Broken Stuff that Needs Fixing ASAP

[Excroat3]

Proof that Soviet tanks should be in the transport tab!

PS isn't the most broken thing in the game the game itself right now :/

Irrefutable evidence!

the most broken thing in the game the game itself right now

the game the game itself

What?

[Shika]

BF is not going to make you worry about bombers. USSR and RD are the only nation with scary bombers on PACT, and RD has very low ECM so it needs to make use of Feibaos. You are ignoring the generally inferior ECM on PACT

I worry about Tornado IDS because it's a good bomber unit, you shouldn't need to worry about an Avia or a Hawk. Anyways I clearly agreed with you that the MiG-29 needs a price increase and something similar should be given to a low tier NATO nation.

150 point fighters can attack helicopters, have infrared missiles so they are superior at close range, have more missiles generally, and some have higher AP radar missiles. Obviously this is overcome by the fact that a jack of all trades will lose to something as specialized as the MiG-29 Finland has. There's lots of ways you can go about balancing it and people will argue for what should be done, longer reload time, shortened range, higher cost, I think it should retain its role of fire and leave. 130 cost and a range of 7km would make it balanced.

It's important to remember if the MiG-29 misses even a single missile, it won't get a kill. If you fire and get a miss, any standard fighter will win because of its superior armament

Point 1: You cannot reduce the missile range, because its standardized.

Point 2: With the ripple-fire, you don't even need to get up close to enemy fighters evacing after launch. Hence their short-range missiles (which enemy fighters they pay extra for) don't matter.

Point 3: Inferior ECM is balanced out by lower price. Look for a half-decent bomber on NATO side that is below 100 points to match the Finnish Hawk (or Chinese MiG-21 for that matter).

Point 4: You buy the Finnish MiG-29 to counter enemy planes. For countering planes you have a cheap MiG-21 with dual-missiles slots (arguably among the three best planes to fight helicopters, all on PACT side).

Point 5: More missiles = higher price. The MiG-29 is simply in the sweet spot of lethality (two ripple-fire, F&F missiles9, availability (at veteran level), pricing (comparable to most medium-level NATO ASFs like Mirage 2000 or Block 5) and survivability (insta-evac after two missiles fired).

Point 6: Not only jack of all trades planes loose to the Finnish MiG-29. Even high-end ASFs like the Block 52 or F-15C have problems dealing with the Finnish MiGs, simply because they fail to connect more than one missiles before the enemy either is back home again due to instant evac or has connected one (or maybe even two) missile themselves.

point 1 conflicts with point 2

If the range is standardized how come they're so elusive in your eyes? They just get a second missile off quicker, if you go head to head you will beat it unless it gets both hits. Short range missiles matter absolutely because it means if you get in close you win, if you try to sit back or go head to head from distance it's just a coin toss. MiG wins if both hit, if not, you win

The Hawk is comparable to the ROK Dragonfly, the American A-6A, AV-6B, and the CF-116. That's if you want to compare it to planes with conventional bombs and not rockets or napalm. If you include those, it is similar to many on both sides

Talking about another unit while discussing the MiG-29 is pointless

When did I argue against point 5? If you connect 2 missiles on an ASF the MiG-29 is dead, and you could do the same on any ASF. Fire and evac, it's always how it's been done. The MiG-29 just gets 2 missiles off quicker

I honestly don't get your argument. We both agreed the MiG-29 needs a tweak, but now you're arguing things that are blatantly false if you take a look at the armory

[Shika]

If you want to act like a child and like we're on some moba forums then go ahead, just shows you are controlled by bias and not by actual discussion

No, I just simply don't care. The game will not get any balance updates so I am not going to bother trying to convince someone who has clearly no clue about balance. I don't get anything out of that so why should I care. The best I can do is make fun of what you write, because that does not take much time :^)

I did enough tests, I went through all the hidden stats to know that all the DLC nations (bar NL) are broken in their own way. What you belive does not change anything about that.

lol

Go 'fix' the game by making a mod that forces symmetrical balance because you cannot stand the tiny assymetrical balance in Wargame, any unit that you don't match or beat is OVERPOWERED!!!!1

[Markenzwieback]

point 1 conflicts with point 2

If the range is standardized how come they're so elusive in your eyes? They just get a second missile off quicker, if you go head to head you will beat it unless it gets both hits. Short range missiles matter absolutely because it means if you get in close you win, if you try to sit back or go head to head from distance it's just a coin toss. MiG wins if both hit, if not, you win

The point is that getting those two missiles off at the same time instead of a 2-3 second delay will save you from flying over enemy ADN, which is a big part of the air game and a huge advantage. Further, "just get a second missile off quicker" isn't really cutting it. Either all planes with such a capability should be allowed to ripple fire or none. All interceptors got that ability, but only one ASF, making it far more effective than its counterparts.

The Hawk is comparable to the ROK Dragonfly, the American A-6A, AV-6B, and the CF-116. That's if you want to compare it to planes with conventional bombs and not rockets or napalm. If you include those, it is similar to many on both sides

Did you really cite the Dragonfly as a viable plane? LMAO. 600km/h vs. 900km/h. Worse bombs, worse missiles and higher price for that.

The A6-A always flies over the target dropping in a line. A major disadvantage.

What is the AV-6B? I don't know and cannot find such a plane.

