Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/03/20 in all areas

  1. 96 points
    Top tier still feels too cramped, please consider bumping the top BR to 10.7 if not 11.0?
  2. 80 points
    Pilots, Tankers and Tinfoil Hat lovers! We have prepared a special minor major (which is it?) update for you to enjoy on this most glorious of days. In order to begin downloading this update, you must ensure you have sacrificed enough souls to the mighty Gaijilla that that your client stability is operating at maximum levels. New Vehicles Aviation: Japan Probably some twin engine heavy fighter USSR: MiG-28 France Mirag…. Just kidding, we are not that evil UK Mirage IIIO (Australian store premium)... oh yes we are US U-2 (aircraft, not band) SR-71 Blackbird Italy REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.2007 Ground Forces: New Zealand Bob Semple tank (premium) Poland PL-01 (Premium) T-34 Rudy (Premium) TKS Tankette (Premium) USSR Maus V3 (captured Soviet premium) Japan Maus (Anime edition) NANI? UK Challenger 2 (DTT) Germany TKS Tankette (captured Polish premium) Italy Nope Naval Forces: USA Fort Drum (Premium) More annoying destroyers Great Britain HMS Campbeltown - No weaponry but 4.5 tonnes of High Explosive equipped in bows (Premium) Helicopters: International cinematic tech tree including: Blue Thunder Airwolf Bell H13 Mash liveried and equipped SA 330 Puma as Mi-24 Hind from Rambo III MH-53 Pavelow liveried as “Decepticon” Blackout Changes to Ground Forces: T-34, T-44, T-54/55 (all variants) - Reload speed adjusted to historical levels of 60 rounds per minute. Source: Sekrit Dokumints ))))) Page No. REDACTED IS-7 - Stalinium armour on the frontal slope increased to 5000m. Source: Sekrit Dokumints ))))) Page No. REDACTED T-80U - Changed from Rank VII to reserve. Changes to aircraft: Lightning F.6 - Due to overwhelming responses we have decided to change our source material on this aircraft. We now will no longer be using the official Ministry of Defence approved RAF documentation such as the Pilots Notes, Performance Data and Ground Crew notes (which are the highest authority primary sources available), but instead will be switching to the following sources: Some bloke who flew the Lightning who claimed it was better than the F-15, so it must be true m8. A Youtube video that said the Lightning overtook the Concorde airliner this one time. Another Youtube video where a completely unrelated and highly modified twin seat version of the Lightning (which is not the same as the one we have in game) with next to no fuel, guns, ammunition, stripped of most of its military hardware and set up solely to set a climb record achieved a high rate of climb. The Lightning F.6 article on Wikipedia, a website often known as the most reliable source of information that's never wrong and where the Lightning article totally definitely wasn't edited™ by someone last year when we announced the Lightning was coming to change all of the numbers and climb statistics to levels that don't actually reflect its true sustained rate of climb but instead to overhype the aircraft to oblivion in the meantime. Oh and we can't forget, the staged military wargames where a Lightning “intercepted™” a U-2 spyplane under pre-set testing conditions and could definitely do it legitimately every time in real conditions™. As such, based on the above source material, we have concluded that the Lightning now has a 500,000 ft/m climb rate. With this change, the Lightning now rightly outperforms the F-15, F-22 Raptor, Eurofighter Typhoon, F-35 and just about every aircraft in existence, giving the aircraft its well known title of a true “rocket” with wings. So we have taken the decision to move the Lightning F.6 from War Thunder, to our other game Star Conflict, where it can battle with its fellow spaceships and rule the universe as it rightly should. Me 262A-1 - Due to its overwhelming armament, Me 262 continues to feel himself at his BR. To end his eternal suffering, we will move it to the Soviet tree as a captured premium. Changes to Naval Forces: Random AA AI gunners giving different levels of scatter for incoming lighthouse attack or threatening bushes (that could be camouflaged troops). Barges and ferries will now be shifted towards the capture points as by the time they get there the game is over. This will also apply to the LCS and British trawler. K2 start point to be moved to Hawaii or Iceland, depending on the locality of the map. US Vessels will have an additional BR of 1.1 on account of I am getting sick and tired of being sunk by them. 8) British vessels will no longer sUFfeR, they are to be equipped with full sonar and radar functionality. Sweden to be included in the near future equipped with different sized longboats and multi barrel arrow launchers. German heavy cruisers main armament load to be reduced to 6 in total for all guns. Japanese vessels to have hull modifications to the bow area to remove the sticky up bits. New Locations Antarctica - Secret German Base located in the middle of Antarctica. Map will provide 50km2 flat, empty space with pillbox as cap zone in the middle. Iron Sky Lunar Base - Secret German base on the moon. Home of the Götterdämmerung. Please be sure to write down your feedback in a strongly worded letter and send it to the following address: Gulag... I mean "Cool Castle place " Siberia Somewhere cold 420420 Russia The War Thunder Team Oh, or I mean you could discuss it here if you want?
  3. 52 points
    Nation - Britain Game mode - AB , RB Vehicle - Black price AB - 6.0 - 5.7 RB - 6.0 - 5.7 Reason - the black Prince is pretty overtired it is not meant for 6.0. it is a very slow and not very manoeuvrable it has terrible apds and it uses a 17 pound gun at 6.0. yet the centurion mk1 has a 17 pound gun and it's at 5.7. so in all fairness and balance reasons the black Prince should be lowered to 5.7 Nation - Britain Game mode - AB , RB Vehicle - centurion mk10 AB - 7.3 - 7.0 RB - 7.3 - 7.0 Reason - the centurion Mk10 should be lowered because it does not use heat FS it only has APDS and the tanks that goes up against our superior. Nation - Britain Game mode - AB , RB Vehicle - Chieftain MK3 AB - 8.7 - 8.0 RB - 8.3 - 8.0 Reason - it is slow not very manoeuvrable it only has apds and hesh it's armor is pretty decent but not at its current BR so it should be lowered to 8.0 Nation - Britain Game mode - AB , RB Vehicle - Chieftain MK5 AB - 8.7 - 8.3 RB - 8.7 - 8.3 Reason - the chieftain Mk5 is almost the exact same as the chieftain MK3 except for a slightly more powerful engine which to be honest you do not really notice the slight increase in power. And it has no apdsfs are heat FS. So it should be lowered to at least 8.3 even 8.0. Nation - Britain Game mode - AB , RB Vehicle - Chieftain mk10 AB - 9.0 - 8.7 RB - 9.0 - 8.7 Reason - it is a better chieftain with better protection and better ammunition. But it still lacks the mobility and with the tanks it is going up against they have clearly superior mobility and ammunition over chieftain MK10 so it should go down to 8.7 Nation - Britain Game mode - AB , RB Vehicle - Challenger MK2 AB - 9.7 - 9.3 RB - 9.7 - 9.3 Reason - it's hull armor and ammunition are not good enough for the BR it is at also the tanks it goes up against are far superior in both armour , mobility and firepower which Challenger 1 MK2 just cannot compete with so I suggest it should be lowered to atleast 9.3. Nation - USA Game mode - AB , RB Vehicle - M4A3E2 jumbo AB - 5.0 - 4.7 RB - 5.0 - 4.7 Nation - USA Game mode - AB , RB Vehicle - M4A3E2 (76) AB - 6.0 - 5.0 RB - 6.0 - 5.0 Nation - USA Game mode - AB , RB Vehicle - T32 heavy tank AB - 7.3 - 6.7 RB - 7.3 - 6.7 Nation - USA Game mode - AB , RB Vehicle - T32E1 AB - 7.7 - 7.0 RB - 7.7 - 7.0 Nation - USA Game mode - AB , RB Vehicle - M1 Abrams AB - 10.0 - 9.7 RB - 10.0 - 9.7
  4. 39 points
    Good changes! Would like to suggest: Everything for RB! Germany Me 262 A-1 (all variants) 7.0 --> 6.7 Sturmvogel is 6.7 and the Me 262 is a rather slow accelerating, mediocre turning and bad climbing plane with bad armament for high speed fights Outclassed by most 7.0's and often faces higher BR which it has no chance against Ju 188 A-2 5.3 --> 4.7 Its rather slow, has ok bombload and rather underwhelming defenses with bad firing angles Me 410 series --> no plane higher than 4.7 These planes lack historical armaments but their BR is based on that. In some cases 2 identical planes have huge gaps between their BRs for no reason! Flakpanzer IV Ostwind --> 4.3 Pretty slow turret, only single gun, not very good Panzer 38 F 2.0 --> 1.3 It lost its APCBC shell and only has 50mm of armor. The swedish one has better engine AND APDS Pz III J 2.3 --> 1-7 Gun and armor are not worth 2.3, terrible gun handling Pz III N 3.0 --> 2.7 Its tech tree counterparts at 3.0 have the 50mm gun which is in every way better than the 75mm Panzer IV/70 A 5.0 --> 4.7 Big weakspot, less mobile than the V variant RakJpz 2 HOT 9.0 --> 8.3 Its gun handling is bugged, it has only 5 degrees depression, a single launcher and only decent ATGM which is negated by composite armor M901 is at 8.3 with -30° depression, pretty equal ATGM performance, hulldown capability, thermals and double launcher M48A2C 7.0 --> 7.3 Fix turret armor and acceleration, they are worse than the US M48 for no reason. Then they should be same BR! Maus/E-100 7.7 --> 7.3 Gaijin said they will be removed to have less on them on the battlefield and to be able to balance it then. It has been long enough now, give it a bit of love! Jpz 4-5 6.7 --> 6.3 While it has HEAT FS and ok mobility, it should not be the same BR as Ru 251. Its gun depression and gun handling is pretty bad and its use rather limited. StuG III F 3.7 --> 3.3 Why is it higher than the medium tank with turret, same mobility and same armor? USA M901 8.0 --> 8.3 Still very good hulldown and good ATGMs, fine at 8.3 if RaJaPz 2 HOT goes down too USSR T-64A 9.3 --> 9.0 Its original counterpart MBT/Kpz 70 is at 9.0, its shells are not very good, mobility poor and it only has protected turret T-54 1947 7.7 --> 7.3 It took a massive nerf in the turret armor, now most guns can penetrate it more or less reliably! Shturm-S 9.3 --> 9.0 Together with the T-64A and BMP-3 would form nice 9.0 lineup, its not much good really France AMX-13 HOT 8.7 --> 8.3 Only has a few ATGMs, other than that its an unstabilized, mediocre mobility light tank Would be nice lineup with AMX-10RC and AMX-30B2 Britain Rooikat 105 8.7 --> 9.0 The other premiums with thermals are 9.0 and it has mobility and exceptional gun handling as a bonus Sweden CV 90105 TML 9.0 --> 9.3 It has 2nd gen commander and gunner thermals, extreme mobility, good gun handling, laser rangefinder Belongs to 9.3 if the commander thermals and stab are not removed (unhistorical) Italy Re.2005 Serie 1 6.0 --> 5.7 Its a slower Spitfire with better armament. Equal turn and climb. It can't compete with 6.0-7.0.
