F-35b Vs J-10... Please Fix!

[Vintageologist]

Re: F-35b Vs J-10... Please Fix!

Listen, do you hear people say "ground attack fighter", "air superiority fighter", "attack plane" in Battlefield 2 OR do you hear people actually say "bomber"? Because I hear people say "bomber". I KNOW what a F15 is in real life, but Im not dragging that **** in here just to make myself look "smrat" and educated in real life... erm, yeah.

If its not a bomber in BF2, then what is it? You just said its used as a ground attack plane, which successfully makes it a bomber, right?

Youve successfully made an *** out of yourself, let this be an educational opportunity for you, that you shall not forget.

As for F15 made more maneuverable, its a friggin bomber, not a fighter (pun intended), if anything, the other jets should be toned down a bit. F15 is worst of all 3 bombers, and in the big picture it deserves that status because idealistically, bombers are less maneuverable, however, other 2 are a lot more maneverable AND they have better fighters, compared to the F35B.

In air force, USMC is inferior, in BF2. I wouldnt want DICE to touch the maneuverability (turn radius in particular), but if they would like to change something, agility would be great. Like F35B holds great roll speed, they could add such upgrade to the F15 aswell.

Haha I didn't make an *** out of myself, I just made you look stupid cause you tried to mark the tough guy and if you wanna play like this, I'll play with you.
You didn't understand the whole point anyway, so no need to talk any further to you if you just keep on trying to be the smart***.

THE f15e drops bombs
therefore it is a bomber
irrefutable logic

Dude, I know it's in general BF2 lingo referred to as bomber, I just wanted to play with mister smarty a bit.
Btw using your description of a bomber... the J-10 would be one too...
Still... it's not a bomber actually

[Lavadisk]

Re: F-35b Vs J-10... Please Fix!

Haha I didn't make an *** out of myself, I just made you look stupid cause you tried to mark the tough guy and if you wanna play like this, I'll play with you.
You didn't understand the whole point anyway, so no need to talk any further to you if you just keep on trying to be the smart***.


Dude, I know it's in general BF2 lingo referred to as bomber, I just wanted to play with mister smarty a bit.
Btw using your description of a bomber... the J-10 would be one too...
Still... it's not a bomber actually

nobody made an *** out of them selfs and vintageologist is right. and a fighter is a fighter. just cause it has bombs dosent make it a bomber and who cares about what its like in real life. just cause i have a few nades in my pocket in bf2 dosent make me a grenader, im and infantry troop. so the areo planes are jets. get it got it good.

[Vintageologist]

Re: F-35b Vs J-10... Please Fix!

nobody made an *** out of them selfs and vintageologist is right. and a fighter is a fighter. just cause it has bombs dosent make it a bomber and who cares about what its like in real life. just cause i have a few nades in my pocket in bf2 dosent make me a grenader, im and infantry troop. so the areo planes are jets. get it got it good.

What my actual point was in the first place is that there is no reason to make the F15 THAT MUCH inferior to the "fighter" planes... of course there has to be a slight performance loss due to the higher payload, but imo it is a bit much now. (although this isn't such a real problem as the F15 primary targets in BF2 should be on the ground anyway)

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: F-35b Vs J-10... Please Fix!

Haha I didn't make an *** out of myself, I just made you look stupid cause you tried to mark the tough guy and if you wanna play like this, I'll play with you.
You didn't understand the whole point anyway, so no need to talk any further to you if you just keep on trying to be the smart***.

That is funny. Youre trying to point out that the F15 should be great in dogfighting because its an air superiority fighter in real life. The undeniable fact is that F15 in BF2 holds superior ATS power so it has to lose some in ATA to make it an easier prey for jets that specialize in ATA combat, still talking about Battlefield 2. Comparisions to real world is USELESS because its done so for the gameplay balance sake. Obvious point you just cant understand.

In Battlefield 2 terms, its a bomber, not a fighter. And way to go, Mr Hypocrite, you called me Mr Smartass, while this whole silly argument wouldnt be happening if you didnt try to be one in the first place.

Dude, I know it's in general BF2 lingo referred to as bomber, I just
wanted to play with mister smarty a bit.

You didnt play anything, except for being a moron.

[/quote]Btw using your description of a bomber... the J-10 would be one too...
Still... it's not a bomber actually [/quote]

I KNEW IT! I knew you would jump at him for saying that. God youre so predictable that youre not even going to accept the point he made without trying to ridicule him. Look past the words and try to understand the concept, not play... what did you call me? Mr Smartass? Youre doing it right now!

Lavadisk, you do understand that having grenades doesnt make you a grenadier in real life? For example in my countries military, grenades are a part of regular troops armament. And I believe its the same with US army aswell.

What my actual point was in the first place is that there is no reason to make the F15 THAT MUCH inferior to the "fighter" planes...

If we compare the potential impact of a bomber in Battlefield 2, on the ground troops, a significant decrease in ATA combat capabilities is encouraged. Right now Su-34 is engaging F35B as if it was an equal match, to me, that is unacceptable.

of course there has to be a slight performance loss due to the higher payload

What kind of nonsense is this? Payload weight has nothing to do with why it is what it is! Its balance in ATA/ATS performance for the sake of gameplay balance aimed towards both air and ground troops. Obviously if a jet can perform significant role against ground troops, jets performing less in that area should have an easier time combating that said jet. In other words, fighters, which have less of an impact on the ground should hunt jets that have huge impact on the ground, and they shouldnt have too much of a hard time doing so.

