Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 03/20/2018 in all areas

  1. 53 points
    Planned changes in Battle Ratings - April 2018 You can change tab from Aircraft to Ground Vehicles at the bottom of the table. Feel free to leave feedback! If you think we should make some additional changes on other machines, or do not agree with listed changes, please support your suggestions with arguments! Thanks! Discuss it here!
  2. 43 points
    Good afternoon fellow tankers, there is something laying heavy on my mind. It's the grind. I consider myself a moderate and normal player. But I really love the game and looking foward playing it for many more years. But! I just can't keep up to the grind anymore. I got Premium (400 days left) and spend over the last years at least a few houndred EUR. Now, I just unlocked the Kpz70 after a few months just to realise it's going to be useless after the introduction of the new beasts. And of cause now I want one of the new tanks (especially the Abrams) to be competitive and don't only play against higher BRs. And I try... really hard, but with each new tank the RPs required increase. It becomes impossible for a normal player to get the new tanks, which of cause are a main factor why the game is so attractive. And for this I think for player who are spending money and keep the game alive there should be a way to make it possible to get the vehicles a bit easier. I dont want them for free or on a silver plate, but I want the chance to grind for the abrams without spending houndreds of EUR for gold or spend over a lifetime to grind through the tree. It just became more and more frustrating the way it is right now. And without a change anytime soon I wont be spending anymore money. I just don't make sence anymore. So my suggestions: - lower the required RP again - change the requirement of grinding through at least 5-6 vehicles of each tier to be able to research the next tier - increase the RP output - stop that stupid mechanic that ones RP outcome get lowered if you team loses, even if you did well (that is one of the most frustrating mechanics for me) So... rant officially done... feels better peace out
  3. 38 points
    Chieftain Mk3 and Mk5 should be in one BR really. There is nothing except engine that differs. T-54 1951 have HEAT-FS ammo and still use the same BR as 1947 version. Object 906 from a very big joke at 7.0 became a less funny joke, but still a joke. A vehicle from the 60s, with awesome mobility, APHE nuke to use on side shots, and HEAT-FS for frontal engagement. Moving it to 7.3 is a very small step in a good direction, but it's place is 8.0 at least.
  4. 37 points
    I suggest these Battle Ratings for REALISTIC BATTLE (RB) T-62 8.7 (VERY powerful cannon, good mobility, good armor, and low profile) T-55 8.3 (Lack of APFSDS penetration) M60A1 8.0 (Lack of mobility and armor) M60A1 RISE 8.3 (It face APFSDS more often than chemical rounds and lack of APFSDS penetration) AMX-30B2 Brenus 8.3 (It face APFSDS more often than chemical rounds and lack of APFSDS penetration) Object 120 8.3 (VERY powerful cannon, Autoloader, and very good mobility) Falcon 7.3 (No radar, and alone in 7.7 BR) If its in 7.3, it could fit with Conqueror and Vampire Type 74 8.3 (Lack of APFSDS penetration) M48A1 7.3 (The 90mm cannon is totally underpowered in its current BR) M4A2 76 (W) (No add on armor and same mobility as M4A1 76 (W)) M4A3 76 (W) (The HVSS Suspension didnt give this tank much advantage) T26E1-1 6.3 (Lack of mobility and armor)
  5. 37 points
    Some much appreciated BR changes like for the Beaufighters, the F-84B, the P-47s, Yak-23, A7M2 etc. Solid steps in the right direction. However, I'd still would like to see some more changes for Air RB BRs that are needed: P-39N: up to 4.0 - it's faster, climbs better, turns and rolls better than for example the P-63A-5. It's insanely fast for a currently 3.0 plane: 571 kph @ SL and 640 kph @ 3k m. P-47D-28: up to 5.3 - basically a discount 47M since it received the 70 "Hg boost, only marginally worse than the 47M and thus it should only be one BR step lower P-47N-15: up to 5.3 - slower climbing than the 47M/D-28 but more maneuverable, fast as well, 8 M2 .50s, still too good for the new 5.0 P-51D-30: up to 5.7 - it's performance if flown correctly is absolutely on par with Doras/Tas and has no problems dealing with late 109s that are currently +0.3 higher P-51D-10: up to 5.3 - since it received 72 "Hg boost in patch 1.75 it's only marginally worse than the D-30 P-51H-5: up to 6.7 - it simply has the performance of a 6.7 in comparison to props, why is it lower than the Mk.24? F4U-1a/USMC/d: up to 3.7 (-a and d); up to 4.0 (USMC) - with the new FM the Corsairs recieved a huge "buff" and are way too fast (> 570 kph @ SL), good firepower and good roll and turn - it's a joke one can face He 112 in the -a. 109 F-4/Gs and Fw 190 As etc are all opponents that would make a fair and balance fight. F-82E: up to at least 5.7 - airspawn, one of the best armament in the game rn, insanely fast, incredible roll and incredibly forgiving DM. Way too fast for a 5.0 plane, you go 660 kph @ SL - that's faster than quite a few aircrafts at this BR range are at altitude - there is little (nothing) a BR 4-5.0 aircraft can do against a F-82. Ki-61-I-hei: down to 4.0 - a plane with a slightly better engine than a 109 E should not be at 5.0 because it has 2 MG151. Also C.205 serie 3 sits at 3.7 with very similar performance and armament. Ki-61-I-tei: down to 3.7 - very slow (not even 500 kph on the deck), climbs bad, feels very heavy - meanwhile a way superior P-51 sits at 3.7. Ki-61-II: down to 4.0 - slightly faster but also a lot heavier than the Ki-61-I - the additional Ho-5 rounds (which are inferior to the MG151 on the -hei anyway) and speed doesn't make it competetive to Griffons, late Merlin, P-47M etc. Ki-44-II: up to 3.7 - performance on par with a 109 G-2 and now that the .50s are somewhat working it's way too fast, climbing way too good for 2.7 Ki-100-I/II: up to 4.0 - similar performance to the 109 F-4, should share the same BR J2M3: down to 4.7 - since the performance adjustment like a year ago it's by no means a 5.3 aircraft, just look at the speed: 619 kph @ 5.5k m and 554 kph at SL... - there are plenty of fighters even