29 replies to this topic

[FIight]

I wish my me-1101 has 1 SD250 and my FW-252 has 2 SD250s, fighters

should not only shoot down enemy aircraft, but also support friendly ground

units. Air force that cannot support ground effectively is meaningless no matter

how good they are in shooting down enemy planes.

I don't get how 'pure fighters' is still fair in the current meta. Ground attacking is

just so important that say, a fighter needs to fight much harder to win against a

well-played GAA pilot. High altitude fighters cannot keep an eye on GAA, or their

lack of firepower doesn't allow them to do so. They need to have new means of

impacting the supremacy meter. 

I don't know how to win when my IL-40P bot kept crashing for 3 times in the mining plant,

I thought I had better team kill it outside cap, and bomb the plant with my little ordnance under my belly.(if allowed)

There are no reason why some supposed 'light fighters' cannot carry ordnance. FW-252 gets

34KN of thrust, and even Me-1102 gets only 39KN of thrust. At least, by comparison, FW-252 

is capable of carrying 2-3 SD-250s. 

And plz, make ordnance drop dynamic, it just does not make sense the aircraft stats does not

return to the normal state. For bombers it is totally acceptable, but for others plz change it.

[vcharng]

"I don't get how 'pure fighters' is still fair in the current meta. "

they're not, cause they're OP.

 

If LF have ordnance what's the difference between a MR and a LF? and why should an LF be more agile and usually able to fly higher than an MR if it it's not limited to aerial fighting?

If you want air-to-ground capability, fly an MR, if you think a certain LF should be able to carry ordnance, suggest that it be moved under the category of MR.

 

"

And plz, make ordnance drop dynamic, it just does not make sense the aircraft stats does not

return to the normal state. For bombers it is totally acceptable, but for others plz change it."

 

The stats barely change now. You can say that the current stat change is simply for the bomb racks and rocket rails, and not the ordnance themselves.

[FIight]

vcharng, on 25 January 2018 - 05:10 AM, said:

they're not, cause they're OP.

They are not OP at all, in a double-mining map can you destroy ground targets

with your guns? You have to rely on your GAAs and kill enemy GAAs, and how

could you win if your own GAAs keep crashing repeatedly? 

vcharng, on 25 January 2018 - 05:10 AM, said:

If you want air-to-ground capability, fly an MR, if you think a certain LF should be able to carry ordnance, suggest that it be moved under the category of MR.

LFs should be more maneuverable, they are the central characters of aerial combat. They will have larger penalty for carrying ordnance, but still, 

give them a chance to try if the bot GAAs suck.

vcharng, on 25 January 2018 - 05:10 AM, said:

The stats barely change now. You can say that the current stat change is simply for the bomb racks and rocket rails, and not the ordnance themselves.

Sadly any secondary school kids know ordnance adds extra weight, therefore decreases acceleration. Ordnance just does not affect

top speed much, and does not affect maneuverability. It's even sadder any other online shooting game can implement the dynamic weaponry

however Warplanes does not. My XF-90 can outrun a human MIG-15 when not carrying bombs, but cannot outrun a F-86 if I am carrying bombs.

I am assuming you know the difference.

[pyantoryng]

REMOVE_MULTIROLE_FIGHTER_DESIGNATION_FROM_THE_GAME

[Mercsn]

In the current game mode and general game design, LF with rockets don't work within WG's vision of how a match should play out.

 

Incidentally, bombers at low altitude doesn't fit either. 

 

 

 

 

[pyantoryng]

Mercsn, on 25 January 2018 - 01:30 PM, said:

In the current game mode and general game design, LF with rockets don't work within WG's vision of how a match should play out.

 

Incidentally, bombers at low altitude doesn't fit either. 

 

 

 

 

 

So letting Mustang have their HVARs back will bring out all sorts of n00b outta the woodworks?

[FIight]

Mercsn, on 25 January 2018 - 08:30 AM, said:

In the current game mode and general game design, LF with rockets don't work within WG's vision of how a match should play out.