  5. 37 points
    Thanks for the Mystère IIA, now it's finally at its proper BR Here are some suggestions : French H-34 : 8.3 -> 8.0 It is one of the if not the worst helicopter in the game and, even though it has 2 missiles, their range is limited and there's only 2 of them. All cannon SPAAs can hit it if it gets at the needed range to fire its missiles. It also has pretty bad preformance and maneuverability. It is arguably worse than the AH-1G. In the french tree, there is no reason to not take the Alouette II or III over it, and a small BR decrease would put it in a line up where it would fit better, so that it is not overlooked. After such change, the french helicopter tree would finally become playable as a whole. If you force France to start with such a helicopter, at least make it playable Ouragan/Barougan : 7.7 -> 7.3 Now that a bunch of 9.0 jets went down to 8.7, the Ouragan and Barougan at 7.7 have become unplayable in uptiers (which happen very often) and them going down to 7.3 wouldn't make them overpowered but it would make them playable again. Vautour IIB : 9.0 -> 8.7 The Vautour IIB's only advantage when released, as it has no guns, was its speed. Now that multiple 8.7 and 9.0 jets that can catch it have been added, it would be nice to see it go down in BR so there can be a reason to play it as the IIA is simply better while being at the same BR. Tunguska : 10.0 -> 10.3 It's AA and AT capabilities are too good compared to other missile AAs at its current BR. M4A3E2 : 5.0 -> 4.7 The Jumbo is meant to be able to count on its armor. It has quite a bad cannon and was fine at 4.7 where it was hard to pen from the front but still had obvious weakspots and was easy to kill from the side. I didn't understand why it went up to 5.0 and I can only imagine it becoming useless at 5.3 as it won't be able to count on its armor anymore and its cannon will become even more useless. BR increase to 10.7 Some top tier MBTs, the ADATS, some of the recently added Mach 2s and the latest helicopters could use a 0.3 BR increase to 10.7 as some of them should never face 9.3. This kind of increase is imo possible now as a bunch of vehicles that could fit this new BR have already been added.
  6. 28 points
    what did the jumbo 75 do to deserve the same BR as a Tiger ? Sheridan going to 8.0 is pretty nice, US 8.0 lineup just got a little bigger innit. BMP-3 going to 8.7 seems more than reasonable given how long its reload is M60A3 TTS to 9.0 was very needed, it was in no way equal to to the XM-1 and more similarly the CM11 which was basically better at everything i would like to suggest the KpZ-70 (and just the kpz-70) to be uprated to 9.3 BR now that its reload is back at 6 seconds, that seems more than fair since the MBT-70 and XM803 stay at 9.0 but have 4 second longer reloads i would also suggest moving the radkampfwagen up to 9.3 as it is at the very minimum equal, if not better than the centauro ROMOR and type 16 combat maneuver vehicle the centauro that is now at 8.0 should probably move to 8.7 but with m735 as upgrade as it currently is not at all fair to have it terrorize people with thermals at such a low BR for a 105mm stabilised gun AUBL/74High Velocity Gun needs a bit of a BR raise too, it's just straight up terrorizing the poor soviets with their slow turrets consider lowering the BR of the M113 TOW's and pvvrb 551, these vehicles simply cannot do well when facing fast, stabilised opponents ZTZ59D1 could use a faster reload, just the standard L7 reload that all other 8.7 L7's have is fair, especially since it's turret is very slow in all (is it even correct? one would think they would've upgraded the turret slewing rate on a version that was made in the 90's)
  7. 26 points
    I stepped away from Heli EC because of pay to win KA-50 and power creep. I would realy like to play it, but the grind is horror and as long as the atam helos slaughter at will I keep holding back in it. So please find a solution to make the grind possible for non atam helos. Suggestion. Transport missions for utility helis in own terretory or scouting missions for light helis in enemy terretory for choppers like the allouette. Also I wish that helis get a place in SB EC. For example put forward arming and refueling points the map so that helis can attack in the scripted ground battles.
  8. 25 points
    The list has some good changes, but it is very incomplete. i do not agree with the rise of BR on the M4A3E2, because there is not enough powerful weapon and the armor at this level is easily penetrated. I think the "Object 685", "Chieftain MK 10", "T-62M-1" "XM-803" should also go for BR 8.7. Helicopters should see their revised BR, but especially the AH-1F and AH-1S Kisarazu should drop to 9.3. Hunter F.1 should go to 8.7, Hunter FGA.9 should be 9.3, G.91YS should drop to 9.3, BO 105 CB-2 drop to 9.3, both version of G-LYNX drop to 9.7.
  9. 25 points
    Now simulation mode on consoles will become as comfortable as arcade mode Gaijin Entertainment announces the start of the production of War Thunder Controller – the unique device compatible with all major gaming platforms. Finally console players will get the means to operate all War Thunder vehicles comfortably and precisely even in simulation mode, with no need to remember thousands of button combinations. The best grade aluminium alloys and stainless steel will be used to make the War Thunder Controller very durable. One single War Thunder Controller can be used for ground vehicles, ships, jets, helicopters as well as any future types of military hardware. There will be no need to switch between four different control devices right in the middle of a gameplay session, not anymore. Players will easily hop from one vehicle to another using the War Thunder Controller only. Previously PC players at least had the option of manually building a complicated setup of several control devices to fight both on ground and in the skies in one battle. But console players will unlock the full potential of simulation mode in War Thunder for the very first time. The experience of driving historically accurate vehicles into battle will now be available on all platforms – and without compromising the level of realism. The War Thunder Controller is based on the requests of our official forum users as well as War Thunder subreddit fans, as well as the hard-earned experience Gaijin user interface developers team. The new controller will give access to all the features of 1500+ vehicle types and will allow fine-tuning the War Thunder game settings. For example one push of a lever will allow switching the graphics quality to Ultra Low right in the middle of a battle, allowing the spotting of enemies that wait for you in the bushes. The War Thunder Controller is also a highly customizable device with extra levers, keyboards, track balls and other optional extra parts available. The controller will go on sale in two colors: urban khaki and dusty asphalt. The final design of War Thunder Controller may be changed based on the prototypes testing. The pricing will be announced later and will depend on the initial shipment size. The War Thunder Team
  10. 24 points
    Every vehicle in the game is subject and open to BR changes. They are a fluid and dynamic system, not a fixed and never changing one. BR changes have been conducted this way for over 5 years and its not new or unknown information to anyone. Its a central pillar of the games balancing system. The comparison to other games is entirely irrelevant here, as we are not changing the performance or capabilities of the aircraft's weaponry unlike what those other games propose. We are moving its matchmaking range to ensure its better balanced in the current meta. BR changes are a normal and systematic part of the games cycle. Premium vehicles have not and will never be refundable due to BR changes.
  11. 24 points
    Hello, I have to suggest to move the Graf Spee up to 6.0 or do generally something about her. She is in a whole different league than any other heavy cruiser or ship at 5.7. I believe that needs no explaination why, but since you asked for it let me give you an in-depth explaination: The Graf Spee at BR 5.7 has the by far biggest calibre, a decent armor layout with her main guns being able to kill any other ship within 1 to 3 salvos (3 being the absolute worst case scenario). This results in entire matches being won by her alone. I would also suggest taking the same course of action as with the Emden which had a repair cost of 33k. Also I am pretty sure it should at least after almost half a year of constant complaints be clear that there is an issue with the Graf Spee in her current position.
  12. 24 points
    Ok the long grind is arguable because after three of these events we should expect RNG and grinding; however, the "hidden" costs that more than triple the requirements are downright deceitful. When you look at the process, it shows one "hidden" step. But once you unlock that step, it just adds another "hidden" step beyond that. The game leads you to believe its just one step then tacks on more grinding once you start making progress. These hidden steps are inexcusable and should never have been included. Why hide the costs like that? Only after you assemble the part is it revealed that there two more steps (or more, I haven't gotten far enough to find out if that is where the surprises stop), and the steps seem to have higher requirements too. The only reason to make it seem easier than it is by hiding additional steps until you reach them, is so that players do not realize they cannot complete the event without paying until they have already sunk too much time into it. This is sad. Its sucks because April Fools is one of the few times gaijin generally gains good favor with the community with fun and goofy events, this misleading event is turning this april fools into the exact opposite. I pity the forum staff that are going to have to deal with this debacle again. Its like the people who plan these events never actually talk to players or see how people respond to their "events." How could deliberately misleading players about the length and grind of these events POSSIBLY be thought of as a good idea?
  13. 24 points
    The community: please no more events with resource gathering and crafting, they suck Gaijin: hold my beer ...
  14. 22 points
    Feedback? Really? The community, on a whole, has previously provided overwhelming feedback that we do not like these kind of events! Yet here we are again. 1. There are more "parts" than advertised for this event, so no, players do not know "exactly" what they need to do/grind according to the youtube video. 2. You HAVE to use the market place in order to get everything from the event. I'm sorry but that is just ridiculous and a bloody slap in the face to those of us who complained about this in the past. 3. It will take on average 40 hours to get the Obj 279. Just the 279, not counting the rest, in a 14 day event. I know you say that these events are for your most "dedicated" players, but how about an event for ALL of the players for a change!!! There. That is my feedback. Based on the response to previous community feedback I know it will fall on deaf ears.
  15. 21 points
    Hello everyone We are very keen to gather feedback on the proposed changes to Helicopter Spawn point costs in Update 1.97: Please leave your thoughts below on if you like / dislike this change and what you think about it!