As an example, in Oman, a Su-34 duo can stop ALL American armor in the start of the round with relative ease. OCS, while MiG chases the F18, Su can keep the waters clean! Because F15 isnt that good match against Su-34 in ATA. And so on.

but imo it is a bit much now. (although this isn't such a real problem as the F15 primary targets in BF2 should be on the ground anyway)

That is correct, F-15 shouldnt be doing ATA anyway, its his wingmans job. And F18 is more than capable of doing the work. And it isnt too much at all. If anything, I would like the bombers be a little more equal because the gap in turn capabilities between the three is astonishing. Since were not dealing with PvP ATA problems that much as we would with fighters, I think tweaking in armament to balance the inbalances in maneuvrability are in order.

[Vintageologist]

Re: F-35b Vs J-10... Please Fix!

That is funny. Youre trying to point out that the F15 should be great in dogfighting because its an air superiority fighter in real life. The undeniable fact is that F15 in BF2 holds superior ATS power so it has to lose some in ATA to make it an easier prey for jets that specialize in ATA combat, still talking about Battlefield 2. Comparisions to real world is USELESS because its done so for the gameplay balance sake. Obvious point you just cant understand.

Ok... now reread my post. What I said is that it shoudn't be THAT MUCH SLOWER, not superior.

I KNEW IT! I knew you would jump at him for saying that. God youre so predictable that youre not even going to accept the point he made without trying to ridicule him. Look past the words and try to understand the concept, not play... what did you call me? Mr Smartass? Youre doing it right now!

I wasn't trying to redicule him in any way (more likely the other way round), that's why I used those nice smilies.

Lavadisk, you do understand that having grenades doesnt make you a grenadier in real life? For example in my countries military, grenades are a part of regular troops armament. And I believe its the same with US army aswell.

And you do understand that this statement was done in connection to the "it has bombs, so it's a bomber" thing yes? What he wanted to say is that regular infantry units carry grenades aswell without being a grenadier, so I think he already knows that.

If we compare the potential impact of a bomber in Battlefield 2, on the ground troops, a significant decrease in ATA combat capabilities is encouraged. Right now Su-34 is engaging F35B as if it was an equal match, to me, that is unacceptable.

The disadvantage is already given due to less AA payload, so it would be nice to at least be able to get away in a dogfighting situation.

What kind of nonsense is this? Payload weight has nothing to do with why it is what it is! Its balance in ATA/ATS performance for the sake of gameplay balance aimed towards both air and ground troops. Obviously if a jet can perform significant role against ground troops, jets performing less in that area should have an easier time combating that said jet. In other words, fighters, which have less of an impact on the ground should hunt jets that have huge impact on the ground, and they shouldnt have too much of a hard time doing so.

Ah dude, sorry, I forgot that it makes absolutely no difference in speed whether a jet is loaded with 6 AMRAAMs or 4 of them and an extra payload of GBUs... my bad really.
For the second time, all I was saying is that the F15 should be only a little bit slower than the MiG29 so you at least have a chance to get away (and no don't come with "skill" or anything... I hop into the MiG/F18 too from time to time and it's quite easy to get them for any half decent pilot.) It doesn't have to be easy to be balanced y'know.

As an example, in Oman, a Su-34 duo can stop ALL American armor in the start of the round with relative ease. OCS, while MiG chases the F18, Su can keep the waters clean! Because F15 isnt that good match against Su-34 in ATA. And so on.

Assuming that you mean Cleansweep, yes you're right on that. So what exactly would be the problem if we had a slightly better F15?

That is correct, F-15 shouldnt be doing ATA anyway, its his wingmans job. And F18 is more than capable of doing the work. And it isnt too much at all. If anything, I would like the bombers be a little more equal because the gap in turn capabilities between the three is astonishing. Since were not dealing with PvP ATA problems that much as we would with fighters, I think tweaking in armament to balance the inbalances in maneuvrability are in order.

3rd time, I'm not talking about making the F15 an allround gunship, but to give it the possibility to ESCAPE, nothing more. thank you.
Btw the F18 isn't too capable because it's aswell inferior, so we have 2 inferior Jets facing AA guns too... great.

And way to go, Mr Hypocrite, you called me Mr Smartass, while this whole silly argument wouldnt be happening if you didnt try to be one in the first place.

Haha all I did was point out for you that Dice DIDN'T get the F15 right as the only plane as it is actually a fast one. Not sure how I was trying to be a smartass here? But yeah, may it be...

[colony]

Re: F-35b Vs J-10... Please Fix!

You can escape in the F15E. Its hitbox isnt as HUGE as the SMALLER F35, so you are ok

[Vintageologist]

Re: F-35b Vs J-10... Please Fix!

You can escape in the F15E. Its hitbox isnt as HUGE as the SMALLER F35, so you are ok

I actually meant escape in terms of maneuvering out of the lock but yeah, the easier alternative would be to just add some F35s which would make all missiles automatically lock onto them instead of the F15. :laugh:
But seriously, if you are facing a skilled MiG pilot, it's almost impossible to get away once he's spotted you. (while your F18 comrade is busy bombing something 'cause it's useless trying to chase the MiG anyway )

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: F-35b Vs J-10... Please Fix!

