Jump to content

Battle Rating changes - 17.08.2021


cover_facebook_answers_developers_07a5fc

  • Planned Battle Rating changes have been implemented

To open the Battle Rating changes list in a new tab, click here!

 

 

If you think we should make some additional changes in the future 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.

 

Information from previous topic:

 

Firstly, regarding Naval Forces. In this release, we did not make any changes to the fleet's BR, but we still received very noticeable requests from you, including the separation of battleships from cruisers.

 

The answer to them is this: we are working to raise the fleet's BR ceiling. Stay tuned for news and thanks for your feedback..

 

Some additional changes from your feedback:

 

Based on your feedback, the planed change of the Leopard 2PL and T-90 was reconsidered and will now remain at their current BR.

 

The IPM1 will also undergo ammunition changes as a result of its new BR.  M735 and M774 will be removed. M833 will be moved from IV - I tier and M900 will be introduced into IV tier modifications.

 

The 76 Jumbo Sherman will not increase and will remain at its current BR.

 

Ariete - BR will be reduced from 11.0 to 10.7 (RB)

 

Panzer IVG (Italy) - BR will be reduced from 4.3 to 4.0 (AB) and 3.7 from 4.0 (RB)


Some responses on several discussed vehicles:

 

M1A1 - At its current BR and position, the M1A1 is performing at an acceptable level without any immediate indications it is in need of ammunition changes or other adjustments. We have received several suggestions for new ammunition / upgrade packages which we are aware of. But at this time, the tank shows no indication of a lack of performance compared to other contemporaries. If a situation arises after the current planned changes are implemented where upon the next review, the tank has dropped as a result, various options can be considered and we will closely follow the situation. But this will of course depend on a review of its position after we have had some time to review the effects of the current changes with the IPM1.

 

Black Prince - A common suggestion is for this vehicle to be lowered in BR in Realistic Battles. Currently however, among all Heavy and Medium tanks in RB, at rank IV, this vehicle has the highest efficiency compared to its counterparts. At this time, the vehicle is currently not in any position to receive a lower BR based on how it is currently performing. 

 

AMX-50 Surblindé - Currently this vehicle is performing more effectively than than its peer, the AMX-50 Surbaissé, despite the later being at a lower rating. So a reduction for the Surblindé would be illogical given the performance of both machines currently in game.

 

French Roland 1 - The French Roland currently has an efficiency equal to that of the French Crotale NG and higher than the German FlaRakPz. As such, there is no need to introduce any further ammunition upgrades to this machine at present that would further boost its performance when it is currently already at above sufficient levels. 

 

Strf 9040 BILL - A lot of comparisons have been raised about specific attributes of this vehicle compared to others of a similar class / nature. It is important to understand that a vehicle can be inferior to the individual vehicle with which it is compared, by some values or attributes, but at the same time have an efficiency that is still higher than the average on its BR. In this case, the Strf 9040's efficiency exceeds both Bradley and Dardo.

 

 

Centurion Mk 5 AVRE has become even more dangerous with the introduction of the overpressure mechanic in War Thunder. Its 165 mm cannon is now very difficult to resist, so in Arcade battles (where it is much easier to aim with it), the vehicle will be slightly increased. From 7.3 to 7.7. Tanks with guns with low ballistic performance have a number of disadvantages (aimed shooting at long distances, projectile flight time and its trajectory), which create problems in Realistic battles. Such units are much more effective in arcade battles, and most often they have weapons that shoot powerful high-explosive shells, one hit of which, on average, is enough to destroy most opponents at its rank and even higher. At the moment, Centurion has shown itself to be a very effective tank in AB at the current battle rating and therefore deservedly moves to the "major league", that is, gets a higher battle rating. This tank will not lose its destructive power, but some of the tanks, which were frankly weak in the event of encounters with it, will receive some improvement in the situation.

 

IS-6 - Some of your comments mentioned a decrease in survivability with the appearance of an increasing number of opponents with HEAT shells. The statistics agree with this and the tank will be reduced in RB. 