  16. 20 points
    Some good changes for the bombers. Also the A2D to BR 7.0 is a (long overdue) step in the right direction and it could also go up to 7.3 tbh. However, there are still some other changes (it's obviously not an exhaustive list) I'd like to see for Air RB: Pokryshkin's P-39N: up to 3.7 - Faster at lower alts, climbs better, turns and rolls better than the P-63A-5. It's insanely fast for a currently 3.0 plane: 574 kph @ SL and 644 kph @ 3k m. Yak-9U: up to 4.7 - Virtually identical performance to the 9P and 9UT. Armament is almost equal since the 2 Berezins actually do damage unlike B-20s/Shvaks. At best one BR step lower due to lower VNe and lack of 23/37 mm option. Yak-9UT: down to 5.0 - Virtually identical performance and even lower VNe than the 9P. Both the 9P and 9UT should be at the same BR. F4U-1A: up to 3.3 - Very similar performance to the USMC and D variant. No reason to be at 2.7 (way too fast (> 570 kph @ SL) as well as great armament, good roll and turn. Facing 1.7/2.0s is a sad joke. XP-38G: up to 3.7 - Identical performance to the in-tree P-38G, should obviously be at the same BR because of that. P-39N: up to 3.7 - Slightly worse than Pokryshkin's P-39N. The difference doesn't justify a lower BR - should be at 3.7 as well. P-47D-28: up to 5.3 - Discount 47M since it received the 70 "Hg boost a while ago, only marginally worse than the 47M on WEP and significantly better on mil. power (300 HP more). Should only be one (if at all actually) BR step lower than the 47M. F4U-4B: up to 6.0 - Fast on the deck and medium altitudes, excellent guns with plenty of ammo, excellent roll and turn at virtually all speeds. Probably the best Allied prop after the 51H and the late Griffons - the BR should reflect that. Easily on par and in some regards superior to other 6.0/6.3 planes like the La-9, F8Fs, or Tempest II. Ki-61-I tei: down to at least 3.3 - Significantly heavier than all other Ki-61-Is and thus very sluggish. Mediocre armament and terrible performance for 4.3 (487 kph @ SL and 591 kph @ 4000 m). The only (questionable) upgrade over the Ki-61-I otsu (which is 10 kph faster everywhere and 60 seconds faster to 4000 m) are the mediocre Ho-5s with 120 RPG. J2M5 (premium): up to at least 5.0 - identical performance to the regular J2M5. Armament is about as effective if not even more than the mediocre Type 99/1 and /2s on the tech-tree model. Schould be at best one-step lower, but could also share the same BR. J2M5: down to 5.3 - A bit faster than the J2M3 but trades that bit of speed for a lower RoC. Both should share the same BR. Ki-87: down to 5.7 - Neither the speed, RoC, or maneuverability make it a 6.0 plane (let alone make it capable of fighting 7.0 jets). The Ki-94-II overall is very similar and sits at 5.7 - the Ki-87 should be at the same BR. Ki-84 hei: down to 6.0 - There is no reason why any Ki-84 should be able to face jets, let alone jets like BR 7.3 F-84B or F-89Ds. Identical performance like the other Ki-84s. Armament is an upgrade, but should be only one BR step higher. It's way too slow to make it viable against 7.3 jets (or even the 7.0 ones). Kikka: up to 7.3 - Since its latest FM update (which improved the performance significantly) it's an absolute joke at 6.7. Has better performance than all 262 As, should be 7.3. F4U-1A: up to 3.3 - See US F4U-1A. Bf 109 F-1: up to 3.0 - There is no reason why the F-1 should face BR 1.3 planes or other T1 aircrafst. Could still compete with planes from 3.0-4.0 with its climb rate, maneuverability and general speed. Bf 109 G-6: up to 5.0 - Minor speed difference to the G-14. Identical engine, very similar performance so at best one BR step lower than the G-14. Me 264: up to 5.0 - Speed, defensive armament and bomb load make it easily 5.0 capable. Should only be 1 BR step lower than the He 177. Ju 288 C: up to 6.0 - Incredible effective due to its speed, incredibly tanky DM, good defensive armament and good bomb load. It's basically better than a Arado 234 B-2 in everything but speed when returning after the bomb drop. Spitfire Mk. Vc: down to 4.3 - Worse in performance than the Spitfire Mk. IX (only advantage are the 2 additional cannons). The performance difference over the Vc/trop also doesn't really justify a higher BR. Corsair F Mk. II: up to 3.3 - See other F4U-1s. ____________________ And some additional propositions for Air RB by @Aquilachrysaetos (who's not allowed to post rn because with 40k matches you're not considered an active player if you skip a couple weeks...): Faction: Sweden Vehicle: J32B Lansen Current BR: 9.3 Proposed BR: 9.7 Reason: The acceleration and climbrate of the Lansen is on par (and even exceeds some) with 9.7 jets like the G.91Y and Hunter F.6/FGA.9. It is downright broken against 8.3 jets who stand absolutely no chance of countering it, and even most 8.7/9.0 jets will find themselves struggling quite a bit. It's currently meta-ruining (or defining depending on your perspective) due to how much better its performance is compared to other planes in its MM bracket. Really needs to be moved up where it belongs. Faction: Japan Vehicle: N1K2-J + N1K2-Ja Current BR: 6.0 Proposed BR: 5.7 Reason: These planes neither have the speed nor climb rate (or any other performance metric) that classes them as superior to 5.7 mainstays like the early Griffons, Yak-3U, or Yak-3 VK-107 that are most comparable to it. They absolutely should not be fighting any sort of jets in a 7.0 MM, as their datasheet clearly shows that they're much slower than what is necessary for 6.0 BR. Faction: France Vehicle: Etendard IVM Current BR: 9.3 Proposed BR: 9.0 Reason: While the Etendard has a great climb rate, it's slower speed, average maneuverability, and limited energy retention doesn't quite put it at the same performance/BR level as the F-5 or CL-13B Mk.6. It's a much better contemporary of other 9.0s and shouldn't have the possibility of being uptiered to 10.3 (however remotely small). Faction: Japan Vehicle: J5N1 Current BR: 5.3 Proposed BR: 5.0 Reason: While this plane is a decent heavy fighter, it doesn't have the speed or climbrate (and certainly not the maneuverability) to be considered a contemporary of the 5.3 Ki-84 ko or J2M3. It has an innate 'heavy fighter tax' and should be 5.0 to offset its deficiencies, as it simply doesn't have performance that would enable it to compete with P-51Hs, Spitfire F Mk.22s, etc. Faction: US Vehicle: F4U-4B Current BR: 5.7 Proposed BR: 6.0 Reason: With its Korean War era boost settings + speed without pylons, this plane is arguably better than the Bearcat yet somehow sits a full 0.7 BR lower. It is easily on par/superior to the Tempest Mk.II as well, but with more effective armament and much better maneuverability. 6.0 should be the minimum BR for this extraordinary performer.
  17. 18 points
    Planned Battle Rating changes - April 2020 To open the BR list in a new tab, click here! If you think we should make some additional changes 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. Please be sure to stay on topic. Thanks! The War Thunder Team
  18. 16 points
    RU-251 lack-luster, the heatFS has trouble penetrating most tanks at it's own tier above or below, also light or heavy angles (love it when it bounces on stationary far and close range targets makes me want me money back on the tank.). when it does pin it does not do a lot of damage. it should always take out more then one module and critical crew member upon penetration, and it needs an increase in hull-break potential. Open to discussion. I did not buy the tank for the bonking anything and everything but I want a tank that competes with most tanks at around it's own tier.
  19. 15 points
    9K121 Vichr The first and foremost factor of imbalance is the 9K121 Vichr missile. As long as there is any sort of PvP combat supposed to be in this mode, this missile will ignore ANY and ALL helicopters in the game in it's current implementation. There is absolutely ZERO viable counterplay against the missile. It outranges any opponent by a lot. 9.5km range is almost triple the range of a TOW missile The proximity fuse is ridiculous. Even if the missile somehow manages to miss it will kill you, up to ~2 meters out There are no countermeasures against laser guided missiles This is everything you will need for helicopter on helicopter combat in this game. There is no other existing weapon system that can match this missile in the game's meta. Theoretically speaking, the Kamov helicopters are invincible if played correctly. The only thing that keeps these helicopters somewhat in check is the fact that teams are mixed. The only helicopter even capable of damaging a Kamov is another Kamov. That's some solid game design right there. The missile tracks almost perfectly. With the implemented locking system you can simply lock your target up to 9.5km away, fire the missile and wait. The sway that was introduced that 'simulates' beam riding is only really affecting the Vichr at incredibly long ranges (8km+) where the target is flying perpendicular to your helicopter. The only hope you have of surviving an inbound Vichr missile is to apply the following technique: Dive down to the ground. You need to be below ~20 meters altitude to disable their proximity fuse Start strafing to the left and right at high speeds like a madman There's a small chance that the missile will miss, especially if it is out of rocket fuel If the missile still has fuel, then it will hit regardless. Fuel lasts to around 4-5km, which still outranges any other helicopter in the game. Tough luck, you've been outplayed! Line-of-sight breaking is not a viable counterplay. There are barely hills, and 'good' Kamov players will climb to 3000 meters altitude to drop the missiles on you. This both increases the missile's range even more and denies you from hiding behind hills. A helicopter fighting from high altitude, so realistic! The excuse that "it's how these missiles function in real life" does not align with the core values of a game. A game is supposed to be fun. Plenty of things have been changed in the past to suit gameplay. This missile should be no exception. Where's the PARS 3 Fire and Forget? Where is the AGM-114L? Where's the AIM-9M? Plenty of sacrifices have been made in favour of playability. The demands of 2 helicopters should NOT prevent all the other helicopters from playing the game. It will last you up 9.5km if you have a bit of altitude. It's not a hard limit where the missile explodes mid-air. Air-to-Air Missiles After the Vichr missile problem has been solved, you can start thinking about separating AAM-capable helicopters from the others. Helicopters without countermeasure or AAMs cannot counter missiles by any means. This means that the population will be split in 2, which I think is still possible with current Enduring Confrontation lobby mechanics. This is a small change that will make the helicopter progression much better. Yes, technically speaking the AH-1G will still destroy the Mi-4 in most cases, but the difference in power is much smaller than the Mi-4 fighting an AH-1Z or Ka-52. Perhaps we will see a drastic increase in players trying the helicopter mode, because they could not afford the expensive helicopter packs. This is a win-win situation, because they are still likely to buy the packs once they have to move on to the AAM helicopters. What-if If these changes cannot be made, then I believe the gamemode will require a complete overhaul. PvP would have to be disabled and the entire mode should be retargeted around helicopter on ground (PvE) combat. If no changes are made, then the helicopter battles will remain a slaughterhouse for "specific" helicopters. The population will drastically decline once players are bored of playing game-breaking helicopters and have completed their research. The gamemode will simply die off.
  20. 14 points
    Planned Battle Rating changes - April 2020 To open the BR list in a new tab, click here! If you think we should make some additional changes 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. Please be sure to stay on topic. Thanks! Discuss it here! The War Thunder Team
  21. 14 points
    The good: The base materials can be crafted into each other. The bad: Hidden recipes that extend the scope of the grind without clear goals The timeframe (way too short for this level of commitment) The clear shove towards the market (yet again). The ugly: Yet another blatant cash grab at what should be the best time to garner good will. Not saying you shouldn't make money (you should), but these events keep screaming to me that War Thunder is no longer a labor of love, but a Whale Hunt I'm allowed to participate in as bait. When the biggest supporters of this style of event are putting out tips to "save your sanity", it should tell you that this has gone from a "fun way to get some fun, unique vehicles" into psychological abuse territory. And that's my 2 shiny pennies.