Ok... now reread my post. What I said is that it shoudn't be THAT MUCH SLOWER, not superior.

You do know that the F15 is an air superiority fighter faster than both the J-10 and MiG-29 in r/l?

Who said anything about basing my post on your last one?

Does "air superiority fighter" mean a "maneuverable, fast and electronically well-equipped" ATA capable fighter? I think common sense tells us, it would.

Do you know the main reason why MiG is able to fight F35B so easily? Apart from its superior turn speed, the MiG is slower than the JSF, so when the F35B pilot decides to use multiple maneuvers to escape, the MiG is left behind, far enough so he can see all your maneuvers and just zoon through them in straight line, while keeping a solid lock all the time. Faster speed in BF2 doesnt automatically mean a jet would be better.

I wasn't trying to redicule him in any way (more likely the other way round), that's why I used those nice smilies.

Then why post it? He had a point, he wanted to make it clear. Ones a dedicated bomber with 5 bombs and a gunners LGMs as primary weapons, making it a ATS focused jet PRIMARILY. Other is a 6 missile equipped maneuverable jet which main focus is to take down those well equipped ATS-focused jets, making them fighters. The bombs on the fighters are a little extra, and everyone knows that pilots should have skills to actually use them effectively (by effectively I mean, bomb armor with precision and whatnot). So why pick on something youre agreeing with, anyway?

And you do understand that this statement was done in connection to the "it has bombs, so it's a bomber" thing yes? What he wanted to say is that regular infantry units carry grenades aswell without being a grenadier, so I think he already knows that.

Which makes it again, an attempt to ridicule a statement he would agree with in basics. So why do it?

The disadvantage is already given due to less AA payload, so it would be nice to at least be able to get away in a dogfighting situation.

Shift in firepower and capabilities to have better characteristics in ATS capabilities, MUST have a negative effect on ATA capabilities. The logic in this is simple.

Your suggestion has "nothing" to do with "getting away". "Getting away" means better maneuverability, you want to bring bombers on par with fighters so they become great BOMBERS AND dogfighters? If you choose a bomber, you better know how to escape the fight, not start one. If you choose a fighter, you better know how to start a fight, not escape one (aswell as focus on ATA, not ATS), I dont see how this logic can be left unseen?

Ah dude, sorry, I forgot that it makes absolutely no difference in speed whether a jet is loaded with 6 AMRAAMs or 4 of them and an extra payload of GBUs... my bad really.

In terms of RL or BF2? It doesnt in BF2, but it does in RL. Even if a little, it still does. Mass and drag would be first two coming to my mind. In BF2 you have 4X4 (5?) LGMs, 5 bombs and 4 missiles, vs 6 missiles and 2 bombs. Again, difference is there.

Established fact is also that the F15 isnt that great in close-in dogfights, with F16 for example outperforming it. Its higher fuel load gives an edge because it can perform longer in a dogfight.

For the second time, all I was saying is that the F15 should be only a little bit slower than the MiG29 so you at least have a chance to get away

So, now we get from "more missile payload" to "a little bit slower"?

Do you want an engagement monster or a jet capable of breaking a dogfight? Because a skilled pilot CAN break a fight. One way to break a fight with a MiG is to get the MiG as close as possible and then create a series of multiple maneuvers (like in F35B case). Speaking of F35B...

F-15
Diameter of turn: 332ft
Time to do 360 turn: 8 Seconds
Maximum speed at 300ft: 1070
Maximum speed at 800ft: 1900
Maximum speed at 300ft with AB: 1270
Maximum speed at 800ft with AB: 2540
Time required to do a 360 turn using only
Yaw at 300ft: 22 Seconds
Time required to do a roll at 300ft: 3 Seconds
AB fuel: 13.5 Seconds

MiG-29
Diameter of turn: 275ft
Time to do 360 turn: 7 Seconds
Maximum speed at 300ft: 1110
Maximum speed at 800ft: 1870
Maximum speed at 300ft with AB: 1320
Maximum speed at 800ft with AB: 2720
Time required to do a 360 turn using only
Yaw at 300ft: 20.8 Seconds
Time required to do a roll at 300ft: 2.5 Seconds
AB fuel: 14 Seconds

F-35B
Diameter of turn: 328ft
Time to do 360 turn: 8 Seconds
Maximum speed at 300ft: 1160
Maximum speed at 800ft: 1880
Maximum speed at 300ft with AB: 1550
Maximum speed at 800ft with AB: 3260-3540
Time required to do a 360 turn using only
Yaw at 300ft: 18 Seconds
Time required to do a roll at 300ft: 1.75 Seconds
AB fuel: 10.2 Seconds

Compare the data. Youll see that by default, youve got the means to escape the fight in the F15. Against a great pilot it can be piss-hard, but seriously- if he has a better jet, and hes better than you are, why are you complaining?

(and no don't come with "skill" or anything... I hop into the MiG/F18 too from time to time and it's quite easy to get them for any half decent pilot.) It doesn't have to be easy to be balanced y'know.

But it has to be "easier" for the MiG to trail F15, than vice versa. F15 doesnt have to chase a MiG anyway because its not its purpose. If you want F15 to do the job of F18, then its insane. If F18 doesnt give you cover, thats BF2 for you, stats and no teamwork. And dont give me that "half decent" stuff, A half decent pilot wont chase down a decent pilot, so you must be less than decent to match the chasers less than decent pilot.