CF-116 is worse again. No ECM vs. 10% (pretty significant difference), worse speed and worse turn time (hence longer stay over target). Okay it gets another bomb, but again pays extra for being way less survivable.

When did I argue against point 5? If you connect 2 missiles on an ASF the MiG-29 is dead, and you could do the same on any ASF. Fire and evac, it's always how it's been done. The MiG-29 just gets 2 missiles off quicker

The speed of missile use is exactly the problem here. It gives you 100% more instant lethality over any other ASF in game. Such a capability should not exist in section as streamlined as planes. Every F&F long-range missiles capable fighter has a two second "reload" before being able to fire the second missile. The same principle should be applied to the Finnish MiG.

I honestly don't get your argument. We both agreed the MiG-29 needs a tweak, but now you're arguing things that are blatantly false if you take a look at the armory

Please name by blatantly false arguments. If you are hinting on that plane comparison, you should reconsider quite a bit.

[Razzmann]

If you want to act like a child and like we're on some moba forums then go ahead, just shows you are controlled by bias and not by actual discussion

No, I just simply don't care. The game will not get any balance updates so I am not going to bother trying to convince someone who has clearly no clue about balance. I don't get anything out of that so why should I care. The best I can do is make fun of what you write, because that does not take much time :^)

I did enough tests, I went through all the hidden stats to know that all the DLC nations (bar NL) are broken in their own way. What you belive does not change anything about that.

lol

Don't worry dude, we all know you're just a crybaby who loses all the time and blames a 5 point cheaper unit for your hilarious failure. Go 'fix' the game by making a mod that forces symmetrical balance because you cannot stand the tiny assymetrical balance in Wargame, any unit that you don't match or beat is OVERPOWERED!!!!1

Exactly.

[nande]

Don't worry dude, we all know you're just a crybaby who loses all the time and blames a 5 point cheaper unit for your hilarious failure. Go 'fix' the game by making a mod that forces symmetrical balance because you cannot stand the tiny assymetrical balance in Wargame, any unit that you don't match or beat is OVERPOWERED!!!!1

mind establishing yourself first? Even anonymous communities require some achievements to back up their elitism.

[XanderTuron]

Don't worry dude, we all know you're just a crybaby who loses all the time and blames a 5 point cheaper unit for your hilarious failure. Go 'fix' the game by making a mod that forces symmetrical balance because you cannot stand the tiny assymetrical balance in Wargame, any unit that you don't match or beat is OVERPOWERED!!!!1

Let me do some 'splainin' buddy; you come here and start talking smack about balance issues that you clearly have no perspective or knowledge on and then start trying to insult one of the better players of the game. Any valid point you may had (however unlikely that is) is now considered irrelevant due to the fact that your ability to communicate is ham-stringed by your petulant attitude.

Five point price differences at the low end of the spectrum can be quite significant, just look at Jaeger and Gevaermenn '90; when they were ten points, they were some of the best line infantry around because they could one-shot 2AV and had better MGs than everybody else. Now look at Jaakari '90, they are ten points, have glorious M72A4 and have an above average machine gun making them the best ten point line infantry squad by a large margin which when combined with their transport options, makes them quite the outlier when compared to similarly priced unit combinations.

[HrcAk47]

The thing with the Finnish MiG is wrong on a number of levels, and surprisingly enough, itches both the gameplay people and history nerds alike.

Main issue is with its loadout and price, which, together with its veterancy, make them an extremely potent combination.
How could a MiG-29 9.13S loadout look like instead? There had been plenty of options, let's name the most interesting ones:

2x R-27R, 4x R-73
2x R-77, 4x R-73
4x R-77, 2x R-73
6x R-77
4x 500 kg bombs (HE, thermobaric, napalm...), 2x R-77 or R-73
80x S-8, 2x R-77 or R-73
and so on. Full loadouts are not just there to make an "uberplane", they are to prevent the issue number two, which is...

Price. I prefer to compare it to Yak-141, which also has 2xR-77, paired with 2xR-73. It's R-77 do not ripple either, and its turn rate is abysmal. Yet it costs 30 points more. Dual R-73s are NOT worth that much. Therefore, either the Yak 141 is overpriced or the MiG-29 is underpriced.

Third issue, veterancy. It adds a bonus to missile accuracy. You can get the MiGs at elite, and the R-77 is an accurate missile to begin with. Veterancy comes at Elite, thus two MiGs will nearly always bring down their target, while they will get hit once or never.

Everything combined, the MiGs can be seen as quite troublesome. But how to resolve? If the Finns still want to roleplay with a sanic barebonesinterceptor, it would be better to rearm them with 2x R-27R... or even the R-27ER. So they could sling the now SARH guided missiles and be perceived as significantly less OP. And, potentially, the ER would give them a massive range. But they wouldn't be half as broken thanks to the removal of ripple fire.

[another505]

it would be better to rearm them with 2x R-27R... or even the R-27ER. So they could sling the now SARH guided missiles and be perceived as significantly less OP. And, potentially, the ER would give them a massive range. But they wouldn't be half as broken thanks to the removal of ripple fire.

Ripple fire R-27

[HrcAk47]

it would be better to rearm them with 2x R-27R... or even the R-27ER. So they could sling the now SARH guided missiles and be perceived as significantly less OP. And, potentially, the ER would give them a massive range. But they wouldn't be half as broken thanks to the removal of ripple fire.

Ripple fire R-27