 

Incidentally, bombers at low altitude doesn't fit either. 

 

 

 

 

Still, the game is so centered about ground advantage, so what is the usefulness of pure

dogfighting? Multi roles, HFs and GAAs as well as bombers can all support ground, and should

LFs be an exception?

[FIight]

pyantoryng, on 25 January 2018 - 08:32 AM, said:

 

So letting Mustang have their HVARs back will bring out all sorts of n00b outta the woodworks?

 

Mustangs' rockets are fairly historical and they will compensate for their lack of DPS.

It's quite hard to imagine you take out bombers with their peeing .50 cal.

[Colddawg]

pyantoryng, on 25 January 2018 - 06:21 AM, said:

REMOVE_MULTIROLE_FIGHTER_DESIGNATION_FROM_THE_GAME

 

Why?

[pyantoryng]

Einssniper, on 25 January 2018 - 01:39 PM, said:

 

Mustangs' rockets are fairly historical and they will compensate for their lack of DPS.

It's quite hard to imagine you take out bombers with their peeing .50 cal.

 

Well...they really had it back in the olden days. Zeroes and Reppu had bombs, and 109G could take two WGr-210s underwing. That was before this "multirole fighters" nonsense.

 

Colddawg, on 25 January 2018 - 02:24 PM, said:

 

Why?

 

All it means is a fighter that can mount ordnance or outlandish weaponry.

[Andreas_Jager]

Mercsn, on 25 January 2018 - 01:30 PM, said:

In the current game mode and general game design, LF with rockets don't work within WG's vision of how a match should play out.

 

Incidentally, bombers at low altitude doesn't fit either. 

 

 

 

 

 

Dang!!! I guess I break the rules by flying my A-26 inches off the deck.

[Andreas_Jager]

Einssniper, on 25 January 2018 - 01:39 PM, said:

 

Mustangs' rockets are fairly historical and they will compensate for their lack of DPS.

It's quite hard to imagine you take out bombers with their peeing .50 cal.

 

The real issue with the Mustang is the fact that cannons are so good in game. Infinite ammo and no jamming makes cannons superior to 50's.

[Psicko23]

vcharng, on 25 January 2018 - 02:10 AM, said:

"If LF have ordnance what's the difference between a MR and a LF? 

 

you must be new here. When the game first came out, there was no multirole class. a good chunk of planes that had access to bombs and rockets no longer have access to them. when the multirole line came out, they automatically nerfed most of the planes that became multirole planes. The big example was the f4u line. before the nerf, it could out turn the mustang line in the respective tiers to at least t7(thats the highest I had for each line at the time of the nerf). had they kept their respective flight characteristics but add the capability of ordnance, that would have been fine.

[pyantoryng]

Psicko23, on 25 January 2018 - 04:37 PM, said:

 

you must be new here. When the game first came out, there was no multirole class. a good chunk of planes that had access to bombs and rockets no longer have access to them. when the multirole line came out, they automatically nerfed most of the planes that became multirole planes. The big example was the f4u line. before the nerf, it could out turn the mustang line in the respective tiers to at least t7(thats the highest I had for each line at the time of the nerf). had they kept their respective flight characteristics but add the capability of ordnance, that would have been fine.

 

Actually, the multirole symbol stood for something else at first - "carrier-based fighter". Most, if not all, of those planes were capable of taking on ordnance.

 

Then WG decided to disband the "carrier-based fighter", along with the symbol, and lumped them all into normal fighters, but they never lost their ordnance capabilities.

 

...then multirole fighter designation came to be (IIRC along with the introduction of the Focke-Wulf line), and planes that used to carry ordnance lost that capability when they were labelled fighters and not multirole. The Zeros and Reppu were the most obvious, being able to carry bombs all the way until that point.

[vcharng]

Einssniper, on 25 January 2018 - 11:02 AM, said:

They are not OP at all, in a double-mining map can you destroy ground targets

with your guns? You have to rely on your GAAs and kill enemy GAAs, and how

could you win if your own GAAs keep crashing repeatedly? 