in the 3.x/4.0 BR range that are faster (not to mention that many fighters at its current BR range are faster at SL than it is at alt). Also since the recent FM change all control surfaces lock up horribly > 630 kph like the P-40 or F6F did for many years in the past. Also the 2 additional cannons over the J2M2 don't justify a +1.3 BR J2M5: down to 5.0 - a bit faster than the J2M3 - overall still very slow for a current 5.7 aircraft, same lock up of control surfaces N1K1: down to 5.0 - since the recent FM change it is now insanely slow for a 5.7 aircraft (514 kph @ SL and 614 kph @ 6.2 k m), it's more along performance of a Spitfire Mk.9 ... both N1K2: down to 5.7 - they lost their fantasy FM quite some time ago and still retain their old BR, they have nothing on the jets it face (or even the props they currently share a BR with: P-51H and F8F-1B) - except for the typical prop vs jet "advantages". Griffons, late Merlin, D30, La-9s, etc are all a fair match-up. Yak-1 and -7B: up to 3.0 - way faster than any other plane at their BR (except the undertiered Bf 109 F-1), maneuverable, fast, good climb and armament Yak-1B: up to 3.3 - overall better than the previous Yaks so it should have a higher BR Yak-9/9B: up to 3.3 - same reason as for the Yak-1B La-5: up to 3.3 - fast, decent climb, good armament - should not face He 112 or Hurricanes ... La-5F: up to 3.7 - engine upgrade to the -5, faster, better climb etc. La-5FN: up to 4.3 - performance very similar to a 109 G-2, faster at SL actually - great climbrate as well - should not face Spit Mk 2Bs, 109 E-4 etc at 3.0 - has no problems keeping up with 4.7/5.0 uptiers atm La-7: up to 5.0 - the La-7B20 sits fine at 5.3 with just one cannon (but only 50 rounds) more La-9: down to 5.7 - the La-9 doesn't have the speed (it's barely faster than the La-7) to compete with jets it regularly face due to uptiers to 7.0. Yak-3: up to 4.3 - similar to the La-5FN - performance would be still really good at 4.3 but would prevent clubbing BR 3.0 Pokryskin's P-39N: up to 4.0 - it's faster, climbs better, turns and rolls better than the P-63A-5. It's insanly fast for a currently 3.0 plane: 574 kph @ SL and 644 kph @ 3k m He 100: up to 2.7 - performance is way better than anything at this BR - only the 3 MGs are holding it a bit back Bf 109 F-1: up to 3.0 - there is no reason why the F-1 should face biplanes or other early T1 aircraft, can compete with planes from 3.0-4.0 with it's climb rate, maneuverability and general speed Bf 109 F-4: up to 4.0 - fast, good climb, decent arment, maneuvrable - with it's current boost setting faster than the G-2/trop but 0.6 lower ... Bf 109 G-6 and G-14: both up/down to 5.0: minor speed difference for whatever reason (~10 kph), should both share the same BR due to very similar performance, but slower than both the G-10 and K-4 Me 410 A-1: up to 4.0 - fast, great armament and ordnance, very capable heavy fighter at 4.0 Me 410 B-1: down to 4.3 - slightly more powerful engines than the A-1 C.205 serie 3: up to 4.0 - fast, great firepower and good maneuverability Wyvern: up to 5.7 - post war turboprop, one of the fastest props on the deck - facing 4.0/4.3 props is a joke, 4 Hispano Vs, great ordnance options as well
  6. 37 points
    In RB Me 262A-1a is 7.0. If it moves to 7.3 it'll more than likely frequently encounter the Yak-23 at 7.7 which it frankly is outperformed in every metric outside of raw burst mass. Yak-23 is 8.0 material. It shouldn't be capable of meeting any WWII jets. Prior to the Yak-23 and F-84G being added, 7.0 RB air matchmaking was easily one of the best balanced battle ratings in game. Some of the most fun I've had in this game is within the 262A/P-80/Meteor Mk. 3/MiG-9 (early) matchup. It was one of the very few occasions where the game was damn near perfectly balanced. Please don't screw this up again.
  7. 35 points
    New change: Me 262A-1a removed from the change list.
  8. 34 points
  9. 32 points
    You forgot the poor Begleitpanzer 57, make it 8.0 nao. Also put the Type 74 down
  10. 31 points
    Realistic Battles: Germany Panther D - Battle Rating - 5.7 > 5.3 With its turret's rotation urban battles are a torment. M18 Hellcat, A34 Comet and T-34-85(D-5T) are worthy opponents with whom Panther D should face. Panther A - Battle Rating - 6.0 > 5.7 Panther G - Battle Rating - 6.0 > 5.7 These tanks aren't better then Tiger I H1 and E which are on BR 5.7. They are almost equal to T-34-85 and much worse then Centurion Mk.1 on the same Battle Rating. Leopard 2K - Battle Rating - 9.0 > 9.3: No armor is the best armor. Chieftain Mk.10 need sometimes 6 shots to kill it. The mobility, gun performence and its strange endurance shows that this tank can compete without any problems with rest tanks on 9.3.
  11. 30 points
    Planned changes in Battle Ratings - April 2018 You can change tab from Aircraft to Ground Vehicles at the bottom of the table. Feel free to leave feedback! If you think we should make some additional changes on other machines, or do not agree with listed changes, please support your suggestions with arguments! We read all your feedback, so it can take some time to approve your post. Thanks!
  12. 30 points
    Realistics Battles Germany -Brummbar 5.0 - 4.7 (one of the worst premiun in german tree) .Is equal or even worst compared with KV-2. He have worst ammo, gun , movility, lack of turret. In 5.0 is near useless, the KV-2 (4.3) uptierd to 5.7 is far better than Brummbar. -Kv 756r 5.0 - 4.7 .Similar to Jumbo 75, specailly after solid shots buff. Strong armor but weak turret. Can be easily penned by every 4.7 and 4.3 allies tanks but he still in 5.0. -Panther D 5.7 - 5.3 .Terrible movility and turret rotation. Useless in 90% of maps. -Panther A/G 6.0 - 5.7 .Germany have a important lack of movility and really need a optional good choice to the Tiger´s. Centurion MK 1 sit in 5.7 when is far better vehicle. Maus 7.7 - 7.3 .The great forgotten. In his actual state with terrible zoom, ammo wrong penetration, wrong turret armor and plus size and poor movility is a 7.3 tank. Air RB - Me 262 a1 7.3 - 7.0. . Is a total nonsense encrease this vehicle. He was droped to 7.0 from 7.3 in the past because was not a good plane in that BR. With 7.3 and plus very high reparation cost this plane become in useless.
