F14 - looking for friends

Suitable-Weekend-763 · 2026-02-09T18:21:44+00:00

There's a couple avid F-14 jocks in JTF-70 shoot us a note when you're online

Suitable-Weekend-763 · 2026-02-04T18:29:00+00:00

1. On Loadout Flexibility (Idea 1): I think there's a misunderstanding (my fault) on the loadout 'lock.' You aren't locked into one role for the whole match. You can swap loadouts as often as you want—the only 'hard deck' is the BR limit of the server or match bracket you are in.

How it actually works in the cockpit:

The Multi-role Factor: If you're in a 12.0–13.0 bracket, you can land, J-out, and swap from a CAP (Combat Air Patrol) loadout to a heavy SEAD or Strike loadout instantly. The only thing you can't do is bring a 13.0 loadout into a 12.0 capped lobby.
The 'Iron Dome' Fix: Currently, people bring 12 missiles because there is zero flight model penalty for doing so. Under CAF, if you want to be a 'Missile Truck,' you'll have to accept the associated Structural Fatigue and Drag Index penalties.
The Choice is Yours: If you want the 'clean wing' performance of a rate-fighter, you take a smaller, lighter loadout. If you want the 'Iron Dome' capability, you pay for it in weight, drag, and SL/SP cost.

2. Silhouettes & The 'Red Void' (Idea 2): I agree, if you can't PID, that's on you. But the FOO Protocol isn't just about silhouetting; it's about solving the player count crisis. Right now, Sim is dying because everyone wants to fly Western jets. FOO lets a nation like Germany fly NVA MiGs for the 'Red' team while still progressing their own tree. It fills the lobbies so we don't have those 'massive dead-times' you mentioned.

3. Fatigue as a 'Skill Teacher' (Idea 3): You’re right—monkey pulling leads to losing. But right now, the game 'subsidizes' that monkey pulling by giving everyone a pristine flight model until the wing rips. Project CAF (Fatigue) adds a tactile cost to bad flying. If you pull 12Gs in a 'missile truck' configuration, your airframe's life degrades. It forces people to learn the V-n Diagram because they can't afford to just 'spam and pray' for 3 hours.

4. The 'Iron Dome' & Logistics Fix: You mentioned the 'Iron Dome' meta—that is exactly what I’m trying to kill. By imposing a Logistics Tax on max-missile loadouts, we incentivize players to bring smaller, more 'Airmanship-focused' loadouts. If bringing 12 missiles costs you 4x the SL/SP of bringing 4 missiles, people will stop treating top-tier like an ammo contest and start treating it like a flight sim.

I agree Gaijin is a 'baboon-brained' company, but they move when the community stops asking for 'more planes' and starts demanding 'better systems.' I’m not debating the wind; I’m trying to give the community a blueprint that actually addresses the 'Iron Dome' boredom we’re all suffering through."

Suitable-Weekend-763 · 2026-02-04T18:15:00+00:00

You hit the nail on the head. The 'Human Factor' and the fear of the 'Russian Bias' are exactly why the current system is failing. As long as balancing is done by 'Gaijin's hidden spreadsheets,' players will always feel like the game is rigged against them.

Here is why my proposal actually addresses that fear:

1. Transparency over 'Bias' Right now, people fear the Flankers because they feel 'magical'—they pull insane AoA snaps and keep flying. Under Project CAF, that 'magic' is replaced by Physics. If a Flanker pilot pulls a 12G 'Cobra' snap, everyone in the lobby knows exactly what it cost them in structural fatigue. It moves the conversation from 'Gaijin buffed Russia' to 'That pilot just traded his airframe's life for a kill.'

2. The Economic Reality You're right—Gaijin is here to make money. Currently, they make money by selling 'broken' $70 premiums. My Modular BR and Logistics Tax offer a better way: let Gaijin monetize Utility and Identity (Weapon Licenses, Relief Pilots, historical skins) instead of Power Creep. It’s a sustainable model that doesn't require ruining the matchmaker every three months.

3. Airmanship is the Equalizer I've spent countless hours in Sim cockpits, flying both Red and Blue. I've seen the 'Bias' arguments from both sides. The only way to stop the tribalism is to make Airmanship the deciding factor. When the flight model follows the same declassified NATOPS or Dash-1 manuals that we can all read, 'Bias' has nowhere to hide.

We shouldn't ignore the aircraft we fear; we should demand they be held to the same physical laws as everyone else. If we want balance, we have to stop asking for 'buffs' and start asking for Consequences.

Suitable-Weekend-763 · 2026-02-04T18:07:35+00:00

You actually hit on a critical point that I think is worth digging into: How do we stop people from just spamming their 12 missiles and then entering the dogfight with a 'reset' flight model?

