Where are the F14 TOMCAT vs MIG31 - For a more balanced game + other related ideas.

[Nagadevi]

Why is the game so unbalanced?
Russia dominates the skies with its MIG 31s; its speed and its very long-range missiles, which fire in groups, are unbeatable.

Why not introduce reinforcements from the US Navy with its iconic F14 TOMCATs and its very long-range Phoenix missiles to balance the game?

Russia already has many advantages over NATO in what makes it unbalanced:
The Buratino... a big advantage...

The incendiary rocket launchers...

The power of the cluster bombs...

Etc., etc.... but that's already huge !

And the F14 TOMCAT is an iconic aircraft !
And with the US Navy, Prowlers, and NAVY SEALS.
And why not reinforce it with Marines for the ground?

That would make a great deck.

[Ahriman]

Weird, because Nato is definitely the dominant force in 1v1, by a noticeable margin too. It's almost as if the MiG-31 is decent, but the decks they are in are so heavily limited that while you can dominate the skies, you are going to get rolled on the ground.

US Marines, and by that extend the US Navy, themselves will come in time when we move onto the Nordic front, as that was their designated front to fight.

[CORRIDA]

Would it be fairer if only a single division could fix it?

As far as I am aware, there are no OP units.
There are indeed some strong units, and the symmetrical engagement benefits some divisions more than others.

But uasally thats balanced by availibity, price and divison composition.
Look at the 119th. They can field the best tanks in good numbers, but they are expansive, and their available infantry is abysmal.

[mndbsd]

skeel ichu

[Rabidnid]

Originally posted by Nagadevi:

Why is the game so unbalanced?
Russia dominates the skies with its MIG 31s; its speed and its very long-range missiles, which fire in groups, are unbeatable.

Why not introduce reinforcements from the US Navy with its iconic F14 TOMCATs and its very long-range Phoenix missiles to balance the game?

Russia already has many advantages over NATO in what makes it unbalanced:
The Buratino... a big advantage...

The incendiary rocket launchers...

The power of the cluster bombs...

Etc., etc.... but that's already huge !

And the F14 TOMCAT is an iconic aircraft !
And with the US Navy, Prowlers, and NAVY SEALS.
And why not reinforce it with Marines for the ground?

That would make a great deck.

Burrito is still borderline useless.

napalm grads require people to drive through the flames to take damage.

NATO and pact clusters are the same. only the US has noticeably bad clusters due to their design.

USMC is coming at some point but not till after the next 2 DLCs at the earliest.

[ontimehelix]

The answer is, please stop using 10v10 for the basis of balance discussions.

This game is a simulation of PACT vs NATO, their weapons aren't mirror copies of each other, obviously each side has advantages. Balance is done as a whole, not unit vs unit comparisons.

NATO has its own advantages and OP units.

[xenon]

NATO is superior in 10v10 as well. Best meatwaves, best tanks, best arty, best helicopters.

BTW when you list BURATINO... the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ unit in the game... as an advantage....

[macs02ro]

Originally posted by Ahriman:

Weird, because Nato is definitely the dominant force in 1v1, by a noticeable margin too. It's almost as if the MiG-31 is decent, but the decks they are in are so heavily limited that while you can dominate the skies, you are going to get rolled on the ground.

US Marines, and by that extend the US Navy, themselves will come in time when we move onto the Nordic front, as that was their designated front to fight.

Whaaaaaaatttt ??? Bro russian medium range air to air outranges nato aircraft by almost a km. Nato is NOT dominant in the air lmao. They are irl but not in warno lol

[Ahriman]

Originally posted by macs02ro:

Whaaaaaaatttt ??? Bro russian medium range air to air outranges nato aircraft by almost a km. Nato is NOT dominant in the air lmao. They are irl but not in warno lol

That is very cool, until you realise that the 120s on the F-15 are 10% more accurate base, AND the F-15 rocks 10% better ECM than the SU-27S (30%), and 20% better than the MiGs (20%). Meanwhile the Sparrow, while 5% less accuracy base, is still mounted either on the F-15 (40% ECM), F-16 (30% ECM), or Phantom (20%), which cheaper than the cheapest MiG.

Just to give you the idea here, the F-15 has a 45.5% against the SU-27, 52% against the MiG-29, with its 120, 40% with the Sparrow. In turn, both of those planes have a... 33% chance to hit at their max range. They both have 4 missiles, and both need 2 hits to kill. The averages are rather notably tilted in the favour of F-15.

You might want to focus on the whole picture, not just the sheer range. Even the MiG-31s 'majestic overpowered missiles' have a whooping 24% chance to hit an F-15 at their max range, and those are semi-auto, not F&F. You effectively do need to bring both planes to bring down one F-15.

Nato aircraft on average have higher ECM and Pact Missiles have lower chance to hit. That is the balancing factor. Pact is meant to try to overwhelm with the weight of fire of their units, and especially the MiG-31s are designed to be more of a deterrence rather than an actual killing unit. Their chances of actually downing a plane, unless you quite literally spam all you have and train them on a single target, is very low. There is a reason why experienced players don't much care about the MiG-31s, as that alone isn't enough to make them mid as heck, the decks they are present in aren't exactly top of the line on the ground, so when you combine that with their high price, the Division has a tendency of getting rolled in 1v1.