 

We also received comments on the effectiveness of the T-55AM-1. Our data suggests that the machine is efficient and in place. But the standard T-55A will be reduced to 8.0. AM-1 is currently performing as intended at 8.3, having an efficiency indicator corresponding to the average value at its rank. But having paid attention to the T-55A, we observe its significantly lagging behind in efficiency from the T-55AM-1, with an equal number of battles fought. Therefore, it was decided not to change the rating of the T-55AM-1 with balanced efficiency, but to reduce the combat rating of the T-55A. Along with it, the American M60A1 AOS and the German 48A2 GA2, which are somewhat inferior in efficiency to the T-55A.

 

In fact, we have considered many more of your proposals, but there are several that greatly conflict. For example, although the premium German TAM 2IP differs from the researchable TAM in terms of performance characteristics and weapons, this does not help the indicated light tank, and statistically both vehicles are very close.

 

Separately, we would like to touch upon the issue of reduction for the T-34-85 (D-5T). To explain this, let's use a simple comparison with vehicles on the same Battle Rating. For the D-5T modification, these are the Tiger H1 and Panther D, the effectiveness of which, according to statistics, is at the level of similar heavy and medium tanks. At the same time, the effectiveness of the T-38-85 (D-5T) is noticeably inferior to other medium tanks on its BR, and this is the main reason for the decrease in the BR of this particular vehicle. You also actively recommended lowering the Battle rating for similar modifications of the famous T-34, since some of them are not much different from the version in question (D-5T). In fact, the differences turned out to be significant, which ultimately significantly affects the overall efficiency in battle, and with it, the statistics, the gap between which is noticeable. These same variants are doing rather well statistically, so they do not require changes from their current BRs at this time.

Aviation

Spitfire Mk 24 - Will remain at its current BR, but we will closely monitor the efficiency of this aircraft. As a number of aircraft have changed near this BR, we will retain the current BR and review the situation in the next BR update. If it remains high in efficiency, it will be increased. 

 

Similarly, the  Me 163 B-0 Will remain at its current BR, but we will also closely follow the efficiency of this aircraft. 

 

Ki-84 Hei - Will remain at its current BR. But again, will be monitored for next time.

 

AV-8A - Will be increased to 9.7 BR based on your feedback.

 

A6M5s otsu/hei - Currently, these aircraft are the leaders in terms of efficiency in their battle ratings. As such, the planned increase will take place.

 

Kikka - This aircraft currently suits its BR in terms of its characteristics and performance.

 

CL-13 Mk.4 - Currently this aircraft has one of the best efficiencies for its BR. So a decrease is currently not possible. 

 

H-34 (France and USA) - Will be lowered to 8.0 based on your feedback. 

 

The final amendment will be the reduction in RB for the EC-665 Tiger HAP helicopter, which is good in terms of characteristics, but its main anti-tank weapon - the HOT-3 ATGM is inferior in performance characteristics to analogues of the armed Hellfire. Decreased from 10.3 to 10.0.

 
Simulator Specific:

 

G.91 YS will receive a decrease in Simulator mode from 9.7 to 9.3 due to the lack of radar and RWRs, which at the 7th rank of ED are already a necessity and not just a pleasant bonus. 

 

J-7II is a licensed Chinese copy of the MiG-21F-13. Although the Chinese fighter received slightly more powerful engines and another 30mm cannon, we agree that the gap in the Battle rating of the Simulator mode between 10.3 for the J-7II and 9.7 for the MiG-21F-13 is too large. The Chinese J-7II will receive a BR reduction.

 

F-104G (China) and F-104J (Japan) - The vehicles are nearly identical in overall performance, but the BR of the Chinese in SB is 0.3 units higher. We will reduce the BR, the Chinese F-104G in SB.

 

 

Thanks!

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nation: USA
Vehicle: P-51D-5 Mustang

Game mode: Simulator Battle
BR change: from 5.0 > to 4.7
Reason:

 

The worse plane of 5.0 - 6.3 is the P-51 D5.

 

It has terrible climb rate, terrible roll rate, terrible turn rate, terrible turn radius, terrible acceleration, sluggish,  terrible top speed at steep dive, insufficient top speed at shallow dive, very high stall speed, cannot sustain damage, easy to catch fire, hard to put out fire, It drains extremely energy at maneuver. Unstable and wobbly due to lack of Dorsal fin unlike the other P-51D series. 

 

It faces enemies that he has no chance to fight against. Even planes at 4.7 are better than it.