  13. 30 points
    Greetings, WarThunder Community! The Situation: So, I'm pretty sure that the WarThunder matchmaker is a bit of a touchy subject for all of us. The thought always seems to come up whenever we leave a battle in progress. Sometimes, people want to see a certain mechanic changed. Other times, people are frustrated with certain tanks/aircraft. The list goes on and on, but in general, having had experience in several thousands of battles, I've seen people frustrated at how the matchmaker is set up. The Problem: As many of you are aware, (and this goes for EVERY nation in the game), certain vehicles do better when fighting certain types of vehicles from certain nations. Every vehicle in the game is different, and every vehicle has its own strengths and weaknesses. The problem is, certain vehicles sometimes never get to use their full potential because they are not always versing the ideal target. This can be attributed to the battle ratings of certain vehicles, but the matchmaker is also at fault here. I've been in many a battle where I've heard statements like this: "Go *** off to 8.0, Yak-23!" "Wow. The enemy team has X vehicles of the highest BR, while others has X-Y vehicles of the highest BR. BALANCE!!!" "Woo! huge map again! Time for a ten minute drive!" Some other scenarios that I have noticed come up: You're playing the Maus, which does very well at its current battle rating. However, all of a sudden, you are uptiered, and you find yourself versing a vehicle that is faster, more mobile, better armed, and better armored. RIP. You're playing low-tier Japan, and you get a big map like like Maginot line. You drive for five minutes up and down large hills, just to get to the battle zone...and then you get sniped right before you can actually start to fight. You're playing top-tier Russian tanks, and you get put on El-Alamein. You're team gets run over by MBT/kpz-70s, and the match is over in less than two minutes. You're flying low tier U.S./Britain, versing Germany on "Operation: Bulge." A bunch of German P-47s climb above everyone, and your team is doomed. Additionally, at the start of battles, I have also endeavored to ask some players about their opinions of the matchmaker The names of those that I've asked will remain anonymous. I will continue to do so: Now, I realize that everyone won't be happy one hundred percent of the time, because people are people. However, I do believe there are a few things that can be done about this situation. My Proposed Solution: First off, we all have to recognize that we will never have a perfectly fair and balanced matchmaker. The only way that would happen would be if every tank in the game exhibited the same characteristics. Taking that into account, I'm going to propose a few changes that will make the matchmaker seem more reasonable and fair. Depending on your feedback, I'll modify the solution as time goes on. As of right now, I am proposing three major changes to the matchmaker that I think the community will support. The first deals with the battle rating spread. The second deals with map rotation, and the third deals with the structuring of teams. Proposed change #1: Reduce the battle rating spread from 1.0 to 0.7 This one is pretty simple to explain. In the current matchmaker system, when a battle is created, it is given a designated maximum battle rating, say, 5.0. The current matchmaker then allows only players that have overall (note the use of the word "overall;" it will come into play in the next proposed change) battle ratings of 4.0, 4.3, 4.7, and 5.0 to enter this match. If you still don't understand how the matchmaking system works in WarThunder, I HIGHLY recommend that you visit the Matchmaker wiki page and the Battle ratings wiki page. The brackets table contained there, while outdated, provides a good visual for how the battle ratings matchmaker works. Knowledge about this subject is critical in order to fully understand my suggestion. The problem with this system is that the capabilities of vehicles can GREATLY vary within the battle rating range, especially in the higher tiers. Take the Maus for example. At it's proper battle rating, 8.0, it does very well. However, once, it gets uptiered to 9.0, it starts to face vehicles like the T-64A. All of a sudden, the match is very unfair for individual players. Some of you may even have experienced bugs in this spread system. Now, I might be alone, but I have been in realistic battles where my max BR was 6.7, and I was facing 8.0 tanks. Next time I have a recording of such a match, I will post it as proof. What I am proposing is not new; players have talked about it for a long time. Back when the game was first developed, the spread of the battle rating was 0.7, as opposed to 1.0. Now, I'm not exactly sure why they changed it, possibly because of longer queue times and less diversity. However, with the addition of rank VI, the battle ratings are much more spread out. Because of this, I think the reversion back to a 0.7 battle rating spread would be ideal. This way, uptiered vehicles won't have as hard of a time making an impact on the battle, and downtiered vehicles won't be completely dominating the battlefield. Additionally, the Gaijin teams need to painstakingly make sure that the spread of the battle ratings withing particular battles lies in accordance with the matchmaker system. Otherwise, innocent T-92s will be brutally wrecked by the mighty Maus. Proposed change #2: Randomize the maps incorporating size and battle rating This change mostly has to do with ground forces, as aircraft have many more maps, and the size of the maps with aircraft doesn't necessarily matter as much as it does with ground forces. I've heard many players complain about certain maps that they have to fight on. Again, a lot of this has to do with player skill, but at times, the map selection really doesn't help that much. Below, I've listed the thirty-two tank maps that we currently have in-game. Each map usually has three types of battles: Battle (fighting to capture the enemy's strategic point), Domination (fighting to control three strategic point), and Conquest (fighting to control one strategic point). What I propose involves grouping each of these maps by size: Small maps Medium maps Large maps The proposed matchmaker would take into account the battle rating of the battle, and then choose a map size accordingly: Battle Rating 1.0 - 3.0 Chance of small sized map: 45% Chance of medium sized map: 35% Chance of large sized map: 20% Battle Rating 3.3 - 5.0 Chance of small sized map: 30% Chance of medium sized map: 40% Chance of large sized map: 30% Battle Rating 5.3 - 7.0 Chance of small sized map: 25% Chance of medium sized map: 40% Chance of large sized map: 35% Battle Rating 7.3 - 9.0 Chance of small sized map: 20% Chance of medium sized map: 40% Chance of large sized map: 40% After choosing a map size, the matchmaker would choose at random one of the specified maps in that category. This way, different battle ratings would have map sizes that would suit the vehicles of the battle rating, and we'd see ALL the maps in rotation. Proposed change #3: Create an equal average BR for both teams, as suggested by @No_Camping: FAQ about these changes (to be updated as more of you ask questions): 1. "A BR spread of 0.7 would result in longer queue times. I dont' want to wait to get into the action!" The underwhelming choice that everything boils down to is this: would you rather have a short wait and an unbalanced team, or be a bit more patient, and as a result have a more balanced match? I believe the community supports the latter. 2. "Many of the ground forces maps aren't in rotation because they are imbalanced. You suggest putting these maps back in rotation?" Yes. Although the imbalance in these maps might indeed by due to the design of the map, my guess is that it has more to do with the setup of the teams, and the vehicles that fight on those maps. Additionally, I believe that people would be more willing to have more variance in maps as well. Regarding map design, there are sections on the forum to suggest changes to correct these map designs. The Devs do indeed update maps. Finally, you have to take into account that if all the maps are in rotation, the probability of getting an imbalanced map is a lot lower then just having a few maps. 3. "Just to clarify: You are proposing these changes for all game modes in the game?" Yes. 4. "I don't necessarily agree with all of the ideas in this suggestion. Is this suggestion set in stone?" Ah! Perhaps the most important question! No, this suggestion is not set in stone. I'm eager to hear everyone's opinion and input, so that, in the end,the suggestion will work for the majority of the players. Remember, the goal is to correct the matchmaker system, an undertaking that involves more than one person's input. The Benefit: I personally believe that this system will have several very important benefits/advantages over the current system. These include: A more concentrated BR spread, resulting in less uptiering/downtiering An equal BR balance within a given match New types of team play in the game. More maps in rotation. Map sizes tailored appropriately based on battle rating. If you like this suggestion, please be sure to check out my complimentary suggestion regarding RB Combined battles team algorithm: Thank you all for your time, and I hope you'll consider this suggestion!
  14. 29 points
    Type 74 8.7->8.3 This tank is equal in performance to the leopard A1A1, whilst having a inferior apfsds shell T55 8.7->8.3 Inferior mobility and firepower to A1A1, except for its APHE shell, which is only effective against lower tiered opponets, it has no significant advantages Object 120 7.7-> 8.0/3 Very strong cannon, decent mobility, autoloader M4A1/2 (76) W 5.0->4.7 Okayish mobility, less than average gun, horrible reverse rate, tall profile, irrelevant armour. M4A3 (76) W 5.3-5.0 No significant upgrade compared to predecessors except for slightly better mobility, is in no way equal to a t34-85
  15. 29 points
    Agree with the changes, but why the Brummbar still in 5.0 when is equal or even worst than KV-2??? He have worst ammo choices, movility, gun and lack of turret and have 0.7 more Panther´s A/G need 5.7 and give germany some movility because the Panther D is not good enough for close combat situations. Maus, the great forgotten. Is unexplicable why this tank still in 7.7 when you have much better tanks in 7.3. Super Pershing continues in 6.7 ???