Assuming that you mean Cleansweep, yes you're right on that. So what exactly would be the problem if we had a slightly better F15?

If we would want to match the F15 to make it closer to Su-34, to make it have slightly better maneuvering characteristics, no problem. If we would want to make it a dogfighter, even though its a bomber, then we DO have a problem. F15 doesnt even have to engage the Su. Its got 4 missiles for a reason. Although I would only give them 2. You should fire upon opportunity and GTFO before youre being engaged. You have a worse plane than a fighter, its a clear sign that your job is to bomb and evade. Isnt it a simple concept to grasp?

3rd time, I'm not talking about making the F15 an allround gunship,
but to give it the possibility to ESCAPE, nothing more. thank you.

Right, more missile payload will really give a bonus in "escaping". If you want to talk about escaping, talk numbers. F15 escaping from a MiG depends largely on the pilot. If the MiG is manned with Mr Awesome, and youre Mr I-just-watched-Top-Gun, then its logical to assume that youre "fvcked"... because hes got the better plane, hes got the skills. You dont have either of those. Youre dead. Accept it. This wouldnt be the case with pre-1.2 missiles, but now we have missiles that hit, so it all depends on what youve got. And if your F18 fella is busy chasing stats... well... you get the point.

Btw the F18 isn't too capable because it's aswell inferior, so we have 2 inferior Jets facing AA guns too... great.

No its not. I find F18 to be actually superior to the MiG because you can take the F18 as an enhanced (although slower) version of the F35B which I have most experience with out of all the fighters. In loops, the MiG is only slightly superior. I can say that most pilots agree that MiG vs F18 is the closest match in the game, if we say the missiles would hit on equal basis.

Haha all I did was point out for you that Dice DIDN'T get the F15 right as the only plane as it is actually a fast one. Not sure how I was trying to be a smartass here? But yeah, may it be...

No, I dont mean in REAL LIFE terms. Im talking GAME WISE here. ONLY game wise. Thats my point. Its worse in maneuvering than all the fighters, excet for roll speed (arguably), its slower than most fighters in speed. Comparing it to Su-30 for example which I would class as a figher, because that sh!t is better than F35B, I say DICE did get F15 right, as they got the match with the concept "fighters>bombers". Id say the other 2 bombers are a little overpowered for their purpose. This isnt a big of a deal for maps where they face F18 though, but is a big deal when they face a F35B.

You want Real Life facts, great, but they have no place in "jet balance in BF2" type of threads.

[Coconut187]

Re: F-35b Vs J-10... Please Fix!

Chriiiiiiiiis

Wanna play some Oman action?

[colony]

Re: F-35b Vs J-10... Please Fix!

The F15E is my new love toy.....I bomb and bomb, evade Mig, Su, J10 pilot, then go back to bombing

[Vintageologist]

Re: F-35b Vs J-10... Please Fix!

Who said anything about basing my post on your last one?

See, even my first post didn't mean in any way that it has to be faster than the MiG or J10 I thought I could expect that people would take weaponry into consideration.

Does "air superiority fighter" mean a "maneuverable, fast and electronically well-equipped" ATA capable fighter? I think common sense tells us, it would.

Capable... YES, armed to do the Job... NO!

Do you know the main reason why MiG is able to fight F35B so easily? Apart from its superior turn speed, the MiG is slower than the JSF, so when the F35B pilot decides to use multiple maneuvers to escape, the MiG is left behind, far enough so he can see all your maneuvers and just zoon through them in straight line, while keeping a solid lock all the time. Faster speed in BF2 doesnt automatically mean a jet would be better.

Actually I have to say I didn't knew he numbers before I read your post but it always seemed to me that the AB made you turn faster aswell (which is not logical anyway) in BF2, so I though the faster the better, but yes, considering this, they should probably just make the F15 just more maneuverable.

Then why post it? He had a point, he wanted to make it clear.

Just for the fun of it. If you'd stop acting like a prick you'd probably notice how ironic that post of him was.

Ones a dedicated bomber with 5 bombs and a gunners LGMs as primary weapons, making it a ATS focused jet PRIMARILY. Other is a 6 missile equipped maneuverable jet which main focus is to take down those well equipped ATS-focused jets, making them fighters. The bombs on the fighters are a little extra, and everyone knows that pilots should have skills to actually use them effectively (by effectively I mean, bomb armor with precision and whatnot). So why pick on something youre agreeing with, anyway?

Not sure what you are pointing towards here as I never said the ground attack planes should be the best ATA fighters...

Which makes it again, an attempt to ridicule a statement he would agree with in basics. So why do it?

Same as above. Dunno what you mean.

Shift in firepower and capabilities to have better characteristics in ATS capabilities, MUST have a negative effect on ATA capabilities. The logic in this is simple.

Yeah right never dnied that, but you still shouldn't be that much of an easy target.

Your suggestion has "nothing" to do with "getting away". "Getting away" means better maneuverability, you want to bring bombers on par with fighters so they become great BOMBERS AND dogfighters? If you choose a bomber, you better know how to escape the fight, not start one. If you choose a fighter, you better know how to start a fight, not escape one (aswell as focus on ATA, not ATS), I dont see how this logic can be left unseen?

Wait... how can my suggestion of making them more capable of getting away not have anything to do with getting away? Right now, you're confusing me... just a bit.