Planes such as F4U-4, Mb5, P-47 D28, G55, A7M2, Bf 109 G14, Bf 109 G6, Wyvern, Ki-84 ko, La-7, Fw 190 A5 U2-U12 have either same or lower BR yet they all perform superior compared to the P-51 D5.

P-51 D5 has literally no chance to fight against any of those planes. All of them have performance far superior to the P-51 D5.

 

And not only that the strength of the P-51 D5 should be it's top speed and yet those planes accelerate faster than the P-51 D5 and diver faster than the P-51 D5 and some of them even out run the Mustang on the shallow dive.

Planes such as P-47 D28 can even out climb it and out run it on the shallow dive!

P-47D-25 Thunderbolt a plane that sits at 3.7 would have comparable performance or even better above 5.000m against the D5!

And the Ki-84 ko literally dominates it in every aspect.

 

With the new update the P-51 D5 is nothing but fresh meat for Bf 109 G10, Bf 109 K4, 190 Dora 9, Griffons, La-9, Yak-3, G56, Ki-84.

It has got literally not a single attribute better than those mentioned planes. The only strength it has is its shallow dive top speed but even that is out performed by them and  yet 4.7 planes are either same or little better. 

 

Planes like Wyvern, Mb5, P-47N, P-47 D28, Fw 190 A5 U2-12,  are even faster and climbs better at 4.3- 4.7 not only that some of them either have 4x20mm or 2x20mm!

 

Nation: USA
Vehicle:
P-51D-20-NA
Game mode: Simulator Battle
BR change: from 5.0 > to 4.7
ReasonAdditional to above mentioned reasons the P-51D-20-NA should be 4.7 because it is also a premium vehicle just like the Mb.5 and Wyvern but a plane that performs also worse than Wyvern and Mb.5. So if a plane deserves to be 4.7 then P-51D-20-NA deserves it more than the Mb.5 and Wyvern!
It is not only slower but also climbs worse and has 6x12.7mm rather than 4x20mm! Not only that if those Wyvern and Mb.5 is 4.7 than it deserves to be 4.3, if Mb.5 and Wyvern are 5.0 and it deserves to be 4.7!

  • Haha 5
  • Confused 4
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KV I C 756 (r), finally as it should be. It was known for years as the 'ez mode SL printer' and dealing with them in waves around BP events gets pretty tiresome (coming from a German main). 

 

Jumbo I don't think needed to go up really. They aren't a massive threat if your team has a brain. 

R3 as well. I don't play them but never really felt they were OP. Maybe more of an RB/SB thing? They are a little too good at SPAA though, very accurate and fast bullets thanks to post ww2 in a ww2 arena... 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets start with feedback to your BR changes in SB:

 

These BR changes in general are rather positive. Although I think moving F8F-1B upwwards was not needed.

 

My suggestions for BR changes in SB for the next update:

 

Vehicle: Corsair F Mk II

Mode: SB

Suggested Change: 3.3 to 3.7 (SB EC2 to SB EC3)

Reason for change: You decided to move all of the F4U-1a (even the japanese premium one) and F4U-1D from 3.3 to 3.7 so it only makes sense to raise Corsair F Mk II too.

 

Vehicle: Me264

Mode: SB

Suggested Change: 4.0 to 5.0 (SB EC3 to SB EC4)

Reason for change: Way too good armament and bombload for EC3. Not to mention that for some reason it also gets airstart for free. Even though you can easily take off with it in any map.

 

Vehicle: MB.5

Mode: SB

Suggested Change: 4.7 to 5.0 (SB EC3 to SB EC4)

Reason for change: 

Post-war Super Prop with way too good flying performance for EC3

 

Vehicle: Wyvern

Mode: SB

Suggested Change: 4.7 to 5.0 (SB EC3 to SB EC4)

Reason for change: 

Post-war Super Prop with way too good flying performance for EC3

Edited by esapekkis
  • Upvote 5
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M4A1 (76) W        5.0  ~> 4.7

 

Do my eyes deceive me? an actual BR reduction for a U.S 76mm Sherman?

 

 

 

 

Edited by VehicIe
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 2
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Changes only for RB:

 

- Leopard 1.