  16. 29 points
    Me 262 A-1 BR 7.3 Will face Meteor F Mk.8 G.41K BR 8.0 Sea Venom FAW.20 8.0 BR. Me 262 A-1 Should stay at 7.0 since it will have no chance fighting those jets for obvious reasons.
  17. 27 points
    Well Considering 25 other suggestions have been made that the Type 74 be Moved down 0.3 in BR to Align with the Leo A1A1 which sits at a BR of 8.3 Compared to the Type 74 at 8.7 with very reasonable arguments for the most part concerning their Similar Capabilities and how the Leo A1A1 is arguably better with its faster reload rate, faster acceleration and better APFSDS. and it makes sense Since Anton Him self Has Stated that There has Never Been such a Thing as Japanese Bias (probably because Japan is inferior to all other nations in the game so no one actually plays them aside from Masochists, and Fools) So I guess ill Have to Make the 26th Suggestion to Bring the Type 74 Down to 8.3 where it belongs [Realistic Battle & Arcade Battle] [Japan] (I am pretty sure anything posted with "japan" is being just ignored by Gaijin) [Type 74] 8.7 > 8.3 The Type 74 Second Generation MBT for Japan is currently at a Battle rating that is too high for the following reasons, The Type 74 Lacks the ERA components of other 8.7 Tanks like the M60 RISE and the AMX-30 BRENUS which allow them a level of survivability that the Type 74 does not, Along with this increased survivability the recent increase to the fire rate (8.7 seconds stock reload) for the 105mm L7 type guns of many western nations has left the Type 74 with the longest reload rate (10.8 seconds stock) for any tank with an 105mm L7 Derived Gun which puts it a a severe disadvantage when facing off against any MBT with the same gun. Now the Key issue with the Type 74 being at 8.7, Which many people have stated in this discussion, is that the almost identical Leo A1A1 (in terms of Armament, Armor, Speed, Maneuverability) sits at 8.3. As of Update 12.04.2018 ( the Leo A1A1 can now no longer face the Might of the American M1 Abrams, yet the Type 74 is still forced to compete against it (The Abrams) with inferior Armament, Armor, Top Speed, Maneuverability, and Survivability. Now to Bring in to perspective just how Similar the Leo A1A1 and the Type 74 are Here are a screen shot of their in game stat cards Side by Side, Stock As you can see Both vehicles are nearly Identical in term of Armament (minus the reload rate ), Armor, and Speed, now the base penetration for the stock shell (APDS) which is shown here is not the Maximum amount of penetration available to both vehicles, as they Have HEAT-FS and APFSDS available to them both, now during update 1.71 the Type 74 Received its APFSDS Shell (M735) along with its Current BR of 8.7 in order to Compete with the XYZ-70's, T-64A, and Chieftain Mk 10, but the Leo A1A1 did not receive its APFSDS shell until recently in 1.77, the DM13 which has a Maximum penetration of 385mm at 10 meters with a drop off to 360mm of penetration at 2000 meters is arguably a much better shell compared to the M735 which the Type 74 Receives which has a maximum Penetration of 360mm at 10 meters, which drops off to 300mm of penetration at 2000 meters. The Drop of rate between the two shells is vastly different as the DM13 drops off only 25mm of penetration over 2 kilometers of distance while the M735 drops off 60 mm of penetration, more than double the penetration power is lost at long range engagements, yet the Leo A1A1 remains at 8.3 while the Type 74 with a Worse APFSDS still has to contend with the New Giants of the Modern era Such as the Challenger, Abrams and T-64B, with almost identical base performance, save for the inferior APFSDS ammo, inferior reload rate. In short, Please Move the Type 74 down to 8.3 because it is practically an inferior Leo A1A1 Copy made by the Japanese with a Few bit added to it to make it Suitable for use on Japan's Mountainous Island Landscape
  18. 27 points
    I guess I'll start at the higher end of what I'd like to see. Realistic battles, ground forces Abrams I agree with the Abrams going up to 9.7 as a starter. That makes sense. T-64B mod 84 Should also go up to 9.7. While its not quite as mobile, it can penetrate the abrams from long range with upgraded ammunition, and it's frontal Armor is currently immune to any ammunition the Abrams currently has. Outside of a few weak spots. T-64A Mod 71 With its upgraded ammunition it should go up to 9.3 like I'd previously suggested. It now completely outclasses the XYZ-70s in everything except mobility. M60A1 Rise Passive Get rid of M728 as its stock round, and give it M735 Stock, give it M774 as an upgrade ammunition. Move it up to 9.0 BR. This will give it some bite when getting pulled into top BR games, it at least has some defense against HEAT rounds. Even though the rest of the Armor and mobility are still Meh. Like I've said before, this is a mid/late 80s modification of the tank, it shouldn't even be using M728 at all. Leo 2k Move it up to 9.3, its got a good gun. And great mobility, but it lacks any real composite armor, though at present it has one of the most powerful HEAT-FS rounds in the game.. Germany could really use the Leo2A0 or A1 as a 9.7 counterpart at the moment. Leopard 1A1A1 With DM23, it should go up in BR to 8.7, it trades armor for mobility and a stabilized gun, still not quite as good as the Rise Passive though.. XYZ-70's Can stay where they are, they have no ammo upgrade path, and have multiple issues effecting their armor performance at the moment. M46 Tiger Bump it up to a tier 5 premium finally, where it should be with its none premium counterpart. Object 120 Needs to go up to 8.0 or 8.3, the gun is simply too powerful for lower BR's, and hull break on this vehicle is very inconsistent. Challenger 1 Can either go up to 9.7 with the Abrams and T-64B or stay at 9.3. Great Gun, but the mobility is lacking. And the Armor is good, but has a glass jaw with that lower front plate. Centurion Mk.10. Should go up to 7.3 or 7.7. In exchange for the higher BR it should receive L52A2 APDS (Original British Designation of M728). That also hinges on APDS performance being corrected, both penetration and post pen. As it is right now, M728 is very close to correct on vertical pen, but, it should be able to penetrate Nato Single Medium(130mm at 60 obliquity) at 1800m according to documents I've seen. This along with the stabilized gun, should work quite well, even at the higher br. Vickers MBT Should go to 7.3, with the addition of L52A2 APDS. Under the same caveats of course as for the Cent Mk10. Chieftain Mk.5 Needs to go back down to 8.0 or 8.3 at the very least. As others have said, not much difference between it and the Mk.3. I'll think of more feedback later as I look into the other vehicles in more depth as far as ammunition availability,etc.