 

Go to the enemy plant and kill their GAAs. I capped a plant in my Tornado with only one rocket salvo and killing 3 (I think) enemy bot GAAs the other day. No reason you can't do the same with your 1101 by killing four or more.

And this is limited to double plant maps, which is very, very rare (I think there's only two of them at the moment). Most of the maps are significantly inclined toward aerial battle now. WG thought garrison is a sector favorable to ground hitters, but it is actually otherwise, and they got lots of 1 airbase+ 2 garrison maps, making GAAs significantly underpowered in these (much more common) maps.

 

Also when you think that ground hitters cap a position faster (which they generally don't), please also think about their inability to defend one. The "balance" at the moment is that a ground hitter can cap in 50~120 seconds while a fighter can cap in 30 for some sectors, and for those they can't they can still prevent the enemy from capping by shooting the enemy down and disrupt their capping. And most ground hitters cannot defend sectors (all bombers and most GAAs), for those who could they can still only defend it against certain kind of threats.

 

Your other post states that the game is focused on ground attack, it's not, at all.

LFs can do anything and everything a ground attacker can do, they just have to kill said ground attackers. That's why they need and have to be an exception from the "trend" of being able to attack ground targets: you need to trade off something for your ability to dominate the sky.

 

 

[FIight]

vcharng, on 25 January 2018 - 08:23 PM, said:

Go to the enemy plant and kill their GAAs. I capped a plant in my Tornado with only one rocket salvo and killing 3 (I think) enemy bot GAAs the other day. No reason you can't do the same with your 1101 by killing four or more.

And this is limited to double plant maps, which is very, very rare (I think there's only two of them at the moment). Most of the maps are significantly inclined toward aerial battle now. WG thought garrison is a sector favorable to ground hitters, but it is actually otherwise, and they got lots of 1 airbase+ 2 garrison maps, making GAAs significantly underpowered in these (much more common) maps.

 

Also when you think that ground hitters cap a position faster (which they generally don't), please also think about their inability to defend one. The "balance" at the moment is that a ground hitter can cap in 50~120 seconds while a fighter can cap in 30 for some sectors, and for those they can't they can still prevent the enemy from capping by shooting the enemy down and disrupt their capping. And most ground hitters cannot defend sectors (all bombers and most GAAs), for those who could they can still only defend it against certain kind of threats.

 

Your other post states that the game is focused on ground attack, it's not, at all.

LFs can do anything and everything a ground attacker can do, they just have to kill said ground attackers. That's why they need and have to be an exception from the "trend" of being able to attack ground targets: you need to trade off something for your ability to dominate the sky.

 

 

 

This game is more about the speed of capping, and an experienced GAA pilot can cap much much faster,

than a fighter pilot does. For example, the fastest I know can cap a mining plant within 10-15 sec, and could

cap a command center in less than 10 sec, not to say an airstrip which does not even require the ordnance. Even

you arrived and killed him, you still can't win the game, why? cuz he can simply smash into the ground and

you ended up having no defense points during the cool down time.

And man it's not easy to withstand rear gun fire in high tier. Those GAAs evolved to have revolver rear cannons,

which have terrifying DPS and could easily knock out your pilot or wings or engines of your LF. No planes are 

effective against high tier GAAs unless you are driving a HF or MF with heavy armor and high hp pool. Those 

planes still have less efficiency in capping compared to GAAs and they are inferior to fighters in air to air combat.

Unless they made the cool down time instant, which meant a sector can be taken back instantly, GAAs and bombers

always have the advantage--the side taking the sector much earlier is likely to win given that you need more time

to retake it. Still, MFs need more time to kill a GAA than a GAA can cap, unless enemy GAA is not doing any

maneuver and not pissing you off with his rear guns.

If all planes could carry ordnance, then the multitude will change a lot. A group of fighters could cooperate and

drop their ordnance, to be as effective as GAA in terms of capping.

Edited by Einssniper, 26 January 2018 - 04:11 AM.

