one thing is a certain way it should be going off that even if no official concrete proof can be found of it, especially so if said proof may be classified.
I think the RWR change is going to be, frankly, really stupid. Both because of the classified nature of half the RWRs in the game and also because it affects so many things. I feel like the previous system was better, even though it was supposedly “unrealistic” it did a good enough job at actually providing information to the player. And that’s what we should be aiming for, actual playability instead of trying to get every single detail possible right. That kind of accuracy should be saved for dedicated simulators, not the arcadey-realism game that War Thunder is.
Doesn’t help that from what I’ve seen, this complete lack of distinction between ground threats is in and of itself unrealistic. Maybe it didn’t list out “This is this threat and this is the name of it” but it does appear that there is distinction in labels for threats. Which by extension makes what we had before as close to reality as we could get without documents listing threat symbology. Whether or not what I’ve seen it accurate or not, can’t say, but it seems to line up with most common sense.
Common sense just is lacking in this game sometimes, i swear man.
Even if it was supposedly unrealistic I think that gameplay should come first, especially something like this. If you end up getting shot down by a SAM that you couldn’t identify because “we don’t have proof it could detect this particular radar,” firstly, that’s not really your fault because different SAMs are more capable than others, and secondly, it makes gameplay frustrating.