  19. 26 points
    More feedback for other lower tier vehicles, following the new guidelines Mode: Realistic Battles, Ground forces USA M26 Pershing [6.3] => 6.0 As others have said, it is pretty much on par with the 6.0 Panthers. Slightly slower RoF, in exchange for a bit more boom when compared to the Panthers. Frontal turret armor and hull armor is roughly equivalent in effectiveness, Panthers are still far more mobile. 6.3 would be a none issue if HVAP were performing to historical values. But, with the HVAP and T33 issues it could sit at 6.0 safely. Mode: Realistic Battles, Ground forces USA M26E1 Pershing [6.7] => [6.3] With the Tiger II P and IS-2 Mod 44, sitting at 6.3, there is really no reason why this vehicle should still be at 6.7. Turret armor is roughly equal to the Tiger II P and IS-2, Tiger II P has a better gun with faster reload, and both the IS-2 mod 44 and Tiger II P have a stronger hull armor profile. The only strong point the vehicle has is HVAP, and thats under performing, by a lot, close to 100mm at vertical. Mode: Realistic Battles, Ground forces USA M26 T99 [6.7] => [6.3] This is another vehicle that is badly over BR'd. Its basically just a Pershing with Rocket racks, and with suggesting the Pershing should go down, this one should also go down. Mode: Realistic Battles, Ground forces USA T20 [5.0] => [5.3] I loath saying this, but I agree with others, this vehicle is basically a 76mm Sherman with better mobility and hull armor. It could be given T4/M93 HVAP and moved up in BR and it would still be highly competitive. Mode: Realistic Battles, Ground forces Germany RU251 [6.7] => [7.0-7.3] [Tier 4] to [Tier 5] Good mobility, and firepower, especially for a light tank. Could easily fit in as part of the German 7.0 lineup, or be the beginning of building a 7.3 lineup. Mode: Realistic Battles, Ground forces Germany Maus [7.7] => [7.3] This vehicle is problematic as far as where to put it. It has good armor, and firepower. But very bad mobility. The problem is, it's simply not competitive against higher BR tanks, that completely negate the armor and gun. Especially against HEAT-FS and higher end APDS and apfsds slingers. Mode: Realistic Battles, Ground forces USSR T-55A [8.7] => [8.0] This tank is badly over BR'd. The APFSDS round isn't all that amazing, in fact penetration wise at high obliquity its barely better than current 3bm8. The only advantage it really has over the T-54-51 is its stabilizer. It would do good along side the T-62 and Shilka at 8.0 and be the start of a decent high tier 5 lineup. Mode: Realistic Battles, Ground forces USSR T-10M [8.3] => [8.0] BR raised a while ago when it really shouldn't have. 3bm11 appears to be over performing by a fair margin at high obliquity. This vehicle like the T-55A would work well alongside the T-62 and Shilka at 8.0. Mode: Realistic Battles, Ground forces UK Tortoise [6.7] => [6.3] I agree with GanJ on this one, Its slow and turretless. And its armor can be penetrated by most of what it would see at 6.3 already. The lower BR would help to keep it out of full uptier 7.7 games, where its almost useless.
  20. 25 points
    Yet again Gaijin decided to completly nerf a german tank to its death. Just like with the KPZ/MBT it was such a great tank until Gaijin thought it kills to many russians^^ My problem is it just frustrates...suddenly they "find" new information about a way slower reload etc. or now even tell us they did it without a proper reason!! At LEAST stop lieing to us...this phylosophy is one if not THE reason why the game has a low playerbase. Like so many others I did come back for this update and I had fun playing the game again...I also wasnt considering to take my leave again until this happend. The BR increase is okay but yet again there doesnt seem to be anyone at Gaijin who understand the problem with overnerfing. The Leo2k was already a glascannon...a Glascannon that wasnt realy faster than the Abrams or had a better gun than the T64b. But non the less it was fun because if you played smart you could be successfull since your gun was good and you could get an advantage from your flank since you could shoot fast. Now even if you flank, a T64b might just beat your reload and eventhough you did the better play you still lose the fight. Thats unaccaptable. Also once again the there are no further statements and even in the changelog its stated there wasnt any info for the nerf, just that it wasnt needed. WHO thought that??! Now you have a tank that has NO armor, NOT the best gunsystem anymore, NO substantial advantage in Speed and NOT great survivability like the Abrams and nearly( in practise precisely) the same BR. In what world is that balance? Edit: Even Gaijin seems to understand Leo2k is weaker than the other new MBTs (lower BR) so why the additional nerfs? Its just doesnt make sence like so many decisions made by them. @Gaijin you should REALY get more people to do community work. Your Company is the worst example I have ever seen in terms of addressing an unhappy coustomer/player base. Sincerely Another paying player close to leaving again...well done!
  21. 25 points
    The problem with the yak 23 not only it was facing super props but it was facing far inferior early jets and 7.7 will not change a thing, Yak 23 is an 8.0 plane performance and can even do better higher.
  22. 25 points
    If I may ask, why is the Me 262 being increased to 7.3? Are we considering a WWII jet equivalent entirely to an F-84 Thunderjet?
  23. 25 points
    Client stability has been improved. The current provided changelog reflects the major changes within the game as part of this Update. Some updates, additions and fixes may not be listed in the provided notes. War Thunder is constantly improving and specific fixes may be implemented without the client being updated.
  24. 24 points
  25. 24 points
    Ah yes For every small nerf, Germany needs a vehicle to sacrifice. The Me 262 already had problems at 7.0, barely holding up. At 7.3, it will face even better aircraft. You need to be a actual real-world ace if you want to play this aircraft with these changes. Please, at 7.0, it was manageable. Preferably, it could go to 6.7, where it still faces post-war aircraft and some VERY potent late-war prop aircraft, such as the P-51H, which is its historical opponent, and can actually take on a fight and win in many situations
  26. 23 points
    Good Day, The actual armor is below what it states in the x-ray and the dev blog. According to x-ray the Challenger Turret Armor protects from 470mm KE shells dead on. The L23A1 Ammo of Challenger penetrates only 440mm at point blank and 435mm at 500meters That means it should be able to stop the shell. However in game it doesn't . Out of 10 attempts from 500 meters, all penetrations. Conclusion: armor not performing as intended.. Thank you. DxDiag.txt #2018.03.18 12.54.28.wrpl 2018_03_18_12_48_49__5848.clog EDIT: Would also like to add this. Picture is based on the numbers that were datamined from the update. Numbers in x-ray and actual protection is more or less the same on t-64 and Abrams (except lower plate being weaker and should be another bug report). Challenger 1 actual in game armor is way below of what is stated on the x-ray.
  27. 23 points
    Realistic Battles France AMX-50 Foch 7.3 > 7.7 Compared to Jagdtiger/T-95 and both russian TDs at 7.3, Foch outperforms them in every single way. Stronger frontal armor, more reliable and powerful gun, and WAY better mobility. Seeing it 0.3 higher than JT is just pure madness. Realistic Battles Germany Begleitpanzer 57 8.7 > 7.7 Seriously, compare it to russian BMP-1. They're very close in terms of firepower, mobility, armor protection. BMP-1 is 7.3, Begleit is 8.7. Gap is way too huge.