  22. 14 points
  23. 14 points
    M4A4, M4A4 (1st PTG) - The amount of ammunition has been changed from 97 to 98 rounds. Source: TM9-754, Technical Manual Medium Tank M4A4, 21 January 1943. AUBL/74 - Changes in ammunition: M620A1 HEAT-FS - The mass of the shell has been changed from 8.3 to 4.1 kg. The armour penetration value has been changed from 300 to 250 mm. M625A1 HESH - The mass of the shell has been changed from 8.2 to 4.5 kg. The explosive mass weight has been changed from 1.3 to 1.2 kg. M618A1 Smoke - The mass of the shell has been changed from 9.2 to 5.3 kg and its initial speed has been changed from 695 to 714 m/sec. Source: MECAR Tank Ammunition Brochure. All Т-34 with F-34 cannons - Vertical guidance angles have been changed from 28 to 30 degrees. Source: Танк Т-34 - Руководство службы, 1941 // Альбом фотографий танка Т-34 и его основных узлов (завод № 183, апрель 1941 г.) Chi-Ha Kai (China) - The incorrectly displayed vehicle class has been changed from “Light tank” to “Medium tank”. Rooikat Mk.1D, OTOMATIC - A bug causing exceedingly high horizontal and vertical spread values has been fixed. Spread values have been reduced. M10 (China) - Additional armour attained by using reserve tracks has been removed. Such armour is specific to the M10 US version and is not used on Chinese variants. ZSU-37, ZiS-43 - clip reload time has been reduced from 1 to 0.5 sec. Radpanzer 90 - Hull break effects for the turret have been removed. M36, M36 (China) - A bug relating to sight magnification, where the view would be below the default value, has been fixed. The current magnification has been changed to 5x. Source: TM 9-374, 90-mm Gun M3 Mounted in Combat Vehicles Merkava Mk.1, Merkava Mk.2B, Strv 74 - The position of the camera in the 3rd person view has been corrected. Lorraine 155 Mle.50 - A bug causing the sixth crew member not being taken into account has been fixed. QF 3.7 Ram - The speed of the horizontal (changed from 8 to 11 degrees per second) and vertical (changed from 4 to 6 degrees per second) guidances have been increased. Source: Canadian Microfilms, Project 14 SP 3.7 on Ram chassis. Panzer IV/70 (V) — The maximum speed has been reduced from 40 to 35 kph; gun declination angle has been changed from -5 to -7 degrees; horizontal aiming angles increased from 10 to 12 degrees on each side; a new sub-calibre AP round Pzgr.40/42 has been added. Source: Handbook WaA, G 356 // Pz.IV & it’s Variants, Walter J. Spielberger // Panzer Tracts No.9 - Jagdpanzer. KPz-70, MBT-70 — The fire rate has been changed from 6 to 10 shots per minute (only for KPz). The number of carried ATGM’s has been changed to 6 missiles. Source: Review of Army Tank Program : hearings before the United States House Committee on Armed Services, Armed Services Investigating Subcommittee, Ninety-First Congress, first session, on Mar. 13, 14, 19-21, 24, 25, Apr. 3, 28, 1969 // Walter J. Spielberger, (1995). Waffensysteme Leopard 1 und 2 // HUNNICUTT, R. P. (2015). ABRAMS: A history of the american main battle tank, (Vol. 2) // McNaugher, T. L. (1981). Collaborative development of main battle tanks: Lessons from the U.S.-German experience, 1963-1978. // Armor magazine, 1967, Sept-dec Strv m/41 S-II, M5A1 (China)— The following modifications have been added: “Improved optics” and “Air strike”. CV 90105 TML — A bug that prevented smoke grenades from being reloaded has been corrected. Centauro, Centuro ROMOR - recoil impulse and vehicle rocking after shot have been reduced. AMX-30B2 BRENUS - ERA elements durability vs chemical rounds have been increased from 200-250mm to 380-400mm. Leopard 2A4, Leopard 2A5, Strv 121. Strv 122 - gunsight magnification has been specified from 8х/12х to 4х/12х. Source: Instruktionsbok Stridsvagn 121 // TH9 -3212, Technische Handleiding Gevechtstank, Rups Leopard 2 A1 NL Challenger Mk.2, Challenger Mk.3 - The resistance of the hull and tower from HEAT shells has been clarified (increased). For the hull - 580 mm. For the tower - 700 mm. The resistance of the hull from kinetic shells up to 300 mm has been clarified (increased). The resistance of the tower from kinetic shells up to 435 mm has been clarified (increased). Source: Report of Comparison of Chieftain Replacement Options (U), RARDE Report 87018, October 1987. Strv m/39 - The position of the driver camera has been corrected. Pz.35(t) - External model of the suspension elements has been fixed. Lvkv 90C - External model has been fixed. ZPRK 2S6 - The operation of the controllable suspension has been fixed. The engine sounds for following tanks and SPGs have been fixed: Stormer Ferdinand VK 4501 (P) Pz.Bef.Wg.VI P Pz.IV C Pz.IV E Pz.IV F Dicker Max Ostwind Ostwind II Wirbelwind Kugelblitz Aircraft and helicopter model, damage model, characteristic and weaponry changes Ju 188 A-2 - wrong crew member positions have been corrected. B17A, B17B - wrong gear position from the cockpit view has been fixed. Flight Model changes A-4В / F-4C - drag effect info of the rocket pods and gun pod in the aircraft’s info card has been corrected. A-4B - bug has been fixed with excessive drag and weight rise with rocket pods installed. Gladiator Mk.II - bug has been fixed with thrust drop in WEP mode. Naval fleet model, damage model, characteristic and weaponry changes Isuzu - drown parameters have been corrected. Koln F220 - displacement parameter has been corrected in the vehicle info. Customization CV 90105 TML - Possibility of purchasing four-color camouflage for Golden Eagles has been added. Pokryshkin’s P-39N0, He 112 V-5 - missing additional camos have been returned. VVS pilot sign - terms of achievement have been corrected. Carrier aircraft have been added.. Sound New layer for pistons has been added for all tank engines (gasoline V12, gasoline V8, diesel V 12, opposite diesel, inline 6-cylinder, radial 9-cylinder, radial 7-cylinder). Tank engine sounds have been adjusted by volume levels for all components. Sound balance of allied/enemy tank engines has been slightly adjusted. New sound components have been created for tank gas-turbine engines. Explosions and tank shot sound have been slightly adjusted to increase the variability. Ship guns sounds for allies/enemies have been updated to optimize the distance distinctivity. This should improve game performance. Other ЕАС has been enabled in naval battles 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. Leave serious feedback here
  24. 13 points
    We're playing the same game for year after year.. pull up a video from 2015.. it's the same thing. sure some buttons look a bit more shiny and the tech tree is a bit more spaced out, but it looks near identical.. I mean if it works it works, but it does feel pretty stale I have to say. Stat cards are still questionable, never been updated to display things like stabilizers or thermal either. Hangar look a bit different, although the nation flags have dissapeared and every nation uses the exact same location, bit of a shame when a lot could be done with it. Protection analysis is cool, that's the one big improvement I can spot, that's nice for sure. Load up a game, exact same loading screens as 5 years ago.. although back then there was more of a description when you loaded into a map, little bit of info about the location you were about the play at, don't know where that has gone, same little film reel sound although there has never been any kind of film ever playing so not something I ever understood.. only in singleplayer mission but those have been long forgotten. First screen, pretty much the same as well, the shell selection is listed a bit differently but nothing that's going to throw you off. UI looks the same, same icons, same location, same buttons, same minimap.. only the bottom left is a nice upgrade, where we now have a nice display of our tank and modules rather than a simple model to show your tank/turret orientation. Back then we had AI tanks roaming around in tank battles, we had a D point as a dynamic objective that would spawn.. both were questionable at times for sure but atleast attempts were made to make things a bit more interesting, AI got removed, D point got removed (not from the quick chat options though) and nothing ever really replaced it sadly, 5 years later and we have less going on than before. Graphically and audio wise there have been improvements. There's Berlin, Carpathians, Fields of Poland where people were getting spawncamped 5 years ago as well and complained about map design, Ash river, Karelia, Normandy, Kursk.. maps we're all very familiar with today as it's still what makes up a lot of the matches.. all with the same flaws it would have had 5 years ago because reasons. And yes, we do get new maps sometimes but it doesn't add depth to the game, wether you're in Karelia or Korea, Sinai or Stalingrad, Alaska or the Ardennes, it doesn't change that you capture A,B and/or C. Only map that dared to do something new was Fulda, a map designed for post WW2 to better fit for the high rank vehicles, although you'll still mostly play on the backyard sized maps with these high rank vehicles. Maybe Volokolamsk would work but I haven't seen that map in forever and I doubt it's even in rotation currently. Same with vehicles, it doesn't change anything wether you're playing a Sherman or an Abrams, you're still doing the same thing on the same maps, just a bit faster, it doesn't create gameplay depth as nothing is done with the added capabilities of these vehicles, instead we place these vehicles in WW2 settings, being able to drive into 50 year old Tiger wrecks in Normandy in your Leopard 2A5, or crashing into a barrage balloon from 1944 in your Ka-50 or MiG-21. I mean I appreciate the occasional new map and the addition of new vehicles, but i'd much rather see changes to gameplay, adding more depth to gameplay, more strategy.. or just anything that isn't capture the zone for 5+ years straight. Maybe not even that, maybe just fix all the things that people have been complaining about for years, fix the spawncamping issues, fix the horribly designed maps like Fields of Poland or Port Novorro, if I type in Fields of Poland all I see are threads about why it sucks, and a bunch of images of people giving suggestions on how to fix it, if I type in Port novorossiysk it auto suggests 'unbalanced' with about 3 years worth of threads complaining about it, and with good reason. Then the tons of vehicles with flaws, faulty armor, missing armor, wrong values.. things that have been reported half a decade ago that still are not fixed, Kugelblitz missing a ton of turret rotation, FIAT with invisible hitbox blocking the gun after a shoddy job or removing the MG mount, gaps in the floor of a number of vehicles, the questionable unexplained behaviour of the APHEBC shells. Not all of them are top priority cases, but in most games these things get fixed within a respectable amount of time, yet here if it's not new and shiny it feels it gets overlooked, it shouldn't take years to update some of these things, it doesn't give off a good impression when you add a dozen of new premium vehicles and whatnot and never fix existing content, it just seems like a path that only goes downhill. Then there's the RP and SL grind, repaircosts that just got worse and worse and never made sense in the first place because the ''algorithm'' you claim to have is dumb and clearly doesn't take many factors into consideration, the crew lock system that is as ridiculous as it's always been, just punishing people for having a bad game and mostly affects legitimate players, The problems in RB where the game pushes people to leave after 1 death, the problem with lineups or lack there of, the problem with uptiers, stock grind. The endless problem with BR compression that leaves many vehicles in horrible positions and makes them entirely useless to a point where you just remove them from the game like the Maus, meanwhile other tanks like the T95 get absurdly faster neutral steering to make them viable, even though they didn't have neutral steering in the first place. All we get is a short reply.. something something queue times. Queue times are already horrible for many things, and they probably just increase to get worse when you refuse to do anything about it, so afraid to make changes as it would affect queue times, that people just leave because they feel nothing will ever change in some kind of self fulfilling prophecy.. I can't play sim without 10 minute queue times, only to play on regular AB sized maps and captures point, only now with the ability to get teamkilled..which happens very frequently, and have to worry about every shot I take in case it's a 99% copy pasted vehicles in another tech tree.. the Italian M26 and American M26 even have the same location for their jerrycans and netting, same colour and everything with minor changes you won't notice ingame. Things just don't change, I see the same complaints every single year, and never are they properly adressed, not like we want a free abrams or anything silly like that, we just want blatant issues with the game to be looked at and dealt with, and not get some weak answer about how spawncamping is difficult to fix so that's why the issue persists longer than the entirety of WW2. The community gives so many ideas and suggestions, tons and tons of threads with people writing out their ideas and thoughts, not all great ideas ofcourse but still, many of them could really work or should atleast be considered. Why isn't there an experimental mode where you try out new ideas, new spawn systems, new objectives, different approach to BRs.. let people play it, offer feedback and go from there I can keep going but what are the odds of this thread not dissapearing somewhere soon anyways.