In terms of RL or BF2? It doesnt in BF2, but it does in RL. Even if a little, it still does. Mass and drag would be first two coming to my mind. In BF2 you have 4X4 (5?) LGMs, 5 bombs and 4 missiles, vs 6 missiles and 2 bombs. Again, difference is there.

Yeah, in r/l you don't even have the possibility to carry so much guided death with you and the whole dogfigting is becoming more and more obsolete because you fire beyond visual range anyway nowadays. (which would make the F35 vastly superior because the first thing you will see of it is a locked-on missile heading for you, which basically means you're f-ed.)

Established fact is also that the F15 isnt that great in close-in dogfights, with F16 for example outperforming it. Its higher fuel load gives an edge because it can perform longer in a dogfight.

That was suggested by a group called "Fighter Mafia" which wanted a smaller, cheaper plane that could be deployed in masses, while the F15 eventually proved to be more than capable of dogfighting with over 100 kills to zero losses in air combat over it's history (the only loss ever was a FF accident in a Japanese training due to a faulty AAM)

So, now we get from "more missile payload" to "a little bit slower"?

Do you mean AAM? Then I never said that... I always said that it should be closer in performance to the fighters thus giving on-par pilots a better chance of escaping.

Do you want an engagement monster or a jet capable of breaking a dogfight? Because a skilled pilot CAN break a fight. One way to break a fight with a MiG is to get the MiG as close as possible and then create a series of multiple maneuvers (like in F35B case). Speaking of F35B...

I'm not sure what you do, but I've played every of the jets and I can follow all turns of the F15 when flying a MiG, they are usually easy prey (unless my missiles magically slant off before exploding)

F-15
Diameter of turn: 332ft
Time to do 360 turn: 8 Seconds
Maximum speed at 300ft: 1070
Maximum speed at 800ft: 1900
Maximum speed at 300ft with AB: 1270
Maximum speed at 800ft with AB: 2540
Time required to do a 360 turn using only
Yaw at 300ft: 22 Seconds
Time required to do a roll at 300ft: 3 Seconds
AB fuel: 13.5 Seconds

MiG-29
Diameter of turn: 275ft
Time to do 360 turn: 7 Seconds
Maximum speed at 300ft: 1110
Maximum speed at 800ft: 1870
Maximum speed at 300ft with AB: 1320
Maximum speed at 800ft with AB: 2720
Time required to do a 360 turn using only
Yaw at 300ft: 20.8 Seconds
Time required to do a roll at 300ft: 2.5 Seconds
AB fuel: 14 Seconds

F-35B
Diameter of turn: 328ft
Time to do 360 turn: 8 Seconds
Maximum speed at 300ft: 1160
Maximum speed at 800ft: 1880
Maximum speed at 300ft with AB: 1550
Maximum speed at 800ft with AB: 3260-3540
Time required to do a 360 turn using only
Yaw at 300ft: 18 Seconds
Time required to do a roll at 300ft: 1.75 Seconds
AB fuel: 10.2 Seconds

Compare the data. Youll see that by default, youve got the means to escape the fight in the F15. Against a great pilot it can be piss-hard, but seriously- if he has a better jet, and hes better than you are, why are you complaining?

I with "all-means" you mean slower and less maneuverable, then you're right.
I'm not complaining that if he's better that he shouldn't get the kill, but right now it's a bit easy sometimes, and that's all I ever meant no matter how much you twist my words.

But it has to be "easier" for the MiG to trail F15, than vice versa. F15 doesnt have to chase a MiG anyway because its not its purpose. If you want F15 to do the job of F18, then its insane. If F18 doesnt give you cover, thats BF2 for you, stats and no teamwork. And dont give me that "half decent" stuff, A half decent pilot wont chase down a decent pilot, so you must be less than decent to match the chasers less than decent pilot.

Yes for the 1000th time, I said make it so it is just A BIT SLOWER, (or actually maneuverable)
not on-par and not superior. You can make that point 1000 more times and it will always be wrong, so please refrain from doing so, it's tiring.

If we would want to match the F15 to make it closer to Su-34, to make it have slightly better maneuvering characteristics, no problem. If we would want to make it a dogfighter, even though its a bomber, then we DO have a problem. F15 doesnt even have to engage the Su. Its got 4 missiles for a reason. Although I would only give them 2. You should fire upon opportunity and GTFO before youre being engaged. You have a worse plane than a fighter, its a clear sign that your job is to bomb and evade. Isnt it a simple concept to grasp?

See above statement, replace 1000th with 1001st.

Right, more missile payload will really give a bonus in "escaping". If you want to talk about escaping, talk numbers. F15 escaping from a MiG depends largely on the pilot. If the MiG is manned with Mr Awesome, and youre Mr I-just-watched-Top-Gun, then its logical to assume that youre "fvcked"... because hes got the better plane, hes got the skills. You dont have either of those. Youre dead. Accept it. This wouldnt be the case with pre-1.2 missiles, but now we have missiles that hit, so it all depends on what youve got. And if your F18 fella is busy chasing stats... well... you get the point.

You're just assuming that I'm a bad pilot, which, as a matter fact you can't know. O won't consider myself the best pilot out there (well maybe the best A-10 pilot ). I just say what I see. And what I see is that if I man the F15, every more or less decent pilot has an easy shot on me (like F35 versus J10) while if I'm the one in the MiG, I have an easy shot on the F15, so I suggest making the difference a bit less so it's a bit more challenging.