  28. 23 points
    You can make all the changes to jet BRs you want. It will still be a mess until there is a top end 9.7 battle rating for them. Only then can balance be achieved. At 7.0 you put the likes of the P80, ME262 A1A, Mig 9, Meteor F3 etc. At 7.7 the likes of the F84B, F80C, Sea Meteor, Mig 9/L make an appearence. You then ditch 8.0 and move to 8.3 where you see aircraft such as the Meteor F4, Yak 23, ME163, ME262C, F84G and other such aircraft which are simply too good to meet your usual 7.0 jets are placed. the next jump is to 9.0 where we see the likes of the Venom, La200, F86A, Mig 15 (standard), the G91s and the F9F-8. The top end at 9.7 is the real top performing jets like the CL13, Hunter, F series sabres, Mig15Bis and Mig 17. These few aircraft are far too good to face 8.0 and will probably absolutely demolish the aircraft in that 9.0 bracket i proposed, however since you ppl over at Gaijin love your queue times so much this is probably the best I can get away with suggesting.... Edit: should say this is for RB
  29. 23 points
    Despite people are hype about new rank 6 vehicles, when you think carefully there are numerous problems in Rank 6. The rank, especially BR 8.3 to 9.3, is neither balance or historical accurate. Rank 6 need to be overhauled extensively. List of Problems 1. The Grind Yes, the same old problem. With the current income system, players are not going to get a rank 6 in a reasonable amount of time, unless they have VIP account and high rank premium vehicles, and play several hours per day. 2. BR Compression and Unbalance This do not need much explanation. T-55A vs M1 Abrams, that’s fun. M1 Abrams is way better than T-64B, due to the massive mobility advantage. Challenger 1 is broken. In terms of turret armor, Chieftain Mk.10 is actually better than Challenger 1. (Stillbrew armor > Chobham armor) 3. Vehicles do not Have Proper Ammunition Many vehicles especially the NATO ones do not get their proper ammunition. Lets use USA tanks as examples. The M60A1 RISE Passive ERA have M735 APFSDS in the game. However, it is a 1980s upgrade, so it should have M774 and M833 round. M1 Abrams should have M833 and M900 round but it only has M774 in the game. Challenger 1 use L15 APDS......OMG. I know Gaijin do this because of balance. However, Gaijin should balance vehicles through changing their BR and letting them face proper enemies, instead of giving them inhistoric and stupid nerf. 4. Unnecessary Rank 5/6 Vehicles During the cold war, many vehicles are upgraded. By logic, these upgrades should be in the researchable in the vehicles modification. However, Gaijin decided it is a good idea to add these upgrades as separate vehicles, which do not make much sense and its only purpose is to lengthen the grind (Chieftain Mk.10 are upgrade of older Marks like Mk.5). 5. Incorrect Vehicles and Ammunition Stats. Many stats are wrong, and some of them are horribly wrong. For example, Challenger 1’s turret armor do not make any sense. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Solution 1. Increase the income bonus of Rank 5 and 6 vehicles. 2. Vehicles should have ammunition types that they use in real life 3. Give vehicles and ammunition correct stats. 4. Implement Researchable Modernization Upgrades During the cold war, many vehicles were upgrades. After they were upgraded, they were given new designations. For example, M60A1 were given the gun stabilizer upgrade in early 70s thus became the M60A1(AOS). In the game, these upgrades should be presented as researchable upgrades in the vehicle modification, so there will not be a huge number of separate rank 5/6 vehicles in the tech tree, and keep the length of the grind reasonable. I will use M60A1 as a example to explain how it work. There is only one M60A1 in the game, in which there are (AOS) and (RISE Passive ERA) upgrades that can be researched in the vehicles modification . The vehicles' BR will change according to the upgrades installed on the vehicles. When stock as M60A1, the BR is 7.7. After the (AOS) upgrade is installed, the BR will increase to 8.0. Certain model of ammunition can only be use after the necessary modernization upgrade is unlocked and installed. When stock as M60A1, there are APDS, HEAT and HESH. After the (AOS) upgrade is installed, the M735 is available as upgrade ammo. After they buy the RISE Passive ERA upgrade, M774 will be available (no need to research) and M833 will be the upgrade ammo. Equip vehicles with certain type of upgrade ammunition will increase the BR.For example, the BR will increase from 8.0 to 8.3, when equip the M60A1(AOS) with M735. The vehicles’ name will change when upgrades are installed. For example. The name will change from M60A1 to M60A1(AOS) when the (AOS) upgrade is installed. In the game, others can know the exact model of the vehicles that you are using. 5. Tech Tree and Vehicle Change The top BR of Rank 6 should be increased to 10.3. This do not mean that even more powerful vehicles will be added, but the BR of some of the current Rank 6s like M1 is increased to 10.3. Below is the new MBT tech tree of different countries after solution 2,4 is implemented . USSR Rank T54/55 Line T-64 Line T-72 Line T-80 Line V T-54 1947 T-54 1949 T-54 1951 T-54A VI T-54B T-64 T-72 T-62 T-64A T-72A T-80 T-55A T-64B T-80B T-64BV T-72B (1985) T-80BV Note: There are 4 MBT Line in the USSR Tech Tree. The M and MV upgrade is available to T-62 and T-55. Kontakt-1 ERA upgrade available to T-64B, T-72A and T-80B. The BR of T-80BV is 10.3, and it compete against the M1 Abram. USA Rank Note IV M26/M46 M26 can be upgraded to M46 standard. Remove the Rank 5 M46. V M47 M48A1 M48A2 Both of them can be upgrade to M48A5 standard. M735 and M774 will be the upgrade ammo of M48A5. M60 Have M735 and M774 as upgrade ammo. VI M60A1 MBT-70 M60A1: (AOS) and (RISE Passive ERA) upgrade is available. The ammo part had explained M60A2 M1 Abrams M1: Remove M735, M774 will be the stock ammo, M833 and M900 will be the upgrade ammo. . United Kingdom Rank Note IV Centurion Mk.1 Centurion Mk.2 Centurion Mk.3 V Centurion Mk.5 Centurion Mk.7 Centurion Mk.8 Mk.5, 7 and 8 Can be upgrade to Mk.6, 9 and 10 respectively FV4202 VI Chieftain Mk.3 Chieftain Mk.10 Include two sub marks Mk.5 and Mk.10. Mk.5 can be upgrade to Mk.10, and original Mk.5 will be removed. L15 APDS will be the stock ammo of Mk.5, L23 APFSDS as upgrade ammo. After unlock the Mk.10 upgrade, L26 APFSDS will be the upgrade ammo. Challenger 1 Remove L15, L23 as stock ammo, L26 as upgrade ammo. Germany Rank Note V Leopard 1 VI Leopard 1A1 KPZ-70 Leopard 1A1: Have A1 upgrade (additional turret armor kit) and DM23 APFSDS as upgrade ammo. Leopard 1A2 Leopard 1A4 Leopard 2 Leopard 1A2/A4: DM23 as stock ammo, DM33 APFSDS as upgrade ammo. Leopard 2K France Rank Note V AMX 30B Early AMX 30B Late VI AMX 30B2 AMX 30 ACRA AMX 30B2: Add BRENUS upgrade to the AMX 30B2, remove AMX 30B2(BRENUS) After BRENUS upgrade is installed, OFL 105 F2 APFSDS is available (no need to research). AMX 32 120mm gun is available as a upgrade. AMX 40 NATO tanks will face stronger soviet Tanks. However, they can defeat the more powerful soviet tanks easily since they have much better ammunition. M60A1, Chieftain Mk.10, Leopard 1s and AMX 30B2 will match against tanks like T-64B , but they can destroy them easily with the powerful APFSDS they get. The negative thing of this solution is that armor is no longer useful since tanks' guns can penetrate each others' armor easily..