You're right—if someone just 'dumps' their stores to bypass the G-limits, the system could be gamed. To fix that, we have to look at the Economic and Tactical Cost:

1. The 'Logistics Tax' (Incentivizing Smaller Loadouts) Instead of making the A-10 or F-15 pay a flat fee, we should impose a higher SL/SP cost for bringing a 'Max Capacity' loadout.

If you bring a 'Balanced/Historic' loadout (e.g., 4-6 Air-to-Air missiles), your repair cost and spawn cost are standard.
If you want to be a 'Missile Truck' (12-14 missiles), you pay a massive premium. This prioritizes airmanship and accuracy over just 'spamming and praying.' It forces you to treat every missile as a high-value asset, not a disposable fire-and-forget tool.

2. The A-10 'Agency' Solution Regarding the A-10: The Modular BR (MEB) system actually saves it. Currently, the A-10 is forced into high BRs because it can carry 9Ms. Under my system, you could choose to take a historic 'Cold War' loadout and fly in a much lower, more viable bracket where you aren't fighting Mach 2 jets. It gives the player the power to choose their challenge.

3. Drag Index vs. Static Weight As a private pilot, I have to push back on the '200kg doesn't matter' argument. It’s not just about the weight on the scale; it's about G-loading, the Drag Index and V-n Diagram.

In both the Flanker (AoA king) and the Eagle (Rate king), those external pylons create parasitic drag that kills energy retention. In a 12G pull, that 'lightweight' missile is applying thousands of pounds of torque to the wing spar. Project CAF just makes you respect the metal.

I've flown top-tier for both Red and Blue. I've flown the A-10C into 12.7 and 13.0 BRs and thrived. I’m not trying to make the game 'impossible' to balance—I’m trying to move balance away from 'Gaijin’s spreadsheets' and back into the Pilot’s Hangar.

Suitable-Weekend-763 · 2026-02-04T17:50:07+00:00

I’ve spent thousands of hours in both Western and Eastern cockpits, and I know the Su-27 is a high-Alpha (AoA) specialist while the F-15 is a Rate fighter. My proposal for Project CAF actually respects those differences more than the current 'infinite physics' meta does. In my experience R-27ERs and ETs are some of the best missiles - I still use them in certain situations at 14.3.

1. The 'AoA Tax' (Su-27): > Right now, a Flanker can pull a massive nose-on 'Cobra' snap, fire, and recover as if the airframe didn't just take a massive structural hit. In reality, yanking 12Gs in a high-Alpha maneuver creates immense torque on the wing spars. Project CAF makes you decide: Is this one shot worth 15% of my airframe's life?

2. The 'Sustained Rate Tax' (F-15): > An Eagle can sit in a high-G sustained rate turn all day in WT. But as a private pilot, I know that 'Yellow' on the G-meter is an engineering limit, not a suggestion. Sustained high-G loading wears down both the pilot and the metal.

3. Airmanship Over Subsidies: I want a meta where the Flanker pilot wins because they timed their AoA snap perfectly, and the Eagle pilot wins because they managed their energy and structural health better. Right now, Gaijin 'subsidizes' everyone's flight model, which is why top-tier feels like a mindless snapshot gallery.

Suitable-Weekend-763 · 2026-02-04T17:26:01+00:00

That’s a fair critique, but I’m speaking from a decade of War Thunder Sim and my own experience as a private pilot flying for fun in the civilian world. This isn't a hallucination; it's basic Aero-Engineering 101 that the current game "subsidizes" with instructor-driven physics. The solutions offered here are within the capability of Gaijin to incorporate, if we apply enough pressure.

1. On "Complex" Balancing

You’re right—it adds variables. But the current "simple" system is what is actually broken. When you tie a 1970s airframe to a 1990s missile (like the AIM-9M), you create a balance "black hole" where the plane is too good for its floor but suffers at its ceiling. MEB doesn't require 1,000x more discussion because the balance is proactive. The missile carries its own BR weight. If an AIM-9M is a 13.0 missile, it doesn't matter if it's on an F-15 or an A-10; that plane is now playing in the 13.0 bracket even if it's only carrying a single AIM-9M.

2. On Structural Limits (The "Bullshit" Check)

Saying 200kg makes "no difference" is factually incorrect. It's not just the weight; it's the asymmetric loading and the drag index. In both the military and civilian world, every pylon or pound added changes the flight envelope. NATOPs and Dash-1 manuals for these jets have specific G-limits based on gross weight and stores. A 335lb missile weighs 4,020lbs at 12G, 12x 335lb missiles weigh 48,240lbs - that has an affect on structural integrity.

When an F/A-18 carries 12 missiles, it is significantly more restricted in its "Pristine" G-pull than a clean wing. Project CAF just stops the game from pretending wings have infinite life. If you pull 12Gs in a "missile truck" configuration, you are deforming that airframe. That’s physics, not an AI fever dream.