  25. 13 points
    Pilots, Tankers and Tinfoil Hat lovers! We have prepared a special minor major (which is it?) update for you to enjoy on this most glorious of days. In order to begin downloading this update, you must ensure you have sacrificed enough souls to the mighty Gaijilla that that your client stability is operating at maximum levels. New Vehicles Aviation: Japan Probably some twin engine heavy fighter USSR: MiG-28 France Mirag…. Just kidding, we are not that evil UK Mirage IIIO (Australian store premium)... oh yes we are US U-2 (aircraft, not band) SR-71 Blackbird Italy REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.2007 Ground Forces: New Zealand Bob Semple tank (premium) Poland PL-01 (Premium) T-34 Rudy (Premium) TKS Tankette (Premium) USSR Maus V3 (captured Soviet premium) Japan Maus (Anime edition) NANI? UK Challenger 2 (DTT) Germany TKS Tankette (captured Polish premium) Italy Nope Naval Forces: USA Fort Drum (Premium) More annoying destroyers Great Britain HMS Campbeltown - No weaponry but 4.5 tonnes of High Explosive equipped in bows (Premium) Helicopters: International cinematic tech tree including: Blue Thunder Airwolf Bell H13 Mash liveried and equipped SA 330 Puma as Mi-24 Hind from Rambo III MH-53 Pavelow liveried as “Decepticon” Blackout Changes to Ground Forces: T-34, T-44, T-54/55 (all variants) - Reload speed adjusted to historical levels of 60 rounds per minute. Source: Sekrit Dokumints ))))) Page No. REDACTED IS-7 - Stalinium armour on the frontal slope increased to 5000m. Source: Sekrit Dokumints ))))) Page No. REDACTED T-80U - Changed from Rank VII to reserve. Changes to aircraft: Lightning F.6 - Due to overwhelming responses we have decided to change our source material on this aircraft. We now will no longer be using the official Ministry of Defence approved RAF documentation such as the Pilots Notes, Performance Data and Ground Crew notes (which are the highest authority primary sources available), but instead will be switching to the following sources: Some bloke who flew the Lightning who claimed it was better than the F-15, so it must be true m8. A Youtube video that said the Lightning overtook the Concorde airliner this one time. Another Youtube video where a completely unrelated and highly modified twin seat version of the Lightning (which is not the same as the one we have in game) with next to no fuel, guns, ammunition, stripped of most of its military hardware and set up solely to set a climb record achieved a high rate of climb. The Lightning F.6 article on Wikipedia, a website often known as the most reliable source of information that's never wrong and where the Lightning article totally definitely wasn't edited™ by someone last year when we announced the Lightning was coming to change all of the numbers and climb statistics to levels that don't actually reflect its true sustained rate of climb but instead to overhype the aircraft to oblivion in the meantime. Oh and we can't forget, the staged military wargames where a Lightning “intercepted™” a U-2 spyplane under pre-set testing conditions and could definitely do it legitimately every time in real conditions™. As such, based on the above source material, we have concluded that the Lightning now has a 500,000 ft/m climb rate. With this change, the Lightning now rightly outperforms the F-15, F-22 Raptor, Eurofighter Typhoon, F-35 and just about every aircraft in existence, giving the aircraft its well known title of a true “rocket” with wings. So we have taken the decision to move the Lightning F.6 from War Thunder, to our other game Star Conflict, where it can battle with its fellow spaceships and rule the universe as it rightly should. Me 262A-1 - Due to its overwhelming armament, Me 262 continues to feel himself at his BR. To end his eternal suffering, we will move it to the Soviet tree as a captured premium. Changes to Naval Forces: Random AA AI gunners giving different levels of scatter for incoming lighthouse attack or threatening bushes (that could be camouflaged troops). Barges and ferries will now be shifted towards the capture points as by the time they get there the game is over. This will also apply to the LCS and British trawler. K2 start point to be moved to Hawaii or Iceland, depending on the locality of the map. US Vessels will have an additional BR of 1.1 on account of I am getting sick and tired of being sunk by them. 8) British vessels will no longer sUffER, they are to be equipped with full sonar and radar functionality. Sweden to be included in the near future equipped with different sized longboats and multi barrel arrow launchers. German heavy cruisers main armament load to be reduced to 6 in total for all guns. Japanese vessels to have hull modifications to the bow area to remove the sticky up bits. New Locations Antarctica - Secret German Base located in the middle of Antarctica. Map will provide 50km2 flat, empty space with pillbox as cap zone in the middle. Iron Sky Lunar Base - Secret German base on the moon. Home of the Götterdämmerung. Please be sure to write down your feedback in a strongly worded letter and send it to the following address: Gulag... I mean "Cool Castle place " Siberia Somewhere cold 420420 Russia The War Thunder Team
  26. 13 points
    Vehicle: Fw-190C Mode: SB Suggested Change: 5.0 to 4.3 or 4.7 (SB EC IV to SB EC III) Reason for change: It's performance isn't good enough to compete against planes from EC IV, at low altitude it's slower than many tier II fighters and almost every tier III fighter, and medium altitude it's a little faster, but still quite slow. Every other Fw-190A is way better at low and medium altitude and no one fights above 7km alt in SB EC, so it's not possible to make any use of it's high alt speed which is still slower than MB.5's speed and that plane is at 4.7 in SB. Also it's armament is worse than in many planes from the Fw-190A series and all of them have lower BR. Vehicle: Spitfire Mk Vc Mode: SB Suggested Change: 5.0 to 4.7 (SB EC IV to SB EC III) Reason for change: At this moment is almost the most unplayable British fighter in SB EC, it's forced to fight against much better airplanes like the BF-109K-4 or Fw-190D which are 60-80 km/h faster, also it has some overheating issues, for the most of time you are forced to fly with the throttle set to 80%. Good armament and turn rate doesn't really help if you can't even get close to anyone and you are constatly BnZ'ed by German fighters. Currently no one plays this airplane, because it's really hard to fly the Spitfires in SB (probably the most difficult airplane to fly in SB) after last big FM update and high Battle Rating doesn't really help at all. All you can do is hope that you will meet someone flying at really low speed (400-500 km/h) at low altitude and then hope that this player will start dogfighting with you (that will most likely not happen because everyone know that the Spitfire is good at turnfighting). Airplane is also very unstable compared to German airplanes, it's really hard to hit something. Vehicle: Whirlwind Mk.1 Mode: SB Suggested Change: 4.7 to 3.3 (SB EC III to SB EC II) Reason for change: Currently it's one of the worst fighters in SB EC III, I haven't seen it even once because of it's poor performance compared to other airplanes, people don't want to play it because BR 4.7 is just too high, even some heavy fighters like the Me 410 have much better performance and armament and every fighter like the BF-109 or Fw-190 can outturn and outrun it. Whirlwind would be much better at 3.3 (to make it available in SB EC II) and it wouldn't be overpowered compared to axis fighters. BF-109F-1/2, Fw-190A-1 and MC 202 are faster than the Whirlwind and have only slightly worse armament, it would be comparable to heavy fighters like the BF-110C, I-29 or Yak-2 KABB. Vehicle: A-36 Mode: SB Suggested Change: 2.7 to 3.3 Reason for change: The A-36 got a new flight model in 1.87 update, now it's much better than any tier II fighter and also has much better armament than most of them (can use gunpods and even with them it's faster than almost every tier II airplane). It's performance is now comparable to airplanes from SB EC III (3.7-4.7) and it even outperforms most of them at low altitude (max speed at sea level is ~585 km/h), while being also very maneuverable, it can easily outturn the BF-109G or Fw-190A at low altitude now. The only drawback is performance above 3000m ALT, most of airplanes outperforms it there but in SB EC III most of people are fighting below that altitude. Vehicle: P-39N-0 and Pokryshkin's P-39N-0 Mode: SB Suggested Change: 3.0 to 3.7 (SB EC II to SB EC III) Reason for change: This fighter is just simply much better than almost all tier II fighters, it's 80-100 km/h faster than the BF-109E-4 which has the same BR, and it's 30-50 km/h faster than the Fw-190A-1 which has BR 3.3, it also has a really good turn rate at high speed, amazing climb rate (only slightly worse compared to the BF-109E-4/F-4) and the only thing at which this fighter is not good is low speed turning, but if you just keep your speed it's untouchable for all tier II fighters, it's even faster than BR 3.7-4.0 fighters like the BF-109F-4 and the Fw-190A-4 while being also able to outturn them (when it has low fuel amount). It's also much better than the P-39K-1 which has the same BR. Vehicle: A2D-1 Mode: SB Suggested Change: 6.7 to 7.0 Reason for change: It's good level speed, climb rate and turn rate makes it better than other 6.7 planes in SB EC 5, it's also being spammed here because of the loadout, the best preset's total weight is 8,000 lbs of bombs.