  30. 23 points
    I was told to report the missing shell in a different bug-report so here we go... Missing shells on the B2 Brenus: The B2 Brenus is a 90s version of the already combatproven AMX-30 During its sevicetime the Ammo was upgraded to keep up with other tanks B2 Brenus should have the OFL 105 G2 which was in service till the tank was decommissioned OFL 105 G2 penetrates 560mm LOS of 60° angled armour the at muzzle of the gun which equals a 280mm thick plated angled at 60° Sources: Systemes d'arme: Weapon systems Sistemas de armas 2000 IHS Jane’s Weapons Ammunition Munitions de 105mm pour canons OTAN by NEXTER some more Infos can be found here: AMX-30, Volume I: Char de Bataille 1966-2006: ISBN-10: 8362878991 ISBN-13: 978-8362878994 Amx-30, Volume II: Char de Bataille 1966-2006: ISBN-10: 8364596047 ISBN-13: 978-8364596049 AMX-30 Family: ISBN-10: 8364596241 ISBN-13: 978-8364596247
  31. 23 points
    oh boy, you're in for the surprise. L7 was nerfed beyond belief so certain playerbase that's in the certain country with capital that starts on Mosc and ends in ow wouldn't whine too much that they're getting destroyed by HATO pigs(((((((( in their vodka gokarts. We had many threads where data miners proved that L7 accuracy was destroyed on purpouse and the weird angle modyifer that made certain hammer and sickle nation tanks immune becasue at certain angles penetration of rounds fired by L7 was nerfed into oblivion, of course fact that most )))) tanks have front plate that starts JUST at that angle is coincidence)))))))))))) here you have full thread.
  32. 22 points
    Background J2M7a is the final type J2M manufactured by Mitsubishi. The J2M5 that existed at the time of the development of J2M7a had the fastest speed record among the Japanese Navy at the time. In addition, the J2M5 had better reputation from the pilot because the poor forward visibility which was unpopular with the Japanese pilot in J2M3 was also improved. So they planned J2M6 which was J2M3 with the same visibility improvement as J2M5. However, the actually manufactured J2M6 had a maximum speed of 11.5 knots lower than that of J2M3 due to the increase in the window to improve the visibility. Furthermore, the forward visibility of the J2M3 proved to be never bad compared to fighter aircraft with high power engines from other countries. (Indeed, it was written that the forward visibility of J2M3 was rather good in the American military report. Perhaps this difference is thought to be influenced by the Japanese physique at the time.) So they planned J2M7 which was J2M3 with the same engine as J2M5 and aimed to produce faster J2M. A prototype was built after October 1944. But they were not satisfied with this alone. As was pointed out in the report of the US military, the Japanese Navy was not satisfied with the shooting weapons of the J2M which was interceptor. Therefore, they planned J2M7a, which was a type that further strengthened the armament of J2M7. This type was equipped with four Type 99 Mark 2 Model 4, which had a faster initial speed, and the number of bullets also increased. Also, it was possible to install four 132.3 pounds of bombs to compensate for the small amount of bomb load that was pointed out as a common task of the Japanese Navy fighters at the time. Along with this, the main leg and the main wing were strengthened. The prototype of J2M7a was examined wood after October 1944 and the prototype was built after February 1945. The Japanese navy who was satisfied with the high performance of J2M7a decided to intensively produce it at the newly constructed Navy Koza Arsenal. However, since most of the workers were boys, not veterans, fostering the labor force had hardly proceeded and the war ended without building anything. As a result, J2M7a finally built was only prototype. The photograph of the Koza Arsenal shot after the war shows J2M7a in the middle of manufacturing. Performance Wingspan: 35.4 ft (10.8 m) Length: 31.8 ft (9.695 m) Height: 12.7 ft (3.875 m) Wing area: 215.8 ft² (20.05 m²) Empty weight: 5,674.7 lb (2,574 kg) Loaded weight (Regular): 7,572.9 lb (3,435 kg) (Overload): 8,699.4 lb (3,946 kg) Engine: Mitsubishi MK4U-4 1,360 kw (1,820 hp) Max speed: (When not using WEP) 330 kt (611 km/h, 379.7 mph) at 19,685 ft (6,000 m) Cruise speed: 230 kt (426 km/h, 264.7 mph) at 19,685 ft (6,000 m) Landing speed: 87.5 kt (162 km/h, 100.7 mph) Rate of climb: (When not using WEP) 19,685 ft (6,000 m)/5 m 38 s Service ceiling: 37,795.3 ft (11,520 m) Range(Regular): 354.2 mi (570 km, 307.8 nmi) (First Overload ・Full Fuel): 608.9 mi (980 km, 529.2 nmi) (Second Overload ・Drop tank equipped): 845.1 mi (1360 km, 734.3 nmi) Duration: 2.48 h Propeller diameter: 3300 mm Propeller pitch: 30"~68" Lubricating oil capacity: 60ℓ Water methanol tank capacity: 120ℓ Guns: 4× 20 mm Type 99 Mark 2 Model 4 in the wings (840 rounds) Bombs: 4× 66.1 lb (30 kg) bombs or 4× 132.3 lb (60 kg) bombs Others are same as J2M3 Changes from J2M3 which is already in the game ・Changed the engine to Mitsubishi MK4U-4 ・Change the shooting weapon to 4 × 20 mm Type 99 Mark 2 Model 4 ・Change the number of bullets from 800 rounds to 840 rounds ・Two bomb suspension systems are added <Under main wing> <Shooting weapons> <Detailed drawing> ・The J2M7a has half of the air intake for the lubricating oil cooler embedded. (such as J2M5) Can J2M5 and J2M7 equip rockets? In the picture I found, there was a photo with J2M5 equipped with a rocket. ( ‎2× 145 lb (65.8 kg)Type 3 No.6 Mk 27 Model 1 Rocket bombs )There is a high possibility that the J2M 7 equipped with the same suspension system can also mount a rocket. The sure thing will be to fix the rocket in J2M5 in the game. Primary Source ・『雷電取扱説明書』 Second Source ・『局地戦闘機「雷電」―海軍インターセプターの実力』(光人社・2016.2.12) ・『局地戦闘機雷電―本土防衛の重責を担った高速強武装迎撃機の魁 (〈歴史群像〉太平洋戦史シリーズ (29))』(学習研究社・2000.11.10)
  33. 22 points
    Maybe, just maybe this is a fault of the MM, rather than the players
  34. 22 points
    I almost forgot... RB tanks: USA T26E1-1 6.7 >> 6.3 It share engine with M26 with few extra tons (and M26 is already underpowered) this tank does not have mobility or firepower for even single 7.7 uptier, its slow, rof is average, after FV and Centurion mark 3 were moved to 6.7 this is natural tank to equalize Tiger II P, Ferdinand and many USSR 6.3 tank both tech tree and premium GB Tortoise 6.7 >> 6.3 Its slow, protection is not good enough against 7.0+ and penetration its not good enough vs 7.7 tanks, GB lost 2 tanks at 6.3, Tortoise should be move there to fill that hole.
  35. 21 points
    I think that every 5.7-6.7 BR Germany player should be forced to play a 5.7-6.7 BR game in either USA, Japan or UK once every 5 matches, just so they get some perspective and stop the incessant whining that Tigers, Panthers and KT (H) are weak, even when uptiered.