No its not. I find F18 to be actually superior to the MiG because you can take the F18 as an enhanced (although slower) version of the F35B which I have most experience with out of all the fighters. In loops, the MiG is only slightly superior. I can say that most pilots agree that MiG vs F18 is the closest match in the game, if we say the missiles would hit on equal basis.

You're right that the difference is not that notable with the F18, but still it is there which doesn't help the situation at all (like having both an inferior ground attack plane AND a (if only slightly) inferior fighter doesn't help too much for balance, does it?)

No, I dont mean in REAL LIFE terms. Im talking GAME WISE here. ONLY game wise. Thats my point. Its worse in maneuvering than all the fighters, excet for roll speed (arguably), its slower than most fighters in speed. Comparing it to Su-30 for example which I would class as a figher, because that sh!t is better than F35B, I say DICE did get F15 right, as they got the match with the concept "fighters>bombers". Id say the other 2 bombers are a little overpowered for their purpose. This isnt a big of a deal for maps where they face F18 though, but is a big deal when they face a F35B.

The real problem is that both the F35 and the F15 are just too bad and should be made better for THE GAME BALANCE' sake.

You want Real Life facts, great, but they have no place in "jet balance in BF2" type of threads.

The F15 is wrong for both game balance and r/lness, so why is it so bad I give some real life facts to back up my point more?

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: F-35b Vs J-10... Please Fix!

See, even my first post didn't mean in any way that it has to be faster than the MiG or J10 I thought I could expect that people would take weaponry into consideration.

4 missiles or 6, what will change? Nothing. A jet will still either be good at dogfighting or not. You just have more missiles youre going to waste, with you. Payload has no importance. It DID have an importance in pre-1.2, but not its mostly symbolic. As soon as DICE will get the missiles work equal for all, that is.

Capable... YES, armed to do the Job... NO!

And it shouldnt! Which is my main point. F15 shouldnt engage the enemy fighter, except for "moment of opportunity" shots, which it can do right now aswell. Your idea of "self defense" is wrong. I BF2, in a bomber, its none of your concern what the OpFor fighter does, you bomb, you disappear, and thats it! You want to pick a fight, you get in the F18!

Actually I have to say I didn't knew he numbers before I read your post but it always seemed to me that the AB made you turn faster aswell (which is not logical anyway) in BF2, so I though the faster the better, but yes, considering this, they should probably just make the F15 just more maneuverable.

It doesnt actually decrease your turn radius, it increases it (just a tad), but since youre moving faster, you get the illusion you turn tighter. You go through a turn faster, but the turn radius itsself increases. Although just a bit.

Just for the fun of it. If you'd stop acting like a prick you'd probably notice how ironic that post of him was.

Im your mirror reflection.

Not sure what you are pointing towards here as I never said the ground attack planes should be the best ATA fighters...

No, but youre hinting that bombers in BF2 should be good at ATA fight. Im saying they shouldnt.

Yeah right never dnied that, but you still shouldn't be that much of an easy target.

Its mostly up to the pilot. Mostly because seriously, if the other jet is "created" for ATA and yours is for ATS, the other jet should and will have an upper hand in the fight. Doesnt mean you dont have a chance. You always have a chance. Look at Su-34 vs F35B fight, Su turn radius in horizontal turns is OK, JSF can catch up with that, but the moment Su-34 goes for the vertical spiral, loops or multiple split-S, F35B cannon keep up, unless the pilot has mastered the free chase cam mode. Su-34 not only has a "chance" of evading the F35B, it usually does. Im not saying I personally cant handle them, I use them as cannon targets, but the moment theres a great pilot in that jet, it will be pisshard for me to keep up with it. I have to utilize every trick I have, startig from spotting, up to free cam and chase at different altitudes. This is not how its supposed to be. And luckily, against F15 it isnt...

Wait... how can my suggestion of making them more capable of getting away not have anything to do with getting away? Right now, you're confusing me... just a bit.

I guess Im saying that youre not talking about "getting away", youre talking about "getting away and engaging", which it shouldnt be capable of. If both pilots are equal, in bomber and fighter, the bomber should go down. Its up to the pilots now to duke it out.

That was suggested by a group called "Fighter Mafia" which wanted a smaller, cheaper plane that could be deployed in masses, while the F15 eventually proved to be more than capable of dogfighting with over 100 kills to zero losses in air combat over it's history (the only loss ever was a FF accident in a Japanese training due to a faulty AAM)

Many would agree that it was mostly USAF superior training.

I'm not sure what you do, but I've played every of the jets and I can follow all turns of the F15 when flying a MiG, they are usually easy prey (unless my missiles magically slant off before exploding)

I agree with you that the F15 is not that good. But only because the other bombers are vastly superior to F15. They should all be equal, either equally bad like F15, or... which I wouldnt like that much... equally capable like the Su-34. In the same time the F35B should be upped a bit so it can actually stay behind the Su in loop wars. Hell, if we look at it, the bombers should have 2 magazines of 5 set flares with them, to make up for the bad perfomance (hypothetically speaking, if they would be all as bad as F15). You want bombers to be better defended with boosted offense. Well, you should be trying to boost their defense, which would be an extra set of flares, or a shorter reload time. Like 15 seconds instead of 30.

I with "all-means" you mean slower and less maneuverable, then you're right.
I'm not complaining that if he's better that he shouldn't get the kill, but right now it's a bit easy sometimes, and that's all I ever meant no matter how much you twist my words.