  27. 13 points
    First of all, I'm not an American, and not a ''hurrrr durrrr US superior hurrrr durrr'' guy either. But I need one simple answer after getting my 23rd consecutive defeat with my M1 Abrams today. (23rd as in I counted the defeats when I played against Russia, Germany, Italy, Japan, France and Sweden with British tanks as allies, there are victories (a few) when I teamed up with Russians). Anyways, taking my M1 Abrams to a nice sniping position, or a position that has the advantage of flanking the enemy with success. And I'm being successful at finding these positions but there is a problem, a big one. I fire my 105mm gun (which is way worse than the 76mm installed on the Jumbo Sherman) and it always bounces even on the flat surfaces of those premium CV90105s. M1 Abrams, with that gun is completely incompetitive at that BR but this is another problem. As mentioned in the title, after getting my 23rd consecutive defeat against the coalition of Russia, Germany, Italy, Japan, France and Sweden, I'm really fed up and want to cry a million of tears due to disappointment, heartbreak and anger. Either there must be something wrong I'm doing or US top tier is entirely incompetitive against the nations mentioned above. I fire an APFSDS shell that penetrates 357mm to the side of a goddamn T-64B and my shell disappears. I fire an APFSDS shell that penetrates 357mm to the mantlet of a goddamn T-64B and my shell disappears. I fire an APFSDS shell that penetrates 357mm to the turret of a goddamn T-64B and my shell bounces. I fire an APFSDS shell that penetrates 357mm to the back of the T-64B and it destroys it engine without setting that goddamn thing on fire. And when that T-64B turns his turret towards on me, he one shoots me either from my side, from my turret cheek, turret side, turret ring, frontal plate (even angled), from my center mass or from my back side. And this is a goddamn T-64B, just try to imagine the pain of being attacked by Ariete PSOs, T-80s and Leclercs. There is no way you can do well with the M1 Abrams as far as I noticed. And here I am sitting on my chair with red eyes, exhausted as hell, waiting for M1A1 Abrams to be researched and having a feeling like that'd change nothing. And all those things aside, as NATO nations, US, UK, France, Germany and Italy should fight together against Russia and China alone, or maybe a coalition of Russia, China and Japan, especially at the top tier. I'll make a poll about this to get the opinions of others around here. I really regret my decision to invest my time for researching the US top tree, for real.
  28. 12 points
    I'm going to try to keep this as constructive as I can, because I feel this is something that needs discussing. I'm a heli pilot. Normally in tank realistic battles, but I use helicopter enduring confrontation to grind when I need parts or if there's a new chopper I want. Now, the recent change that made it so helicopters can't spawn at the start of the match with ATGMs was amazing. It was badly needed and I feel it solved one of the main issues with top tier tank RB. (Nothing was worse than spawning in a tank and seeing 5-6 black dots climbing straight up on the horizon.) But there's still some issues I'm seeing with helicopter EC. As it stands right now with all the counters to helis and the way research is rewarded, heli EC is really the only way to grind for helicopters. Tank RB doesn't give enough rewards to justify the time and cost for helis. And heli EC is guaranteed rewards. So people grind in there. But the problem is the Ka-50. It can spawn with 12 Vikhr missiles with a 10km range and proximity fuses. Every other helicopter in the game has AAMs that require a lock on. Meaning they have to be under 4km generally. The Ka-50 can sit at 9km and easily spawn kill AH-1Gs and MI-4s taking off of their helipads. And with the most recent update, the Vikhr got a buff to its guidance systems. Meaning you no longer have to manually lead them with your mouse. Now if you lock a target, the missiles lead for you. For the vast majority of helicopters, there's also no warning system for them since they're not seekers like Stingers or Iglas. You'll just randomly explode without warning only to see it was some Ka-50 (or now Ka-52) well outside of your range. It used to be, you could fly under 20 meters and the proximity fuses would struggle to detonate. It still works a bit, but with the new guidance they'll more easily direct impact you even from extreme range. Making the proximity fuse unnecessary. It's beyond frustrating both for vet players trying to get newly released helis and new players taking out their Alouettes, Scouts, Mi-4s, and AH-1s for the first time only to get spawn killed by someone hovering 3km up with 50-60 kills and maybe 12 deaths. The chat in these hour long matches has turned into a toxic hate filled Ka-50 pilot bash-fest where frustration and anger runs rampant. And as much as I hate it too, I also can't really fault them for it. Because as it stands, abusing the Ka-50 in heli EC is the fastest and easiest way by a HUGE magnitude to unlock Russian helicopters. So while I know heli EC isn't a big priority (the issues with the matchmaker demonstrate this) it's still what everyone uses to grind choppers. What are some constructive suggestions or feedback people might have to deal with this issue? Maybe a tiered system so 10.0 and 10.3 BR helis aren't feasting on 8.0 and 8.7 helis? I'd say take out the proximity fuse on the Vikhr, but I'm not sure if legally they can tweak that with what I've heard about premium vehicle changes after the release.
  29. 12 points
    The other day I was in a discussion and a player attempted to discount my opinion based on my stats. Quoting some thunder skill statistics and my perfered BRs I enjoy playing. To other players in the same position I would like to offer some advice and ignore these people. There are to many variables to consider in skill and no matter what this game and forum are inclusive so we all get to give our opinion and play. To those who would trash someone else your probably not so good that your skill supersedes their opinion. The player stated he had a higher KPD. He did but he plays a different game. I research every vehicle in a line and spade all. They buy built premiums and don't have grinding pains. My 1.2 KPD is spread across 24 pages of mostly none premium vehicles mostly spaded without a premium account. Their 2.5 is spread among 5 pages of mostly premiums. I spend my time trying to complete daily and special tasks. The Can-do-approach I'm doing atm requires 1 hvy, 1 med or lgt, and 1 SPG to get a kill and a win per game. So I J out after getting 1 kill vs attempting to get max kills to pad stats. If it's a first strike challenge I race full hearted to the front trying to ensure a first strike, you can imagine how that goes sometimes. I play vehicles that are better left alone (like the PO2 or.the M3 GMC) so I complete my collection vs hidding in the best tanks in the game to validate my game play. I even saw a guy doing this stat shaming in a battle. Obviously I'm alittle salty about this as it was mildly embarrassing as I am a competent player and I felt shortly like that might not be the case as this player attempted to embarrass me out of my opinion. After looking close at this players game play I'm pretty certain they are not even that good so dont let people discourage your play or opinion.
  30. 12 points
    These suggestions are intended for RB. Sorted by current RB BR. Fixed wing aircraft F-4E / F-4EJ / FGR2 from 10.3 to 11.0. Being the only planes with flares so far they should not be put up against subsonic planes like Sabres and MiG-17F's. These planes are in a league of their own right now. MiG-21SMT / MF from 10.3 to 10.7. Lacking flares, but still with good missiles, these planes are almost worthy of the same BR as the previously mentioned planes, yet lack the flares and the all around capabilities when it comes to CAS. The fact that they are the same BR as the MiG-21F-13 also makes that plane worthless right now. J35D from 10.3 to 10.7. About on par with the MiG-21SMT, lacking the missiles, but making up for it in terms of flight characteristics. J32B from 9.3 to 9.7. One of the best jets tier for tier right now, easily capable of carrying in a 9.3 / 9.7 match. The only thing holding it back is the high speed compression. Significantly better than the MiG-17F. Etendard IVM from 9.3 to 9.0. I don't really understand why this plane is at 9.3. It's just not good enough. The fact that it shares the same BR at the moment as the J32B makes no sense to me at all. A-4B from 8.7 to 9.0 or remove airspawn. This thing suffers from a lot of the same things the R2Y2 did back in the day. A smart pilot in one of these can keep the enemy team busy until the rest of the team shows up, preventing the other team from ever getting a chance. It has the speed and manoeuvrability, while lacking some top speed at low altitude, which I would argue makes it a good balance. G.91 pre from 8.7 to 8.3. It's a weaker version of the G.91 R/1, which sits at the same BR. Lowering it a notch would give it some purpose. MiG-15 from 8.7 to 8.3. Simply not as good as the MiG-15bis, has no place in the game currently. F9F-8 from 8.3 to 8.7. A good, sturdy plane with lots of ammo and 4 missiles, it can easily take its place at 8.7, which would also let the F9F-2 and 5 have their place. Sea Hawk FGA.6 from 8.0 to 7.7 or give it heat seekers like the Mk.100. It's simply not as capable as the premium version. It's also worse than the Meteors at equal tier in every way that I can think of. Me 262 C-1a from 8.0 to 7.7. The only reason it's up at 8.0 is because of the booster rockets, but it has less than the C-2b model, making the C-2b simply better. F-89B from 7.7 to 8.0. A good plane with fantastic guns with lots of ammo. This plane can tear the enemy team apart with ease when done right. F-89D from 7.3 to 8.0. A strong plane that is nearly impossible to counter as long as the pilot don't mess up badly. The only desperate measure some people have, going head on, is the worst thing you can do against it. MiG-9(l) from 7.3 to 7.7. One of the best tech tree planes at 7.3, leaving the early model in the dust. An increase in the BR would let both shine. R2Y2 Kai V1 from 7.3 to 7.0. Having lost the bomber spawn these planes are nowhere near as devastating as they were previously. Having them all at the same BR makes little sense. Moving the earliest model down a notch would let it shine. Kikka from 6.7 to 7.0. It's like a Me 262 A-1a that trades firepower for flight characteristics. A trade many see as beneficial. French AD-4 from 6.0 to 5.7 It's simply not as good as the American one in its intended role, ground pounding. CW-21 from 2.0 to 2.3. Look at the one plane nearly every stat padder in this game uses. It's this plane. Seal clubbing at low tier kill new players motivation to keep playing, lowering player retention, hurting the game severely in the long run. Low tier needs to be balanced above all else if this game is to thrive in the future. This plane, as it is right now, is not balanced. Helicopters Current helicopters at 10.3 to 10.7 Decompression. Current helicopter at 10.0 to 10.3 A UH-1C and the likes have nothing to compete with when facing a Ka-50, Mi-35M or G-Lynx. SA.342M Gazelle from 9.7 to 9.3. It shares its BR with helicopters such as the Mi-24P, which is able to carry twice the loadout when it comes to both air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles, while also carrying dumb rockets. This doesn't make for good balance. Sitting so close to 10.0, with aircraft with massively improved capabilities also hampers this helicopter. SA.341F Gazelle from 9.3 to 9.0. 2 missiles, for either killing tanks or planes, simply gives this helicopter too weak a staying power to warrant such a high BR. UH-1C from 9.3 to 9.0. With the UH-1B being at 8,7, this aircraft could be dropped down a bit as well, lacking for self defence, but making up for it with a ok ground attack loadout. BO 105 PAH-1 from 9.3 to 9.0. This would help set it apart from the other BO 105, while also keeping it balanced compared to the other helicopters. UH-1D from 9.0 to 8.7. This would bring it on par with the American version, and compliment the German 8,7 ground line-up well. Mi-24A from 9.0 to 8.7 With the BMP-3 going down to 8.7, this vehicle could compliment it well, trading two air-to-ground missiles for better range when compared to the western counterparts. It would also give the Russian forces a better chance at a 8.7 line-up, with their strong 8.3 to back it up. Tanks M1A2, ADATS, Leo 2a5, Strv 122, T-80U from 10.3 to 10.7 I know this would make it hard on the Match Maker, but it would help create room for more decompression at lower tiers as well. Leo 2a4, Strv 121 from 10.0 to 10.3 In a fight where both are aware of each other, these are some of the best tanks at this BR. Compared to the M1 Abrams or the Type 90, those vehicles simply aren't as good. CV 90105 TML from 9.0 to 9.3/9.7 Having commander thermals on a 9.0 tank with that gun and mobility is simply ludicrous.