  36. 21 points
    RB Germany Begleitpanzer 57: 8.7 -> 7.7 Comparing its stats to the BMP-1, the only major difference is rate of fire vs penetration for the main gun. Even then, it is unlikely to frontally penetrate >medium enemies, whereas the BMP does not have that issue with its HEAT ammo.
  37. 21 points
    Some positive changes first of all! From a purely RB perspective: The P-47's being raised in BR is fantastic...however, the D-28 should definitely have been raised as well. With the recent buff it received, the D-28 currently has nearly identical performance to the P-47M, which now has a 1.0 higher Battle Rating. If the P-47's do retain their airspawns, I think 5.3-5.7 would be more than fine for the D-28. I believe the Battle Ratings for several Japanese planes require a serious examination. The J2M's for example (except the J2M2 and Premium J2M5) are currently in a fairly miserable state. Slow with mediocre climbrates for their BR, I can't really see why the J2M3, J2M4 and non-Premium J2M5 should remain where they currently are. A 0.3-0.7 lower BR should help significantly. The N1K's also need a severe examination. While the N1K1's new BR of 5.3 is nice, with it's also new Flight Model, I don't see how it would not work work at 5.0. And in regards to the N1K2's...the only main difference between the N1K1 and N1K2's is cannon ammunition and some ordinance. I cannot for the life of me understand how the N1K2's are equal to the P-51H. They definitely require a BR closer to the N1K1's. Airspawns in general need to be considered. While they work for Bombers, Attackers and certain Fighters like the Do 335 and VB.10's, I fail to see why the P-47's and F-82 needs it at their current BR's. Those planes are just the more notable offenders. Airspawns for Fighters need to be carefully considered and only applied to planes that truly need them like the aforementioned Do 335 and VB.10.
  38. 20 points
    Every single P-47 model needs to lose airspawn, none of them are used as interceptors/attackers they have no right spawning in the air, especially the M variant which reaches 8km before fighters even take off the airfield. They have an average climb rate of 18m/s which is more or less on par with the P-51D-5 so they're not going to be completely useless as some might argue. Even with this nerf their BR's will be debatable, let alone now.
  39. 20 points
    Warthunder , stop throwing top tier in small maps ! You are ruining the top tier experience for your customers and really pissing us off ! 1) fix the challenger ! 2) take the t64b and Abrams to 9.7 , leave the chally and 2k at 9.3 . 3) don't nerf another tank nor buff another t64 ! And again , take small maps out of the top tier match maker . 50 matches a day I average and we might see a large map 5 times on a good day .
  40. 20 points
    not being able to do this in random battles is killing the fun for me, i have done many events but im just letting this one go. it is not worth the time.
  41. 20 points
    Two questions. You raise Me 262 A-1a BR to 7.3 and pretty equal plane, which P-80 or MiG-9 is, stays at 7.0? And late MiG-9 will be still at 7.0 even if its superior to Me 262? Can you explain me the reason of that change? Just to help me understand that better.
  42. 20 points
    Maus should go down 7.3, it's lacks mobility severely and penetration compared to adversaries which make the tank very obsolete in big maps.
  43. 19 points
    https://docs.google.com/document/u/2/d/e/2PACX-1vRg0enAS04imrkyEiVXaosxr0BpIxQTIplyOYjeuhriv23fZnHPBz-RgjLkl-KIiFuWolxsk3Je6z2M/pub You may all collectively lose your ****. My stance on APDS post-pen being unchanged was wrong as now it's requirements to produce fragmentation has been raised along with APDS shell mass reduction across the board for **every** tank that uses them, which means inherently less fragmentation produced
  44. 19 points
    Non, c'est simplement faux. Nvidia va aller partager ce genre d'information avec un joueur sans avertir l'administration du jeu en premier? Bref. La lune est plate. Je sais ce que les gens vont dire, mais j'ai les preuves (que je ne vais pas partager), l'autre coté abrite un gigantesque terrain de golf. Et il y a des dinosaures!
  45. 19 points
    From today, 166 additional accounts have been permanently banned for using third-party modifications in violation of the user agreement - use of prohibited modifications. (EULA). The introduction of the reporting system has again proved key in allowing players to participate in keeping the game clear of players who insist on trying to gain unfair advantage. The modification detection algorithm continues to improve. Having an account permanently banned will result in a player losing everything in that account - Be warned! Thank you guys for your vigilance. o7 List of banned accounts
  46. 19 points
    I love the whole "It's a Russian Game, deal with it." Argument from Devs and mods, maybe they shouldn't market it to the rest of the world if that's the case......
  47. 19 points
  48. 18 points
    This is a call to all new players of the tiger2's Please dont use them, after around 8 games playing my leo1 im finding my team is made up of 10 tiger2's, 1 or 2 Leo1's and some RU251'S in 7.7br games and germay is getting smashed as the tigers are no match for any of the other nations 7.7br tanks.. games are over in no more then 5mins. So just stop using the Tiger2 H/ 16slv.. if you want a fair game in a tiger play your tiger2P at 6.3 stop playing german 6.7 tanks it's just a black hole to 7.3/7.7 and you will not stand a chance and your no help to your team. Cheers Fonz
  49. 18 points
    Hello. After big marth EC patch released we also released two patches with fixes: https://warthunder.com/en/game/changelog/current/813 https://warthunder.com/en/game/changelog/current/814 Next goal is: 1. Bridges template 2. Surrounding logic (with destroying enemy focres that was surrounded, with transport planes who try to drop some cargo for surrounded forces) 3. Removing AF AAA if land battle start within AF square 4. New AF models and modular AF structure (cargo zone, command zone etc) with modular damage that will affect repair and recharge timers 5. Some tasks UI changes I hope patch whith those changes will be released at may-june and i want to make another dev-diary about those features with more explaining. Regards
  50. 18 points
    Full name of the vehicles affected AMX-50 Surbaissé (AB/RB/SB) Detailed description of the problem Currently, the AMX-50 Surbaissé does not have any machine gun on the top of its turret, despite the fact that the “hole” to fit a MG is indeed modeled in-game (see spoiler). The enclosed late (1959) reference mentions the fitting of a 7.5mm machine gun, while the model displayed in the Saumur Museum (which seems to be the tank modeled in-game) carries a M2 Browning 12.7mm MG. Other documents from the Châtellerault Archives of the French Army (some are provided in the spoiler below) also show that the AMX-50 Surbaissé could be equipped with a MG 151 20mm gun. Reference Char dit de 50 tonnes (Surbaissé, TOB-120), dated 7 January 1959 (Tank dubbed “of 50 metric tonnes” – Surbaissé, TOB-120=Low Oscillating Turret of 120mm), by the Direction des Etudes et Fabrications d'Armement (loosely translated as Bureau of Studies and Building of Weaponry), the technical division of the French Ministry of Defense. The full document can be viewed here. This webpage presents this document along with others concerning the AMX-50 Surbaissé and other tanks, from the Châtellerault Archives of the French Army. Proposed fix Add a 12.7mm (AMX-50 Surbaissé displayed in Saumur) or a 7.5mm MG on the top of the AMX-50 Surbaissé turret. Adding a MG 151 20mm gun is another option but implies the redesign of the commandant hatch following the many photographs/blueprints available in the Châtellerault documents.