Well, you can blame the crooked ATA missile system for that one. Apart from a few anomalies, its not the aerial balerina it used to be.

You're just assuming that I'm a bad pilot, which, as a matter fact you can't know. O won't consider myself the best pilot out there (well maybe the best A-10 pilot ). I just say what I see. And what I see is that if I man the F15, every more or less decent pilot has an easy shot on me (like F35 versus J10) while if I'm the one in the MiG, I have an easy shot on the F15, so I suggest making the difference a bit less so it's a bit more challenging.

You see, youre actually where I am. I too want dogfights to be won by the best pilot with best tricks and maneuvers, with jets backing their skills up. But right now, the war isnt in maneuvers, its in positioning. If I would guess, you still have adaption problems. You hide, you strike, you GTFO and hide again. If youre spotted, you pray. With all my wingmen, I have a system. if Im bombing and Im spotted, I use the "NEGATIVE" message in the comm, and they look me up and help me out. I suggest you find yourself a couple of dogfighter buds and develop a system yourself.

Youve got one set of flares, a schoolbus for a jet, now you need a buddy in that Hornet.

You're right that the difference is not that notable with the F18, but still it is there which doesn't help the situation at all (like having both an inferior ground attack plane AND a (if only slightly) inferior fighter doesn't help too much for balance, does it?)

Many would agree that the Hornet is the best dogfighter in the game. I personally prefer it over J10 for example, any day of the week. F15 is inferior compared to all bombers, agreed. F35B is inferior to all fighters, again, agreed. F18, disagreed.

But lets have a look at the bigger picture, shall we? Most maps where USMC plays with inferior gear, they are at OFFENSE, while opposition is at DEFENSE. To make the game more challenging and interesting, the offense is at a disadvantage (challenge?), while defense has advantage. Look at OCS, it has MiG, which is on par with the Hornet, Su-34, which exceeds the Eagle, it has mobile AA and a ****load of armor around. Dont you think thats actually a very good idea from DICEs part? if you want to take it easy, you play MEC, you want a challenge, you swap to USMC.

Unfortunately USMC is usually filled with wannabe NAVY SEAL younglings... but thats besides the point. Mashtuur was probably the only map where USMC has a total superiority through the BHAWK. Theoretically, most maps are USMC on offense and at a disadvantage both in positioning and gear. Its not an excuse, but an observation. Doesnt mean the maps play out with USMC losing all the time. Just saying that the poker game starts with USMC having worst cards.

The real problem is that both the F35 and the F15 are just too bad and should be made better for THE GAME BALANCE' sake.

Better, agree. Equal to their OpFor counterparts? On F15 case I might even agree, on F35B, no...

The F15 is wrong for both game balance and r/lness, so why is it so bad I give some real life facts to back up my point more?

Because real life arguments in arcade shooter where everything theoretically is balanced for gameplay, dont count. You understand?

[zipp0r]

Re: F-35b Vs J-10... Please Fix!

No its not. I find F18 to be actually superior to the MiG because you can take the F18 as an enhanced (although slower) version of the F35B which I have most experience with out of all the fighters. In loops, the MiG is only slightly superior. I can say that most pilots agree that MiG vs F18 is the closest match in the game, if we say the missiles would hit on equal basis.

f18 is far superior to the mig29!! mig29 = missile magnet like the f35, f18 = ultimate missile dodger.
but handling wise they are reasonably close.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: F-35b Vs J-10... Please Fix!

f18 is far superior to the mig29!! mig29 = missile magnet like the f35, f18 = ultimate missile dodger.
but handling wise they are reasonably close.

The missile issue needs to be adressed anyway, so its out of the question. I personally think next to CTD issues, missile hit inbalances should be DICEs second priority.

[Vintageologist]

Re: F-35b Vs J-10... Please Fix!

4 missiles or 6, what will change? Nothing. A jet will still either be good at dogfighting or not. You just have more missiles youre going to waste, with you. Payload has no importance. It DID have an importance in pre-1.2, but not its mostly symbolic. As soon as DICE will get the missiles work equal for all, that is.

With the missile hit inconsistency we have now, it does amtter actually, but that never was my point anyway.

And it shouldnt! Which is my main point. F15 shouldnt engage the enemy fighter, except for "moment of opportunity" shots, which it can do right now aswell. Your idea of "self defense" is wrong. I BF2, in a bomber, its none of your concern what the OpFor fighter does, you bomb, you disappear, and thats it! You want to pick a fight, you get in the F18!

And once again 1002nd time. You just don't get is ha? ALL I SAID WAS IT SHOULD BE POSSIBLE TO GET AWAY EASIER!!! GET AWAY!!!! GET AWAY!!!!!! HOW OFTEN UNTIL YOU GET IT??? GET AWAy GET AWAY GET AWAY!!! GET AWAY DOESN'T MEAN THE SAME AS ACTIVELY PICK A DOGFIGHT! /rant over

No, but youre hinting that bombers in BF2 should be good at ATA fight. Im saying they shouldnt.

to continue... GET AWAY!!! GET AWAY!!! THEY SHOULD HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF GETTING AWAY!!!!! WHEN WE WOULD BOOST IT UP A BIT IT WOULD STILL BE A BIT INFERIOR THUS GIVING THE MiG BETTER CHANCES OF ESCAPING!!!