[FreeFOXMIKE]

pyantoryng, on 25 January 2018 - 05:21 AM, said:

REMOVE_MULTIROLE_FIGHTER_DESIGNATION_FROM_THE_GAME

roflol seems history will not agree 

 

the P40 and P51 are examples of fighters doing multitasking Weather they allow current ones to have them or introduce models that do they should be an option 

remember the primary function of the Army Air Corps was to support Infantry

Edited by FreeFOXMIKE, 26 January 2018 - 07:52 AM.

[vcharng]

Einssniper, on 26 January 2018 - 04:10 AM, said:

 

This game is more about the speed of capping, and an experienced GAA pilot can cap much much faster,

than a fighter pilot does. For example, the fastest I know can cap a mining plant within 10-15 sec, and could

cap a command center in less than 10 sec, not to say an airstrip which does not even require the ordnance. Even

you arrived and killed him, you still can't win the game, why? cuz he can simply smash into the ground and

you ended up having no defense points during the cool down time.

And man it's not easy to withstand rear gun fire in high tier. Those GAAs evolved to have revolver rear cannons,

which have terrifying DPS and could easily knock out your pilot or wings or engines of your LF. No planes are 

effective against high tier GAAs unless you are driving a HF or MF with heavy armor and high hp pool. Those 

planes still have less efficiency in capping compared to GAAs and they are inferior to fighters in air to air combat.

Unless they made the cool down time instant, which meant a sector can be taken back instantly, GAAs and bombers

always have the advantage--the side taking the sector much earlier is likely to win given that you need more time

to retake it. Still, MFs need more time to kill a GAA than a GAA can cap, unless enemy GAA is not doing any

maneuver and not pissing you off with his rear guns.

If all planes could carry ordnance, then the multitude will change a lot. A group of fighters could cooperate and

drop their ordnance, to be as effective as GAA in terms of capping.

 

Do we even play the same game?

Even if some soviet GAAs can cap within 10 seconds (which I doubt if it's even possible with or without gold ammo), he will have to reload his ordnance, so the fastest will be the reload time, maybe with some deduction considering that the reload time is sometimes absorbed by the time en route from one sector to another.

 

And I thought a pilot as experience in aerial combat as you (who can barrel roll a P1102B behind mine) should know that no one files inside the gun arc of a GAA. It takes about 10 second for a J7W3 to shoot down a 1102B unless the latter was aware of the attack before the J7W3 commences firing. It takes significantly longer to shoot down a LF with manual turret fire, which, while possible, is still very dangerous for the GAA since it could easily crash into terrain. I am also interesting in just how "terrifying" 240 DPS could be (P.1102B's turret), compared to 800DPS of the P.1101.

 

Don't even talk about bombers, they have zero influence in the current meta. Flying low and you will be shot down just as often as a LF, and flying high will mean taking at least two waves of bombs or three to capture just one sector. Their firepower density is the lowest of all categories, and their contribution can be far too easily canceled out by just one careless friendly pilot or a couple of decent enemy fighters.

 

I'm not a very good fighter pilot, but even me in my F4U-1 or Tornado can easily outperform my own Me 265. And my Spit14 outperforms my P.1099B-2 single-handed. (all comparisons done with the "experience per sortie") Remember, we are comparing GAAs with fighters from one tier lower, and they still lose. This also agrees with what I saw about actual battle influence: just how influential could GAAs and bombers, who live in the very bottom of the food chain, be? Everything they could do, you can do more by killing them repeatedly.

[FIight]

vcharng, on 26 January 2018 - 03:37 AM, said:

 

Do we even play the same game?

Even if some soviet GAAs can cap within 10 seconds (which I doubt if it's even possible with or without gold ammo), he will have to reload his ordnance, so the fastest will be the reload time, maybe with some deduction considering that the reload time is sometimes absorbed by the time en route from one sector to another.

