Air to Air Missiles Ruin Jets

[B.D.Godde]

using a-a missiles lowers the skill ceiling
they shouldn't be implemented yet. They don't add to gameplay, but remove from it

[Shadaz]

theGoddes님이 먼저 게시:

using a-a missiles lowers the skill ceiling
they shouldn't be implemented yet. They don't add to gameplay, but remove from it [/I wonder, why cant they make a fine line between AAM aircraft and non AAM aircraft? They could do this in later updates when there is more AAM planes

[B.D.Godde]

shab.amin17님이 먼저 게시:

theGoddes님이 먼저 게시:

using a-a missiles lowers the skill ceiling
they shouldn't be implemented yet. They don't add to gameplay, but remove from it [/I wonder, why cant they make a fine line between AAM aircraft and non AAM aircraft? They could do this in later updates when there is more AAM planes

This could be better solved by separating the Brs of aircraft with missiles from those that don't
it's actually not hard at all.
also, you have something odd with your quoting system and it's affecting me

[kamikazi21358]

theGoddes or shab, whoever typed this님이 먼저 게시:

This could be better solved by separating the Brs of aircraft with missiles from those that don't
it's actually not hard at all.
also, you have something odd with your quoting system and it's affecting me

I would agree, but unfortunetly, there just isn’t enough jets for decompressing 9.3-10.0. 9.0 should be decompressed, but after that, not much of an option. Just a case of ‘we need more 9.0-10.0 vehicles that are not powercreeps’. It’s like wanting to separate WW2 from HEAT-FS vehicles, back in 2015 when the only vehicles with HEAT were like the Leopard 1 and really very few, if for a while, nothing else to pair it with.

As well, more missiles I don’t think need separation, as much as lesser quality missiles. More ‘50s jets with ‘50s missiles should be added as a transition, which 9.0s may fight. Early sidewinders for example had a range of 1 km, to show how bad they were.

[B.D.Godde]

kamikazi21358님이 먼저 게시:

theGoddes or shab, whoever typed this님이 먼저 게시:

This could be better solved by separating the Brs of aircraft with missiles from those that don't
it's actually not hard at all.
also, you have something odd with your quoting system and it's affecting me

I would agree, but unfortunetly, there just isn’t enough jets for decompressing 9.3-10.0. 9.0 should be decompressed, but after that, not much of an option. Just a case of ‘we need more 9.0-10.0 vehicles that are not powercreeps’. It’s like wanting to separate WW2 from HEAT-FS vehicles, back in 2015 when the only vehicles with HEAT were like the Leopard 1 and really very few, if for a while, nothing else to pair it with.

As well, more missiles I don’t think need separation, as much as lesser quality missiles. More ‘50s jets with ‘50s missiles should be added as a transition, which 9.0s may fight. Early sidewinders for example had a range of 1 km, to show how bad they were.

hmm...
sounds feasable. I still must state, and I think you have already agreed with me, that we need to make sure the current 10.0s don't face Mig 17s/15s with no missiles and CL-13s as well, etc. etc.

I am also really interested in how tactics will evolve with radar...

[Shadaz]

theGoddes님이 먼저 게시:

shab.amin17님이 먼저 게시:

This could be better solved by separating the Brs of aircraft with missiles from those that don't
it's actually not hard at all.
also, you have something odd with your quoting system and it's affecting me

Steam's broken. This happened to me yesterday

[B.D.Godde]

It has happened to me too a while back
you should report it on a forum
they will also get a live demonstration XD

[Shadaz]

theGoddes님이 먼저 게시:

It has happened to me too a while back
you should report it on a forum
they will also get a live demonstration XD

Yeah for my previous quote on AAMs, it completely disappeared.

[83athom]

Sir Det Mist님이 먼저 게시:

Eftwyrd님이 먼저 게시:

i beg to differ, if they reach enough level of detail in the way missiles and sensor systems works it adds a whole different depth, just for example from DCS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9FVhCYrTFY

But in its current state it ruins the game, it just gives low energy pilots a cheap and easy way to make high energy bleed speed, lower the skill ceiling and making everything easier for worse players.

There is less than no skill to the current system in game.

... This is litteraly exactly what the early air to air missiles were for, making enemy bleed off their energy to better engage in a gunfight.

[Shadaz]

83athom님이 먼저 게시:

Sir Det Mist님이 먼저 게시:

But in its current state it ruins the game, it just gives low energy pilots a cheap and easy way to make high energy bleed speed, lower the skill ceiling and making everything easier for worse players.

There is less than no skill to the current system in game.

... This is litteraly exactly what the early air to air missiles were for, making enemy bleed off their energy to better engage in a gunfight.

This is the problem. Many are WT players are common people who don't know anything about airplanes. People were disappointed when missiles came out, as they expected them to have Hollywood level accuracy. In reality, even for the F4, all AAMs was stupid, as many MiGs escaped in Vietnam. Those things had poor a hit rate. Adding a internal mounted gun (more accurate than the gun pod on earlier models) helped a lot. So good luck dealing with F102 or F106 as they will be unplayable with that mindset. If you accept the fact the pre-1970s AAMs suck at hitting things, then AAM battles will become much more enjoyable and playable.

Although I would like to see what exactly happens without a missile warning.

[83athom]

shab.amin17님이 먼저 게시:

83athom님이 먼저 게시:

... This is litteraly exactly what the early air to air missiles were for, making enemy bleed off their energy to better engage in a gunfight.

Although I would like to see what exactly happens without a missile warning.

Hm, that's a thought. Though keeping in mind planes with multiple crew members, including ones that watch the rear, could see the missile coming off from quite a distance (if they were aware enough to be looking in the first place) and warn the pilot to take evasive manouvers. Plus, there are some (extremely few) planes in game with rear mounted radar specifically for searching for planes/missiles that get on their tail (namely the F3D and I think 1-2 others).

[ShadowSutekh]

Since this reads more like a feedback or suggestion, I've moved it to that subforum.

[B.D.Godde]

ShadowSutekh님이 먼저 게시:

Since this reads more like a feedback or suggestion, I've moved it to that subforum.

mkay

[B.D.Godde]

83athom님이 먼저 게시:

shab.amin17님이 먼저 게시:

Although I would like to see what exactly happens without a missile warning.

Hm, that's a thought. Though keeping in mind planes with multiple crew members, including ones that watch the rear, could see the missile coming off from quite a distance (if they were aware enough to be looking in the first place) and warn the pilot to take evasive manouvers. Plus, there are some (extremely few) planes in game with rear mounted radar specifically for searching for planes/missiles that get on their tail (namely the F3D and I think 1-2 others).

do they still get the warning??

[NoxyU]

Absolutrly cancer god pls kill me this game is trash

[kamikazi21358]

Nox님이 먼저 게시:

Absolutrly cancer god pls kill me this game is trash

Play a different game.

I don't mean this in the sarcastic 'yo don't like it? leave our game' way. I mean, literally go play a different game, it is very enlightening and fun. Do you know what the biggest complaint of the next game I played after for the most part leaving this one? "The sounds are not very good." Literally the biggest complaint was the game didn't sound as good as it could have. It wasn't BR compression is ruining the game, the new maps are terrible and did not consider new equipment, it wasn't overextending by adding new vehicles with more powerful weaponry than anything in game. It was 'the sounds are not as good as they could be.'

Go play a different game, you're missing so much. I have found multiple games that I wish I played sooner, and didn't miss out on.