  31. 12 points
  32. 11 points
    War Thunder community, I have always been a supporter and purchaser of premium content. Always trying to support the developers with their progression of a great game. I enjoy playing it and sticking up for the community that has positive feedback to give, until now. Gaijin, what have you done to the Swedish premium STRV 103-0? I'm sad to say that it's absolute garbage now. I payed $83.00 CDN for this tank and now its near useless at BR 7.7. It cant hold a distance target from elevation or flat level ground. The tank rolls down the slightest grade and shakes violently under optics magnification. I feel like I've been sold and duped with your modification of this premium. You've changed statistics, handling and overall it pushes me to ask for a refund on this specific premium. I understand this is a less then positive post but honestly, I don't think I will purchase another premium vehicle with your bait and switch tactics that you have shown the community. Please go back to the drawing board and rethink your marketing ploys and remember that you have a community that backs you. Shed a little light on your clientele.
  33. 11 points
    Title, engage your brain and aim. There's no reason a subcaliber projectile should destroy an entire vehicle. Period. The whole mechanic is a crutch for bad players.
  34. 11 points
    You have a good start moving the BMP-3 down, along with the Tu-2(s). I have some additional suggestions. Priority/Definitive Section: T-62M-1(AB,RB): 9.0>8.7 This tank is very much outclassed at 9.0. The other 9.0 premiums and other vehicles are faster, more maneueverable, and have thermals to complement their traits. The T-62M-1 is slow and it's armor only works against chemical rounds. 8.7 would make for a good BR. Obj 685(AB,RB): 9.0>8.7 The Only 685 offers only a bit more speed and APFSDS compared to the Obj 906, but comes with the downside of having a longer reload, and is a larger target. It is more of a side grade to the Obj 906, rather than a upgrade. As such it should only be slightly higher in my opinion due to the higher mobility and APFSDS, but not too high due to having no thermals, and the large profile. Shturm(AB,RB): 9.3>8.7 The Shturm missile carrier is an awkward machine to use. Having no gun, and only missiles without any coax either, it is very situational, and should be dropped to 8.7 due to it's drawbacks. T-64A(AB,RB): 9.3>9.0 The T-64A was considered the contemporary for the XYZ tanks, which sit at 9.0. It doesn't make much sense that the T-64A is 9.3 still. It is slow, it's armor is penetrated by tanks two BR steps below it, it has no laser rangefinders, no thermals, and poor survivability. Hence it should be dropped to 9.0. T-80B(AB,RB): 10.0>9.7 Due to the armor nerfs, the T-80B isn't much of a 10.0 anymore. Due to it's now lack luster armor, poor reverse gear, terrible survivability because of the ammo carousel+3 crew, and poor gun handling, it's more of a 9.7 in my opinion. Move Highest BR To 10.7: With many more vehicles and players right now, the top BR can be moved to 10.7 to aid the 9.3 vehicles which are crushed by current 10.3s. Optional/Disputable Section: Folder T-64A to T-10M: The T-64A is simply not a meta vehicle. It is more of an "RP+SL roadblock" for players trying to reach other Soviet tanks. A folder would be a potential solution. T-72A(RB): 9.3>9.0 The T-72A also had received armor nerfs in the past update and so it's armor is of less use. To replace the foldering of the T-64A, the T-72A can take it's place. T-64B(RB): 9.7>9.3 The T-72B at 9.7 completely outclassed the T-64B in armor, so it doesn't make much sense they are at the same BR. Possibly, lower the T-64B to 9.3. Tu-14T(RB): 8.0>7.7 The Tu-14T offers no benefit compared to the IL-28 at the same BR, so it should be maybe dropped as it's a slow big jet bomber. A little tidbit: PC-451 to 2.3 please.
  35. 11 points
    If you are moving down the Belfast to 5.3, then move the Southampton as well. I don't actually think there is any need for justification why. At the same time, you may as well move the Leander to 5.0, as she is nowhere near the same ballpark as the Southampton/Belfast.
  36. 11 points
    Bad This is a distraction from actually playing the game. What is the "?" on some segments purpose? With short time and a lot of work needed to finish a goal, the "?" is unnecessarily stressful. What has space to do with WW2 historic themed game? What has Saturn V have to do with goal? (why not Soyuz-U?) The amount of play time needed to progress is onerous (excessive effort). The time given to earn the parts needed is too short (compared to others, like SUMMER and FROST). "Random drops" might cycle in dropping the same item, or never drop a certain item. Computer randomization has potential issues. Even with massive time investment, possibly not have all the "parts" needed. Some Game Modes like "Sim Air EC" and possibly Naval EC do not count. Good Rewards simply for game play. Attention to the market place for those not familiar. Makes use of market place, which has benefits such as earning GJC instead of buying it. Some parts in each of the 3 "market place" events are good, could be made into a good addition to game. Ugly WT needs effort in other areas, not an event this complex. IMHO misses the "Value added" target by wide margin. "You Have Created An Item" after processing each raw materiel (Iron, Aluminum, etc) is very tedious.
  37. 11 points
    My feedback. So far I've been playing for 12 hours. In that 12 hours I've gotten 20 fuel. For all three rockets you need 240 fuel. That means that in 12 hours of straight gameplay I've finished 8% of it. So to get the vehicle I would need to play the game for 10 hours a day for every day of the event. However, then we have to take into account that each launch takes 9 HOURS! 144 + 27 hours for the launches = 171 hours. The 14 day event is 336 hours. I sleep for 8 hours a day which means I have 244 hours of awake time. That means that I have to spend 70% of my time away playing the game if I want the vehicle. This is my feedback.... Gaijin, that's an un-reasonable and un-realistic expectation from people. April fools' is supposed to be for everyone, not the small fraction of players that are willing to spend 2 weeks sat in-front of their computer 11 hours a day. April fools is supposed to be about having a bit of fun. Not an opportunity for you to forcefully push the marketplace onto your player-base. Stop creating problems and then offering the marketplace as a solution.
  38. 11 points
    From the 1st of April 12:00 GMT until the 6th of April at 09:00 GMT Comrades! As you may know, in times of financial market instability, one of the most popular investment strategies is buying precious metals (such as gold, palladium, stalinium, etc.). We want to be sure you have diversified your portfolios with precious metals and we offer you Stalinium with a 60% discount on today's market price. Hurry up! As you know, Stalinium prices can only go up (price drops are mathematically impossible). Based on historical market data, we predict that despite the 60% discount, the base price of this bundle will increase by 5% every day. "Stalinium" Bundle - 60% off! 157 tons of Stalinium includes: T-34-57 (1943) (Rank 3, USSR); KV-122 (Rank 4, USSR); T-34-100 (Rank 4, USSR); IS-2 “Revenge for the Hero brother” (Rank 4, USSR); Unique title “The Wolf of Snail Street”; Unique decal: Investor Snail. 100 40 Store "Scarce Goods" decoration Also upon purchase of any War Thunder shop item during this offer from the 01.04 to 06.04, you will receive a unique decoration - "Scarce goods"! The offer is valid for all platforms. IMPORTANT: This is not investment advice. You should always do your own research (Remember! It's faster with a Premium account). The final price of the bundle will depend on whether you already have some of the tanks or not. Be sure to login to the store to see your individual price! Note! You can also get a unique title and decal, if you log in to the game from the 1st of April to the 6th April and gain at least one victory, and at the same time you have previously purchased all separate vehicles which are included in the bundle above. Title and decal will be assigned after the 7th of April to all users who have fulfilled these conditions. The offer is valid for PC, Mac and Linux users only. PS4, Xbox and DMM users will be able to get a 50% discount voucher every day for vehicles taking part in this offer: April 1 from 12:00 GMT - 50% discount voucher for IS-2 “Revenge for the Hero brother”, expired after 24 hours if not used; April 2 from 09:00 GMT - 50% discount voucher for T-34-57 (1943), expired after 24 hours if not used; April 3 from 09:00 GMT - 50% discount voucher for KV-122, expired after 24 hours if not used; April 4 from 09:00 GMT - 50% discount voucher for T-34-100, expired after 24 hours if not used. PS4, Xbox and DMM users will also be able to receive bonus title and decal according to the conditions above. The War Thunder Team
  39. 10 points
    The problem In arcade ground battles, it is more and more common to see players with only one tank in their line-up, especially at BR>7.0. This behavior is indirectly encouraged by Gaijin with the introduction of many high-BR Premium vehicles and it is certainly not the purpose of this suggestion to blame or "punish" these players. Yet, one major negative consequence of this phenomenon is that a team can have plenty of players with only one tank, whereas the other team consists almost exclusively of players with a full line-up (3 tanks in ground AB), putting the first team and their players with a full line-up at a clear disadvantage. As shown in the addendum below, unbalanced games due to the uneven distribution between the two teams of players not fielding a full line-up are quite common. My suggestion Once the 32 players of a given ground arcade battle have been chosen by the Matchmaker, the Matchmaker should try to balance at best the number of players with only one or two tanks between the two teams, in the same way top BR players are (or should be...) distributed as equally as possible between the two teams. Another and non-exclusive possibility would be to limit the number of players with only one or two tanks to a reasonable fraction of the players in battle, say a maximum of 8 players with one or two tanks among the 32 players selected for a given battle, or a maximum or 4 or 5 such players per team. This suggestion aims at restoring the balance in battles with a large number of players with an incomplete line-up and hence could benefit all players (with complete or incomplete line-up). Currently, when the number of these players is significantly higher in one team, this leads to absurdly unbalanced games, usually ending quickly with the swift defeat of this team. Addendum: How common are very unbalanced games due to the uneven distribution of one-tank players between both teams? My experience (15000+ spawns in Ground AB in Tier 6-7 tanks) is that there are typically 10 out of 32 players coming to a given battle with an incomplete line-up at BR 9.0 and above (and, very often, more than 10...). Let us consider that such a battle is "balanced" if these players are distributed 4-6, 5-5, or 6-4 between the two teams. In other words, a battle is considered as balanced if each team has no less than 4 one-tank players out of 10. The probability P(4) that this happens can be shown to be just below 75% (see below). This means that 25% or one quarter of high-BR battles are unbalanced just due to the very uneven distribution of the typically 10 one-tank players (0-10, 1-9, 2-8, 3-7), which is far from negligible! Note that, assuming again 10 players out of 32 with an incomplete line-up, there is only a P(5)=30% chance for their distribution between the two teams to be exactly even (5-5). Nerd's corner: To compute P(j), the probability to have both teams with no less than j one-tank players out of 10, one can use the following formula involving binomial coefficients: And what about ground RB? Realistic ground battles with many players fielding only one tank (and no plane/helicopter) are also very common at high BR, but this phenomenon affects the various nations in very different ways (for instance, currently, Sweden is certainly the most affected nation, with the introduction of the new Premium CV90 at BR 9.0). Because of the nations vs nations nature of ground RB, the first suggestion aiming at balancing the number of one-tank players between the two teams would be probably impractical to implement. However, limiting the number of such players in each team to 4 or 5 out of 16 players would be easier to implement and could restore some balance in many realistic ground battles.
