I’m not sure why you believed an aircraft with AIM-9M, MAW, more countermeasure options, dual mode Paveways, HMS and other features would be anything less than 12.0 to begin with.
BRs can always change, but this is an entirely logical starting point. It’s a significant upgrade over GR.1.
Please refrain from rewriting other people’s words as you want them to be.
If he said that the Tornado Gr.4 is a stillborn aircraft within the game, it does not mean that he says the same about other aircraft that will be added to the game
Do you think others are idiots who can’t check your stats on the Mirage? They are, to put it mildly, unimpressive.
The base airframe is 11.3 as per the Tornado MFG, WTD61 and A200. It has identical engines, turn performance etc etc. (and a fairly weak one at that)
A2G is totally irrelevant in all air modes as the default loadout for ARB/ASB will usually just be Mk13/Mk83s. The Paveways and Brimstones hold almost no value in air modes. (Maybe if the brimstones had FnF, but as hellfires, no tiny value at most)
Aim-9M yes increases the BR, but im of the opinion that the GR1, A200A and ASSTA1 should recieve Aim-9Li to justify their BR being 11.7 and not the correct BR of 11.3. The HMD will be of minimal value usually as this is a ground attacker and not an agile dogfighter. Also Aim-9Ms are not brilliant fired off-boresight either. If this was using Magic II or R-73, then the HMD value may increase.
Additional CMs are a minimal aid as they are mostly chaff based and again, essentially the same as the 11.3 Tornados. Without BOL, this minimal increase alone wont save you. The MAWS is handy to have but again, not a majoir increase in survivaibility.
Aim-9M takes the 11.3 Tornado to 11.7. When you add the MAWS and HMD (and hopefully BOL) this pushes it to 12.0. Max. In Sim there is NO 12.3 bracket, meaning ALL 12.3s have a min BR of 12.7. At its core, an 11.3 Tornado IDS, fighting 12.7+s all day long is not a fair fight even slightly.
12.0 would be the reasonable BR for it.
it actually does have BOL, I saw them on stream.
This is incorrect. Terma allows mixed and has MAWs.
I saw BOZ and a TERMA. Didnt see BOL
So if the Tornado WTD61 had 240 flares instead 56 it would be 12.0?
This is a gross understatement of what GR.4 has compared to WTD-61.
Tornado WTD61
Tornado GR4
The only thing that is affecting the BR significantly is the TERMA and HMD. (I already consider 11.7 the correct BR for the Tornado to get 2x Aim-9Li to justify that one BR increase) Its insane to think that an 11.3 is going to be at 12.7 in Sim because it has AAMs that it will rarely if ever employ and CMs that if its using will mean its dead anyway to the Mig-29 unloading cannon rounds into it (flares and chaff dont defend against cannon rounds btw)
i think 12. 0 for gr4 is fine
to be fair the WTD61 being 11.3 in ARB while the IDS’s are 11.7 is still baffling. Care to share light on that particular game balance decision?
Like no disrespect I genuinely want to understand why gaijin feels guided bombs warrant a BR difference in ARB
HMD is a massive benefit for IR missiles too. Particularly on an airframe like Tornado.
As I mentioned above, as with any aircraft, it’s BR can change if it performs poorly. However there are more things than just some of the oversimplified comparisons you gave made above that result in its current BR.
We addressed this at the start of summer regarding Tornado BRs: Responding To Your Feedback On Separate Battle Ratings
Well… Heres the warning for it. Like the GR1, ASSTA1 and A200A which are over-BRed at 11.7 as it is, the Tornado Gr4 at 12.3 would struggle greatly even at 12.0. 12.3 it will be one of the worst performing aircraft at that BR range and will either need massive buffs like BOL, or a BR drop rapidly.
But you don’t understand, Britain players have a higher success rate with Tornado so obviously it should be 12.7 but they’re being nice and introducing it at 12.3.
This tornado’s an utter joke with what they’ve done to Brimstones. Thing might as well be 11.7.
It wasnt though. The Anwser was
Tornado GR1, ASSTA1 and A200A have higher effeciency than the WTD61 and MFG (and now A200) therefore they get a higher BR.
They were given 0 explanation of how or what about them gives them higher effeciency
At the moment, most aircraft that primarily bomb bases in Air Battles are as effective, if not more, than fighters of the same Battle Rating, although they often have much weaker weapons and air combat capabilities than fighters.
We’re aware that many of you think that the Battle Rating of bomb carriers in Air Realistic Battles is too high, comparing them with fighters solely in terms of air combat capabilities.
However, on the economy side of things, the Battle Rating of bomb carriers — which are discussed in many topics — are optimal or even underestimated. This means that their weak capabilities for air combat doesn’t prevent them from receiving on average a good or even great reward. As noted above, the average reward is one of the main factors in determining the Battle Rating of a vehicle. Therefore in order for us to be able to reduce the Battle Rating of these aircraft while maintaining healthy economic progression, the rewards for damaging and destroying bases would need to be reduced so that the average reward (the effectiveness) of bombers and fighters is equalized.
So no explanation on how the 3x at 11.3 gain less reward than the 3x at 11.7. They have 100% identical potential to kill bases, in fact with the 3x at 11.3 being a lower BR, i’d actually guess they have the greater effeciency as they likely make it to 1 or more bases every game. Those at 11.7 if nothing else, encounter aircraft like the F-4S that steal bases all the time.
We fully realise that a change like this will not receive any support from players who are asking for a reduction in Battle Ratings at the current average reward values.
Therefore in the summer, we’re planning to give more clarification and bring this issue up for discussion — whether or not we should reduce the rewards for bases in order to reduce the Battle Rating of aircraft that mainly bomb bases, or leave everything as it is now. Please follow the news for more details on this.
This was never done. We never got this post
Based on what we’ve written above, as of now we are going to leave the strike variants of the Tornado at their current Battle Ratings in Air Realistic Battles. The Battle Rating of the Tornado IDS ASSTA1 (Germany), Tornado GR.1 (Britain), and Tornado IDS (1995) (Italy) will not be lowered, and the Battle Rating of the Tornado IDS MFG (Germany) and Tornado IDS WTD61 (Germany) will not be increased to that of the other Tornadoes mentioned above.
Those 6 Tornado IDS are 100% identical (except the GR1 which has weaker engines) Therefore they have 100% identical performance. Also never did give more calirification on this issue, it was forgotten
Statistically that is not the case with their efficiency which is what decides their BRs.
So because WTD61 is flown by bad players that skipped the tree to buy a Premium meant it got a lower BR. Despite being 100% identical to those at 11.7?
statistically, is a (respectfully speaking) stupid way to balance in ARB. Given ARB is almost always mixed battles it doesn’t have the excuse GRB did of “well they dont fight the same vehicles”
These vehicles are identical, no duh the WTD61 is statistically inferior, because it’s a premium. The A-200 is the same BR purely due to the fact if it was 11.7 it’d put the WTD61s BR into further question.