Suggested Change: 7.3 to 7.7.

This tank dont need stay in 7.3, Germany need more power in 7.7 now just decrease one tank, all similar tanks stay in 7.7 and this tank is not a exception.

 

- Sherman 76 variants:

Suggested Change: 5.7 to 5.3/5.3 to 5.0

After the last changes those tank fell a bit underpowered specially against his Germans counterparts, they need some changes and now specially the T-34/85 is goinbg down.

 

- M47 and mKPz M47G:

Suggested Change: from 7.3 to 7.0.

Those tanks are not much better than M46 and worse than M48, decreasing to 7.0 give the possibility of create a proper lineup for Germany and strong option to weakers M46 for US, moving to 7.0 is good for both nations.

 

- Flakpanzer 341:

Suggested Change: from 6.3 to 6.0.

This tank is just a uparmored version of Oswind 2, same weapon system with same ammunition, the only adventage is the frontal armor nothing more so this tank need down becuase 1.0 point of BR just for a better are frontal armor is too much.

 

- Jagdtiger

Suggested Change:from 6.7 to 6.3. or stay in 6.7 with Maus shell.

This vehicle is useless in 6.7 and constant uptiers, bad movility and reload speed. With the additions of postwar ammunitions his armor is not reliable anymore, right now sit in a very poor 45% win ratio.

 

- M60 Patton

Suggested Change: 7.7 to 7.3.

Reason for change: M60 is not much better than Leopard 1 or T-54 mod 49, theres no reason for leave this tank with similar or even inferior capabilities 0.3 above the main conterparts.

 

-  MAUS

Suggested Change: 7.7 to 7.3

Reason for change:Big and uselss super heavy tank in 7.7 is just part of the past where didnt exist modern rounds, is prettry useless right now and need some love since long time ago. Please Gaijin was hidden and forgotten for too many time, just tested with low BR for a time even with the new shell his perform is terrible.

 

-  M26/ M26 Ariete/ M26A1

Suggested Change: 6.3 to 6.0

Reason for change: Very obsolete tank in comparission with another 6.3 like SuperPershing or Tiger 2 P, moving down to 6.0 those tanks more than probably they dont gonna create any balance issue and that BR they can breath a bit from constant 7.3 uptiers where are obsolete.

 

Edited by Flak_Dancer
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 3
  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all below is for SB:


Mig-3-15 (base model) should also go to EC2 (2.3). It does have weaker armament than BK variant (lack gunpods) but it have even better performance making it impossible target for reserve biplanes

Corsair mk II - performance wise it's even faster and rolls better compared to other F4U1 models while being only marginally worse at turning (which is not corsair's strong suit anyway). Basiocally it's the same plane or better than F4U1s and should also go to EC3 (3.7)


XP55 it runs updated Alison that no longer suffers at higher altitude and it can easiuly pull 14G out of 850km/h dive. It's also armed with 50cals and cannons. Plane ideally should be EC4 (5.0) but should at least be moved up to EC3 (3.7). It is not novice friendly but in hands of even mediocre pilot it's much too dangerous in EC2

 

Me-264 should be moved to EC4 (5.0). in EC3, especially against Russia, it can fly in level flight almost as fast as RU planes can dive. Also it have muych stronger armament than RU planes while being much more durable. RU planes even at fuyll dive at edge of ripping wings (ca 700-750km/h) can barely get 100-150km/h advantage over it. They lack armament to kill it in one pass while single hit from mouse-aimed 264 guns will destroy soviet plane - especially since 100-150km/h closing speed is not enough to avoid being hit

Ju-288 same story as 264 above but in EC4 and should be moved to EC5 (6.7). It almost as fast in level flight as opponents (Russians) are in dive and sports very strong armament

 

F3H should be moved to EC7 (9.7). it have radar that is better than some EC7 planes have, have radar guided missiles (as only plane in EC6) and have engine powerful enough to make it at least as fast as all other planes around but with much greater acceleration

 

 

MB5 should go to EC4 (5.0) or even EC5 (6.7)- it's a 3rd fastest propeller-driven plane in game faster than almost any thing Germany (main enemy) can use in EC4 and yet it's in EC3 where it's even more "OP"

 

Wyvern should go to EC4 (5.0). It is a CAS Plane that is faster than any fighter in EC3 right now. There is no way any plane can catch it even if it's loaded with full bomb load unless it's flow very badly (any plane can be shot down it flown stupidly enough), It should be EC5 (6.7) but EC4 is bare minimum for it.