  40. 10 points
    I'd like to preface these suggestions with the observation that the F-100 and MiG-19 (when first introduced) sat at BRs of 9.7 and 10.0, effectively a whole 0.7/1.0 BR above aircraft like the F-86F and MiG-15bis. This was completely reasonable. However, the MiG-21MF/SMT, F-4E/EJ and FGR.2 were all introduced with a BR of 10.3. There is as much of a performance gap between F-86Fs and the F-100 as there is between the F-100 and F-4E/MiG-21MF/etc., so the BRs of the newer aircraft should reflect this difference. At sea level, there is roughly a difference of 100kph top speed between most 9.0 aircraft and the F-100. The F-100 has roughly double the climbrate of most 9.0 aircraft. It accelerates much better, but turns worse at low speed. It has 4x AIM-9E, whereas most 9.0s have no missiles at all. The same differences exist between the F-100D and many newly-introduced 10.3 aircraft. F-4E : 10.3 > 11.0 (RB) See above. Compared to the F-100D (BR 10.0), the F-4E is over 100kph faster (at sea level), has roughly double the climbrate, much higher acceleration, 90x flares and 4x AIM-9J missiles, which are far superior to the F-100's AIM-9Es. Compared to the F-4C (also BR 10.3), the F-4E has slightly greater climbrate and acceleration, better turnrate, as well as flares and AIM-9J missiles. F-4EJ : 10.3 > 11.0 (RB) Same reasoning as F-4E, however the EJ trades even higher top speed (~210kph faster than F-100D at sea level) for similar turnrate to F-4C. Phantom FGR.2 : 10.3 > 11.0 (RB) The FGR.2 is in many ways better than the F-4C, which also sits at 10.3. In comparison, the FGR.2 has 60kph better top speed at sea level, much higher climbrate and acceleration, 90x flares and 4x AIM-9D missiles (which are in some ways better than AIM-9J due to having longer range). MiG-21MF : 10.3 > 10.7 (RB) This aircraft is superior to the MiG-21F-13 (10.3) in every way except turnrate (and top speed, which is identical). The MiG-21MF has greater acceleration, climbrate and has 4x R-60 missiles. However, it lacks flares and has generally inferior speed, climbrate and acceleration compared to the Phantoms. MiG-21SMT : 10.3 > 10.7 (RB) Same reasoning as MiG-21MF. The MiG-21SMT is superior to the MiG-21F-13 in every way except turnrate and top speed. The SMT lacks flares, but its acceleration and climbrate are similar to the Phantom FGR.2. However, its instantaneous turnrate is slightly worse than the MiG-21MF. Lightning F.6 : 10.0 > 10.3 (RB) Currently, the Lightning F.6 does not fare well at 10.0, but this is only due to BR compression. The probability of getting into a match against 9.0 aircraft is extremely low, so it will regularly fight against 10.3 aircraft which are overall better than the Lightning. However, compared to other 10.0 aircraft, the Lightning F.6 appears to be superior. Compared to the F-100D, the Lightning has greater acceleration, climbrate and top speed (at all altitudes), and slightly better turnrate. The Lightning has only 2 missiles, but it can carry Red Top missiles with much better performance compared to the F-100's AIM-9E.
  41. 10 points
    All Decompress BR 7.3-8.7 area by adding 1 or 2 BR steps (0.3 or 0.4) in between for better balancing of tanks in it. US All 76mm carrying shermans down one BR step (-0.3 or -0.4) Reason: They're good but not that good. T34 6.7 -> 7.0 Reason: Same as T29 with slower reload, which is still respectable, but much higher penetration with it's AP shell. T32 7.3 -> 7.0 Reason: Better armoured than T34 but has a much weaker gun which has a long reload. Has easily distinguishable and sizable weakspots that can be exploited. T32E1 7.7 -> 7.3 Reason: Better than T32 but is nowhere close to M103 or other 7.7s. Germany M48A2C 7.0 -> 7.3 Reason: It's the same as US counterparts at 7.3 M48A2GA2 8.3 -> 8.0 Reason: APFSDS is nice but the lack of armour, mobility and most importantly stabilizer at that high BR warrants a BR reduction Begleitpanzer 57 8.3 -> 8.0 Reason: No stabilizer and horrible accuracy make the main gun effectively useless beyond 200m while stationary. USSR Upcoming event tank Obj 279 8.3 -> 9.0 Reason: It's better than other nation's, and it's own, 8.7 tanks. It got a stabilizer (compare to M48A2GA2 for example), it got mobility of a medium tank and can keep up with MBTs, 130mm APHE nuke that overmatches everything and has the penetration capabilities of L7 APDS (if the shell velocity is corrected then it would be better than most APFSDS in 8.7/9.0), decent reload, turret armour is immune (except pixel weakspots nobody can hit) to 105mm DM23, DM12 and 120mm DM13. Hull is barely penetrable by those shells, not even talking about conventional shells 7.3 and up, which this monster is supposed to face, even APDS is out of question.
  42. 10 points
    SB Air mode feedback: Before I start let me say that I'd like you to pay attention to fact that SB works differently than other modes. We have fixed BR brackets and inside them BR affect plane's availability. Most of the changes I propose will mean the plane will remain in the same EC tier. This means it will meet the same enemy in the same battles but will only require slightly more SP to reflect stronger nature of the planes. By no means those changes would affect balance by forcing said plane to meet different enemies. A2D: this plane is need of urgent BR increase. Right now in SB it is at lowest BR for EC5 which allow it to be spammed and many just abuse it for suicide runs. It should be 7.3 but it have to be at least 7.0. I own A2D and I've flown multiple times. there is no reason that this plane remains at 6.7 regardless if you use it as bomber, attacker or fighter. Main problem is that as long as plane remains at 6.7 it can be spammed (there is no crew lock when you die in EC5) and many abusers do so. German Sea Hawk: it need to be moved to EC6 (8.0). Right now it's in EC5 and it's no only one of the best performing fighters there (fastests) but it also is THE ONLY ONE with AAMs. Each thing alone does not make it OP but combination of both means that in right hands it's untouchable. F4U-4: It should be 5.3 (or better 5.7). They fit well into EC4 but they are among the strongest "base BR" planes there. US have other nice 5.0 planes (like P-51D-5) and gap between F4U-4 vs other nation's 5.0 planes is substantial (in right hands). 5.3 would be great as they would still be easily accessible but will no longer be "spammable" Chinese P-47D-28: It's exact copy of US P-47D-28 yet it's almost full BR lower. 4.3 is already quite low for P-47D28 (US) and 3.7 is way too low for Chinese variant. It should at least be 4.3 as US one but both can easily go to 5.0 P-59 I like the fact it goes up but it's only jet that is allowed into EC4 game and that puts it at serious advantage. Since all other jets are in EC5 (BR 6.7+) P-59 should go there since it represents the same quantum leap over props. It might be worst jet in game (I do not think so) but it's still a jet and can't be really compared to prop planes with exception of the very top BR of EC4 maybe (6.3) I could write many, many more suggestions like Whirlwind being good 1.0 BR to high or spit Vc being forced into EC4 but those above are most urgent in my opinion. EDIT: After "confusing" reactions and info from @esapekkis I've checked my suggestion and removed P-51D30. It is already 5.3 but people use exploit to defeat crew lock and make it spammable but that's another unrelated issue.
  43. 10 points
    Regardless if the Crafting events are separate or not, the main point is that the majority of the community's feedback on Operation Summer and Battlefield Engineer were NEGATIVE. This should have easily been noticed and taken more seriously. These build/craft style of events are unnecessarily designed in a way to make the player feel as if he/she can't progress forward without the correct parts/recipes unless paying for it with money or spending reckless hours upon hours of playing just to realize they are still not meeting the needed requirements. This is very inconsiderate and shameful of the developers because believe it or not, many of us here including myself have outside lives such as work, school and other necessities to be done during the day even amidst the COVID-19 outbreak. While this statement might not be true for all, it should be said that sitting down and playing (god knows how many hours) needed to participate "Space Race" Event is rather horrible and unhealthy itself. Something needs to be done, and it does not mean adding the same 'separate extra' event that people don't like nor want...
  44. 10 points
    No. You are not going to see that next patch.
  45. 10 points
    No it's 500 KE. Which is perfectly fine. You realize Soviet tanks have the worst: Reverse gear Turret traverse Gun elevation speed Gun depression Slower reloads And most importantly of all, crap survivability compared to all those tanks? Huge ammo rack. Huge cannon breech. Only 3 crew. Also only 2 tanks, the T-80B and T-80U have thermals. Also no CITV. AND the T-72A and T-80B got their armor nerfed to 360mm and 380mm vs KE. So they are lolpened by DM13 Pay attention to just more than "guns n armor."
  46. 10 points
    What if we got this for this year's April Fool's? Gaijin pls
  47. 10 points
    Nice! 1) Can we fix the issues with the German Admiral Graf Spree (Either nerf it, remove it or let other nations have ships with big guns) 2) Fix and improve EC battles (Fix = FPS, PL and disconnect problems) That would do nicely, everything else is a bonus.
  48. 10 points
  49. 9 points
    give us back panter 2 and tiger 10,5cm, don't be idiots, U-SH doesn't belong to the game, there is many problems in game but Gaijin think only about money, xxxx the balance, give us money