You guys just got three more rank 8 jets in this update.
while the soviets got 1.
and there are plenty of nations that got 0.
less than 24 hours have passed since the new update.
Come on, man.
16 Likes
R77-1 is on a slow platform, with poor acceleration, whilst only having vaguely equivalent energy at optimal launch conditions. Optimal launch conditions that won’t be achieved by Su 30, on account of the lacking energy. 77-1 becomes notably worse than 120 when you account for the platform it is on, as opposed to the platforms the yanks have their 120s on. The higher speed launches means the amraam still exceeds 77-1’s range.
This is before we consider a maneuvering target, at which point it is still a laughably worse missile. The only thing 77-1 does is justify MICA receiving a corrected range.
5 Likes
Honestly su-30 is fine, even a bit weak if we compare them to some of the planes at 14.0.
The biggest problem for balancing currently is eurofighter and rafale. I do not understand why we give them insain thrust to weight ratio. Insain turn radius, insain energy rentension. In this patch they even got buffed with reduced drag to the point where eurofighter is faster then f15e below 10k meter, and rafale is just straight up FASTER??? buffed their maw. BUffed both of their radar A LOT. AND SOMEHOW THE PEOPLE ON THIS SUB CRY ABOUT THEIR EUROFIGHTER NOT GETTING 10 AMRAMMS AND AESA (now why did they give rafale aesa??? idk). Meanwhile the Finnish f18 don’t even have hmd. Again I’m not saying saying that us mains or f18 fanboys are not stupid. BUT I do think this time they have the right to cry about it. Since this is actually unfair if you compare it to eurofighter or rafale (at least rafale rips above 1400km/h at deck, eurofighter is straight up over powered). Also for thouse people who still think the f15e is somehow competetive or that russian air is playable, just remeber. Thouse 2 planes biggest strength gets litterly surpassed by the european multirole fighter. I also really dislike the fact that people just say anyone that voice their opinion on game balance if it is in favour for russia or usa. Since if I bring up all the statistics I collected it shows that thouse 2 country are the worst performing ones. And before people just say “skill issue”, or “lmao”, like think about this way:
everyone can plan all the nations, statistically speaking, if thouse 2 nations are so dominate, then they would be played a lot. And if they are so good as everyone says, then they will achieve an average higher winrate then other nations. Now if every player can play different nations, how come only players that play thouse 2 country are bad?? logically make no sense. Also, if people are really good and played a long time, then they should have all nations unlocked, and their winrate should all be the same across all nations right? since the common dinominator here is the player. Any change in winrate should only mean one thing right??? Also before you say premium player, .etc. All nation as of this patch have a top tier premium that is decent at bombing bases, so that is also a common dinominator now as well. All in all I dislike the fact that people just use player problem/skill issue as a argument for vecheile strength.
Sorry for bad grammer/spelling, here is a picture to finish the topic off
1 Like
F-15E/C are equals to the Su-30SM, the just accelerate faster.
And F-18C accelerates faster and gets to mach 1.5 faster than the Su-30SM.
AIM-120C has the same range as AIM-120B.
Su-30SM’s BR is already increased.
3 Likes
Rafale bros just threw another report on better acceleration
Looking at this graph is disgusting
S tier bait, keep them coming
3 Likes
I mean it was to be expected, all RU additions are followed with incredible amounts of fear mongering.
5 Likes
Man goes on about restoring fairness like USSR hasnt been the worst since FOX-3s were introduced what 4? 5? major ago now i think and now that its actually got a missile thats roughly equal to the AMRAAM its unfair.
That checks out.
7 Likes
Actually curious here, what’s different about the MICA’s? I’d hope the AAM-4 is same as MICA at least
iirc it is this one
Makes it slightly less vulnerable to chaff (a buff ou won’t actually notice according to the discord)
2 Likes
The AIM-120C has a longer range than the AIM-120B due to improved aerodynamics, a smaller warhead (WDU-41/B), and more propellant. The B model maxes out around 50-75 km, while later C variants (C-5 and up) reach 105-120 km. The C also has better guidance and electronic upgrades. If you think they have the same range, you’re dead wrong.
1 Like
This isn’t about past metas—it’s about balance now. If you think one faction suffering before justifies breaking balance now, you’re missing the point. Fairness means every nation gets competitive tools, not just flipping the script to favor one over the other.
1 Like
Ground, yesn’t. Air, not at all
America still has some of the most powerful aircraft in the game, alongside getting 3 very capable dogfighters while multiple nations got little less than 2-3 vehicles
1 Like
So you’re saying the Su-30 being slower means the R-77-1 isn’t that strong? Funny, because in-game, it’s still dunking on the AIM-120. If platform speed was the only factor, we wouldn’t be seeing the R-77-1 dominate like it does. If anything, that just means AIM-120s should perform even better than they do now—so thanks for proving the AMRAAM is currently nerfed.
US should get equivalent Air-To-Ground missiles.
The F/A-18 is now stuck fighting a jet with better missiles. Sure, the Su-30 has drawbacks, but that doesn’t change the fact that the R-77-1 consistently outperforms the AIM-120B in-game. The Hornet is already at a speed and acceleration disadvantage, and now it has to rely on weaker missiles while the Su-30 gets superior BVR tools. If the argument is ‘airframe matters more,’ then why is the F/A-18 struggling despite its supposed advantages? It’s because the AIM-120B isn’t competitive anymore, and that’s the issue.
I can’t find the source now, but I recall something about how lower beam-width makes it harder for an elevated target above the horizon to notch your missile.
The equation is something like Beam-width times half = anything above that cannot notch the missile.
So at 15 degrees, half of that is 7.5. It would require a target to be above 7.5 degrees in relation to the missile, for the missile to not be notched.
But if it is reduced down to 7 degrees, it would only require a target to be above 3.5 degrees in relation to the missile, for the missile to not be notched.
Unfortunately I cannot find the changelog that discussed this as it was old.
Yeah, exactly. The F/A-18 was already outdated the moment it dropped, and without better missiles like the AIM-9X or at least the AIM-120C, it never had a chance. Meanwhile, the Su-30 gets R-77-1s, and we’re supposed to believe that’s fair? The whole situation just proves that U.S. top tier keeps getting shafted in balance decisions.
2 Likes
Range alone doesn’t determine balance. The issue isn’t just that the R-77-1 has similar range—it’s that in practice, it’s outperforming the AIM-120B due to better in-game performance. The Su-30 also has a better radar and more missiles, while the F/A-18 is stuck with AIM-120Bs, which are already outdated. ‘Same range’ means nothing if the missile itself is more effective in actual combat.