 

And I thought a pilot as experience in aerial combat as you (who can barrel roll a P1102B behind mine) should know that no one files inside the gun arc of a GAA. It takes about 10 second for a J7W3 to shoot down a 1102B unless the latter was aware of the attack before the J7W3 commences firing. It takes significantly longer to shoot down a LF with manual turret fire, which, while possible, is still very dangerous for the GAA since it could easily crash into terrain. I am also interesting in just how "terrifying" 240 DPS could be (P.1102B's turret), compared to 800DPS of the P.1101.

 

Don't even talk about bombers, they have zero influence in the current meta. Flying low adond you will be shot down just as often as a LF, and flying high will mean taking at least two waves of bombs or three to capture just one sector. Their firepower density is the lowest of all categories, and their contribution can be far too easily canceled out by just one careless friendly pilot or a couple of decent enemy fighters.

 

I'm not a very good fighter pilot, but even me in my F4U-1 or Tornado can easily outperform my own Me 265. And my Spit14 outperforms my P.1099B-2 single-handed. (all comparisons done with the "experience per sortie") Remember, we are comparing GAAs with fighters from one tier lower, and they still lose. This also agrees with what I saw about actual battle influence: just how influential could GAAs and bombers, who live in the very bottom of the food chain, be? Everything they could do, you can do more by killing them repeatedly.

 

TBH I can't win my own me-1102 with my J7W3 or me-1101, that's an issue.

me-1102 is very fast when boosted, and me-1101 does not have enough hp

to withstand 1000m firing rear guns, so does J7W3.

 

If you keep running instead of turning next time, you will find those rear guns quite

strong. It will take much longer to kill a GAA.

[pyantoryng]

vcharng, on 26 January 2018 - 08:37 AM, said:

 

Do we even play the same game?

Even if some soviet GAAs can cap within 10 seconds (which I doubt if it's even possible with or without gold ammo), he will have to reload his ordnance, so the fastest will be the reload time, maybe with some deduction considering that the reload time is sometimes absorbed by the time en route from one sector to another.

 

And I thought a pilot as experience in aerial combat as you (who can barrel roll a P1102B behind mine) should know that no one files inside the gun arc of a GAA. It takes about 10 second for a J7W3 to shoot down a 1102B unless the latter was aware of the attack before the J7W3 commences firing. It takes significantly longer to shoot down a LF with manual turret fire, which, while possible, is still very dangerous for the GAA since it could easily crash into terrain. I am also interesting in just how "terrifying" 240 DPS could be (P.1102B's turret), compared to 800DPS of the P.1101.

 

Don't even talk about bombers, they have zero influence in the current meta. Flying low and you will be shot down just as often as a LF, and flying high will mean taking at least two waves of bombs or three to capture just one sector. Their firepower density is the lowest of all categories, and their contribution can be far too easily canceled out by just one careless friendly pilot or a couple of decent enemy fighters.

 

I'm not a very good fighter pilot, but even me in my F4U-1 or Tornado can easily outperform my own Me 265. And my Spit14 outperforms my P.1099B-2 single-handed. (all comparisons done with the "experience per sortie") Remember, we are comparing GAAs with fighters from one tier lower, and they still lose. This also agrees with what I saw about actual battle influence: just how influential could GAAs and bombers, who live in the very bottom of the food chain, be? Everything they could do, you can do more by killing them repeatedly.

 

GAA has lower EXP multiplier than fighters so their EXP earnings are not comparable and EXP earnings by itself has nothing at all to do with battle performance. If you want to compare EXP earning, take the "raw" mastery points rather than the EXP number...which is not recorded in stats and dependent on many factors. An epic game can yield crappy EXP because you lived all the way through.

 

You are making an assumption...that there will always be someone who knows what a player-controlled GAA is up to and able to find and eliminate them repeatedly. That is not always the case and player-controlled GAA often has free reign and made the star performance of enemy fighters an exercise in futility.

 

Can fighters constantly go solo, with no hope of any assistance, braving AA, defense plane, and potential enemy, to keep sectors contested like GAA do?

 

This is going way off topic...