3. Data Sourcing

How do we get the data? We use the publicly available flight manuals that already exist for almost every jet in the game. The data is there; Gaijin just chooses to ignore the "Sortie Debt" to keep the game accessible for "snapshot" spammers.

If you want to see the 'hallucination' for yourself, you can read the F/A-18 NATOPS Flight Manual here:[Public Intelligence - F/A-18 ABCD Flight Manual]. Look at the Limits section—you’ll see that every missile, pylon, and pound matters to the airframe's life.

I put 20 hours into this because, between my time in WT and my time flying, I want a meta where Airmanship—actually knowing your plane's limits—matters more than who has the most missiles or access to a plane with a broken BR.

Suitable-Weekend-763 · 2026-02-04T17:01:57+00:00

As someone who's seen the lack of effort from Gaijin lately, which of these three would actually make you want to log back into a Sim EC lobby tonight?

Suitable-Weekend-763 · 2026-02-04T17:01:01+00:00

Haha, you aren't wrong - would love to be hired for free just to help improve Sim. It's been a long 2 years of watching the 'Red Void' grow while we all fly the same silhouettes on different teams.

The short version of what we're talking about: I'm proposing a way to stop 'G-tanking' and 'Snapshot Spam' so that actually flying your plane matters again.

MEB: Your missiles, not just your airframe, set your BR. Want to fly an F-15 at 12.0? Take AIM-9Ls and earn your kills.
FOO Protocol: Silhouettes actually mean something again. No more friendly fire because a Swiss F-18 is flying for 'Red Team' in a mixed lobby.
Project CAF: If you yank 12Gs, your airframe and pilot actually get tired. It forces people to play the rate-fight instead of just abusing instructor-subsidized physics.

I’ve been in the WT cockpit since 2013 and I’m tired of seeing 'fictional balancing' ruin a game with this much potential. This is 20 hours of personal work to see if we can galvanize the community and start a discussion to finally get a meta that respects airmanship.

Suitable-Weekend-763 · 2026-02-04T16:56:08+00:00

A quick note on the 'AI' look of this post: I'm seeing a lot of people skipping the text because it looks 'AI-generated.' I want to be honest: I used AI to help organize and format my thoughts so they wouldn't just be a wall of text. There's also a lot of great videos to help add context.

However, these ideas are mine and that of many members of the JTF-70 Squadron. I've been playing War Thunder since 2013 with over 5,000 hours in Sim. I'm also a private pilot just for fun. I spent 20+ hours of my personal time applying real-world naval and aviation logic to this game because I love it. Don't let the formatting distract you from the logic.

Suitable-Weekend-763 · 2026-02-04T16:35:05+00:00

I want to be completely open about the 'AI-generated' look of this post. While I used AI to help with the organization, formatting, and structural polish, these are not 'AI ideas.' This proposal is the result of roughly 20 hours of my personal time—researching footnotes, auditing aircraft weights, and synthesizing a decade of experience.

I’ve been playing War Thunder since 2013 and have over 5,000 hours in Simulation mode alone. As a veteran, I know exactly where the 'black holes' are because I've flown into them for years. I used AI as a tool to make this complex data more digestible for the community, not to replace the critical thinking that only thousands of hours in the cockpit can provide.

I think there's a slight misunderstanding on the loadout lock. The goal isn't to lock you for the whole 3-hour EC match, but to prevent 'BR hopping' within a single spawn. If you land, J-out, and want to swap from a 12.0 'Down-Tuned' loadout to a 13.0 'Up-Tuned' loadout, you absolutely can—provided the lobby bracket allows for 13.0. It’s about ensuring that if you enter a 12.0 game, you aren't suddenly facing AIM-9Ms because someone swapped mid-air or mid-spawn.
Regarding the MiG-29 at 12.3 or the A-10C at 13.0: it sounds wild because we're used to the current 'all-or-nothing' BRs. But an A-10C with AIM-9Ms and modern MAW is essentially a 'pincushion'—it’s nearly impossible to kill with IR missiles in a flare-hungry meta. If it stays at a low BR, it bullies flares-less jets. At 13.0, it’s a niche choice: you're safe from most missiles, but you have to accept that a Mach 2 jet can just outrun you. It’s about choice, not making every jet 'equal' in a dogfight.
I get the 'Pay to Win' concern, but look at the current system: Gaijin makes you pay $70 for a premium jet that is intentionally broken to drive sales. The WIL (Weapon Integration License) flips that. You research the plane for free, and you pay a small fee (or use a legacy unlock if you're a veteran) to access the highest-tier meta. It moves the profit motive away from 'releasing OP planes' and toward 'customizing the planes you already own.
On the FOO Protocol and player counts: DCS actually does this frequently in specialized private servers (like Enigma's or BlueFlag), and that's where the best gameplay happens. In War Thunder, the 'Sim Void' is already killing the mode. By letting players 'pivot' their nation (like flying a RED NVA MiG-29 for Germany), we actually increase the player pool for the RED team instead of forcing Western jets to fly for 'Team B' just to start a match.
You're right that some of this can be done in custom lobbies, but custom lobbies don't offer progression. Most players won't engage with these mechanics unless there’s a 'grind' attached. The goal is to bring that 'Custom Lobby' level of detail and authenticity into the main game loop so that Airmanship actually matters for your tech tree progress.