Its mostly up to the pilot. Mostly because seriously, if the other jet is "created" for ATA and yours is for ATS, the other jet should and will have an upper hand in the fight. Doesnt mean you dont have a chance. You always have a chance. Look at Su-34 vs F35B fight, Su turn radius in horizontal turns is OK, JSF can catch up with that, but the moment Su-34 goes for the vertical spiral, loops or multiple split-S, F35B cannon keep up, unless the pilot has mastered the free chase cam mode. Su-34 not only has a "chance" of evading the F35B, it usually does. Im not saying I personally cant handle them, I use them as cannon targets, but the moment theres a great pilot in that jet, it will be pisshard for me to keep up with it. I have to utilize every trick I have, startig from spotting, up to free cam and chase at different altitudes. This is not how its supposed to be. And luckily, against F15 it isnt...

That's the whole point... eliminating cheap kills... if the Su34 actually has a chance of getting away, it's a challenging game. And I can still hunt them down quite often in the F35, but if they do get away, I think yea.. . next time I'll get you thus makeing the game more interesting.

I guess Im saying that youre not talking about "getting away", youre talking about "getting away and engaging", which it shouldnt be capable of. If both pilots are equal, in bomber and fighter, the bomber should go down. Its up to the pilots now to duke it out.

If that's what you are saying, you're saying wrong things. I don't like to rely on heavy caps lock usage again, so if you didn't get it until now, you'll probably never get it anyway.
If both pilots are theoretically equal, but the F15 one does a maneuver that the MiG pilot didn't expect or anything, the F15 should get away. Easy as that.

I agree with you that the F15 is not that good. But only because the other bombers are vastly superior to F15. They should all be equal, either equally bad like F15, or... which I wouldnt like that much... equally capable like the Su-34. In the same time the F35B should be upped a bit so it can actually stay behind the Su in loop wars. Hell, if we look at it, the bombers should have 2 magazines of 5 set flares with them, to make up for the bad perfomance (hypothetically speaking, if they would be all as bad as F15). You want bombers to be better defended with boosted offense. Well, you should be trying to boost their defense, which would be an extra set of flares, or a shorter reload time. Like 15 seconds instead of 30.

The problem isn't the Su being too strong but the F35 being to weak, so you're mixing up two completely different issues.

Well, you can blame the crooked ATA missile system for that one. Apart from a few anomalies, its not the aerial balerina it used to be.

How can I blame the ATA system for inferior jets? Granted, back then when you had to REALLY get him to make a mistake and fire the missiles, those issues weren't so obvious, but still they were already there.

You see, youre actually where I am. I too want dogfights to be won by the best pilot with best tricks and maneuvers, with jets backing their skills up. But right now, the war isnt in maneuvers, its in positioning. If I would guess, you still have adaption problems. You hide, you strike, you GTFO and hide again. If youre spotted, you pray. With all my wingmen, I have a system. if Im bombing and Im spotted, I use the "NEGATIVE" message in the comm, and they look me up and help me out. I suggest you find yourself a couple of dogfighter buds and develop a system yourself.

You know what the problem is with that? Yes, it may work great if you're out for pints in the F15, but meanwhile the main target of the F18, the Su34 is bombing the **** out of your team's landing forces.

Many would agree that the Hornet is the best dogfighter in the game. I personally prefer it over J10 for example, any day of the week. F15 is inferior compared to all bombers, agreed. F35B is inferior to all fighters, again, agreed. F18, disagreed.

Actually I yet have to see many people agreeing on the F18 being the best of the jets. But who knows, maybe that's just a matter of taste in this particular case.

But lets have a look at the bigger picture, shall we? Most maps where USMC plays with inferior gear, they are at OFFENSE, while opposition is at DEFENSE. To make the game more challenging and interesting, the offense is at a disadvantage (challenge?), while defense has advantage. Look at OCS, it has MiG, which is on par with the Hornet, Su-34, which exceeds the Eagle, it has mobile AA and a ****load of armor around. Dont you think thats actually a very good idea from DICEs part? if you want to take it easy, you play MEC, you want a challenge, you swap to USMC.

Unfortunately USMC is usually filled with wannabe NAVY SEAL younglings... but thats besides the point. Mashtuur was probably the only map where USMC has a total superiority through the BHAWK. Theoretically, most maps are USMC on offense and at a disadvantage both in positioning and gear. Its not an excuse, but an observation. Doesnt mean the maps play out with USMC losing all the time. Just saying that the poker game starts with USMC having worst cards.

Definding is (in r/l aswell as in BF2) always easier if you have a team that is at least not exclusively consisting of retards.
And yes, on the bigger picture, it might make sense, still not enough to justify giving the USMC pilots such crappy planes.
Btw on Mashtur, the BH actually didn't give the USMC the total superiority, it was just the people too stupid to counter it and going head to head with the guns.

Better, agree. Equal to their OpFor counterparts? On F15 case I might even agree, on F35B, no...

The F35 is even worse than the F15 actually because on these maps you have just the F35 so the other side maintains complete air superiority... not a good thing for any kind of balance.

Because real life arguments in arcade shooter where everything theoretically is balanced for gameplay, dont count. You understand?

The BF series aren't thought to be an arcade shooter. Ever heard an interview with the "inventor" of the series? What he wanted to do is combine several simulations into one game so you could do all that stuff, not another Quake/CS/UT clone...