[macs02ro]

Originally posted by Ahriman:

Originally posted by macs02ro:

Whaaaaaaatttt ??? Bro russian medium range air to air outranges nato aircraft by almost a km. Nato is NOT dominant in the air lmao. They are irl but not in warno lol

1. That is very cool, until you realise that the 120s on the F-15 are 10% more accurate base, AND the F-15 rocks 10% better ECM than the SU-27S (30%), and 20% better than the MiGs (20%). Meanwhile the Sparrow, while 5% less accuracy base, is still mounted either on the F-15 (40% ECM), F-16 (30% ECM), or Phantom (20%), which cheaper than the cheapest MiG.

2. Just to give you the idea here, the F-15 has a 45.5% against the SU-27, 52% against the MiG-29, with its 120, 40% with the Sparrow. In turn, both of those planes have a... 33% chance to hit at their max range. They both have 4 missiles, and both need 2 hits to kill. The averages are rather notably tilted in the favour of F-15.

3. You might want to focus on the whole picture, not just the sheer range. Even the MiG-31s 'majestic overpowered missiles' have a whooping 24% chance to hit an F-15 at their max range, and those are semi-auto, not F&F. You effectively do need to bring both planes to bring down one F-15.

4. Nato aircraft on average have higher ECM and Pact Missiles have lower chance to hit. That is the balancing factor. Pact is meant to try to overwhelm with the weight of fire of their units, and especially the MiG-31s are designed to be more of a deterrence rather than an actual killing unit. Their chances of actually downing a plane, unless you quite literally spam all you have and train them on a single target, is very low. There is a reason why experienced players don't much care about the MiG-31s, as that alone isn't enough to make them mid as heck, the decks they are present in aren't exactly top of the line on the ground, so when you combine that with their high price, the Division has a tendency of getting rolled in 1v1.

Not to sound passive agressive but did you actually play the game in the last few patches ?

1. Does not matter. Strike first miss first but supress first. Also, only 2 divs have access to that missile

2. It does not matter because you will be supressed first and accuracy worsens with more supression.

3. I am focusing on the whole picture: 9 out of 19 redfor divisions have these kinds of missiles which casually outrange nato aircraft on the regular while 2 out of them have only access to mig 31 variants so it's more like 7

4. Yes you might not hit them but you strike first and bully them off the battlefield leading to when having a higher amounts of planes in late game, to more missiles firing first and snowballing fights.

So no I don't agree with the sentiment of more ECM & more accuracy = better exactly because of the new supression mechanic and way lower range

Don't get me wrong I adore nato aircraft but I still have the stern belief that air to air is balanced towards eastern block and nato needs to be buffed again to be air dominant while redfor has the dominant sam systems. Atleast with the current system

[Amormaliar]

Originally posted by macs02ro:

Not to sound passive agressive but did you actually play the game in the last few patches ?

1. Does not matter. Strike first miss first but supress first. Also, only 2 divs have access to that missile

2. It does not matter because you will be supressed first and accuracy worsens with more supression.

3. I am focusing on the whole picture: 9 out of 19 redfor divisions have these kinds of missiles which casually outrange nato aircraft on the regular while 2 out of them have only access to mig 31 variants so it's more like 7

4. Yes you might not hit them but you strike first and bully them off the battlefield leading to when having a higher amounts of planes in late game, to more missiles firing first and snowballing fights.

So no I don't agree with the sentiment of more ECM & more accuracy = better exactly because of the new supression mechanic and way lower range

Don't get me wrong I adore nato aircraft but I still have the stern belief that air to air is balanced towards eastern block and nato needs to be buffed again to be air dominant while redfor has the dominant sam systems. Atleast with the current system

Ahriman described everything correctly - it’s a skill issue (and fear) on your side

[macs02ro]

Originally posted by Amormaliar:

Ahriman described everything correctly - it’s a skill issue (and fear) on your side

You can't pull circumstancial numbers out of your a*s and expect to be right lol. It's a objective range benefit which leads to redfor snowballing fights. It's literally not that complicated

[DasaKamov]

Originally posted by macs02ro:

You can't pull circumstancial numbers out of your a*s and expect to be right lol.

The same applies to you. Your only argument is "Range defeats everything else", which is factually untrue.

[macs02ro]

Originally posted by DasaKamov:

Originally posted by macs02ro:

You can't pull circumstancial numbers out of your a*s and expect to be right lol.

The same applies to you. Your only argument is "Range defeats everything else", which is factually untrue.

Absolutely not. I said it snowballs into earlier supression while in return debuffs nato aircraft hitchances while still having good ecm. It's a variety of things. But you literally can see that happening if you play the game yourself. This isn't a simple math equation because air to air combat is widely circumstancial. My point is literally that redfor is stronger in more circumstances than nato because of the aforementioned reasons

[Dafader]

There's a risk of getting a balanced game. Maybe it'll be fair in the end?

Well, you won't see that here.

[Amormaliar]

Originally posted by macs02ro:

Originally posted by DasaKamov:

The same applies to you. Your only argument is "Range defeats everything else", which is factually untrue.

Absolutely not. I said it snowballs into earlier supression while in return debuffs nato aircraft hitchances while still having good ecm. It's a variety of things. But you literally can see that happening if you play the game yourself. This isn't a simple math equation because air to air combat is widely circumstancial. My point is literally that redfor is stronger in more circumstances than nato because of the aforementioned reasons

People here are well-known for a very long time in community and an experienced players. They tell you how things work in reality - you’re trying to prove that all of them are wrong. The thing is - it’s not because it’s debatable, it’s because you don’t really understand how the game works and look at it from a viewpoint of newbie. Nothing wrong with it but as mentioned above - nothing more than a skill issue.