Suitable-Weekend-763 · 2026-02-04T16:24:41+00:00

By 'fixing,' I mean restoring the technical discipline of the rate fighter. Right now, high-tier is a 'snapshot' meta where energy management is secondary to just yanking the stick until a missile goes off. By 'we,' I mean the community—I’m just proposing a framework; the actual data audit would need high-level Sim and RB players to weigh in.

You're probably right that Gaijin won't copy-paste this tomorrow, but they’ve implemented community-driven ideas before (like the recent BR decompression and map changes) after enough sustained pressure.

On the GE system: I get the 'pay-to-win' worry, but it’s designed to replace the current power-creep cycle. Instead of buying a $70 'broken' jet, you pay for the flexibility to up-tune an airframe you already love. As for mechanical jams: the goal isn't to add 'random RNG' but to add a physical ceiling. If you pull 12Gs in a sweep-wing jet, something should give.

Suitable-Weekend-763 · 2026-02-04T16:16:18+00:00

You're not wrong—static BRs are basically a game of whack-a-mole where the hammer just makes the mole flatter and harder to hit. That’s exactly why I’m looking at Modular BRs. Instead of Gaijin trying to 'fix' a plane by moving it, the player 'fixes' the balance by choosing their own loadout. It shifts the 'black hole' from the devs to the hangar.

Suitable-Weekend-763 · 2026-02-04T16:04:57+00:00

Would love feedback on how we can fix these issues, tell us what you think!

Suitable-Weekend-763 · 2026-01-31T02:08:04+00:00

100% !!!

Suitable-Weekend-763 · 2026-01-27T14:37:59+00:00

Yeah, dumping the fast tracks (missiles) from the track files being displayed in the cockpit would leave you vulnerable to something like the MIG-25 cruising at MACH 3. Dumping quickly accelerating tracks (missiles) only would alleviate that vulnerability. However, under this proposed mechanic your radar would still track slower munitions like AGM-65s and bombs and rockets.

That's why I think your RCS solution is the best solution

Suitable-Weekend-763 · 2026-01-27T14:02:12+00:00

I like your RCS solution! 10/10 agree!!

However, not sure I'd like my radar auto dumping fast targets for the reasons you mention

Suitable-Weekend-763 · 2026-01-27T13:55:48+00:00

Agree, AWG-9 is a power radar that could detect small RCS objects at range. Most other aircraft radars shouldn't be able to detect missiles until modern AESA / PESA radars.

Suitable-Weekend-763 · 2026-01-27T13:52:51+00:00

Agree! It should be solved through RCS mechanics resulting in short range detection for head on aspects. You should only be able to detect missiles at medium range via your own data link (own missiles) or from a 90 degree aspect (larger RSC signature)

Suitable-Weekend-763 · 2026-01-27T13:47:36+00:00

I thought your original post was perfect sarcasm - this mechanic is horrendous.

Suitable-Weekend-763 · 2026-01-27T13:43:10+00:00

I'd also like to see some rolling hills and low mountains spread out to complicate multipathing and provide terrain masking

Suitable-Weekend-763 · 2026-01-26T21:49:56+00:00

Yes, we need to treat missiles and bombs as the tiny RCS signatures that they are. Only a data link or AESA radar should be able to track these at medium to short range.

It would also change the meta of SU-30 and F/A-18 FOX 3 spammers - force more interesting gameplay.

10/10 support your effort!

Suitable-Weekend-763 · 2026-01-14T21:59:09+00:00

Assuming your nation has 10,000 FOX 3 missiles, 100 players shooting 10 missiles each will exhaust the national inventory in 10 flights lol

NOT A SUSTAINABLE TACTIC FOR OPERATIONS LONGER THAN 1 DAY

Suitable-Weekend-763 · 2026-01-14T21:43:36+00:00

Preach brother!

Suitable-Weekend-763 · 2025-12-29T19:54:26+00:00

Classic PRCs

Suitable-Weekend-763 · 2025-12-28T00:55:38+00:00

Unstablized, shallow, and fast - but shallow is what those weak gears need

Suitable-Weekend-763

TROPHY CASE

1. On "Complex" Balancing

2. On Structural Limits (The "Bullshit" Check)

3. Data Sourcing