  • Upvote 7
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, with Vampire at 7.7, Italy has no jet planes in the post-WW2 ground RB. So for the higher tier tanks support the only option is the G55-G56 which are insanely pricey to repair.

 

At this point, copy/paste some more planes from the US/British three: we even had p38, p-51, p-47 and so on: some of them carry more bombs than G56 and they cost 1/10th of it.

  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heavy tanks between 7.0 and 8.7 are hopelessly outplayed due to the large amount of Heat-FS and APDS shells being used. So I have put forth a few suggestions for realistic battles.

T-32 7.3 to 7.0
After the IS-3 had been moved down, the T-32 does not belong at 7.3 either. They have roughly the same amount of pen and effective armour, but the T-32 has a rather large lower plate weakspot which can be penetrated by most APHE in and around it's Battle rating and which usually leads to destruction of the vehicle. 

T-32E1 7.7 to 7.3 
In the current Meta this tank really just doesn't belong at it's battle rating any more. The lower plate weakspot has been removed, but it's still a T-32 so it has a long reload and it's top APHE shell isn't really on par with what other tanks fire in and around it's battle rating. 

M103 7.7 to 7.3
The armour is nigh useless against most shells it faces and the Heat-FS shell it can fire, is rather impractical due to the long reload it has.

Maus 7.7 to 7.3 
Armour works only against conventional shells and the mobility is really awful making it unfit at it's current battle rating. The newly added APHEDS shell has just slightly helped the vehicle, but it's not worthy of staying at it's current battle rating.

E-100 7.7 to 7.3 
Same reason as above. 

IS-4M 7.7 to 7.3
Basically on par with the T-32E1 besides having a way longer reload and slightly better mobility. The tank has a huge frontal driver's hatch weakspot and the armour in general is ineffective against most APDS and Heat-FS and the considerably long reload makes it impractical in the fast paced engagements in and around that battle rating. 

T-10M 8.3 to 8.0 
Despite having access to a two plane stabilizer, this heavy has it at a battle rating where almost every single tank has access to one, making it not really special. The long reload combined with the poor choice of shells makes this tank undeserving of it's current battle rating.

IS-7 8.3 to 8.0
Eventhough this vehicle has 10 second autoloader for a 130mm cannon, it still uses conventional APHE and most opponents have the same penetration if not higher, but with APFSDS shells, making it rather obsolete. The armour is also not to be relied on due to the sheer number of Long rod penetrators being used near it's battle rating. 

Object 279 8.7 to 8.3
The Object 279 has outlived it's usefullness due to previous data. The battle rating was only moved up due to extensive usage after people have grinded the vehicle in the event. It's armour is relatively effective against most kinetic shells it faces, but chemical energy shells prove the armour to be ineffective against them. 
 

 

Bombers are performing very poor at high battle ratings in the current air realistic environment and nearly all of them need their battle ratings changed. 

B-57A 8.3 to 7.3
This vehicle has access to no defensive armaments nor offensive cannons, so it can only rely on it's speed to stay safe and 8.3 is way too high for a bomber which can only carry bombs. 

B-57B 8.3 to 7.7
It's basically a normal canberra but with some frontal facing .50 cals and with access to more secondary loadouts. 7.7 will be fine for this thing considering it's rather large and it's speed is average. 

IL-28 (both the East German and the Soviet version) and  H-5  8.0 to 7.7 or perhaps 7.3
These planes are slower than the B-57's, lack airbrakes, but have a defensive turret in addition to frontal facing 23mm cannons with 100 ammo each. The turret could make it 7.7 instead of 7.3 due to the large aiming cone it has. 

Il-28SH 8.0 to 7.7 or perhaps 7.3
It's just an IL-28 but with access to rockets which replace your bomb load. Virtually identical to the standard IL-28. If it gets it's mixed loadouts which were talked about on this QA  https://warthunder.com/en/news/6890-qa-answers-from-the-developers-en  , it would be fine at 7.7

Tu-14T  8.0 to 7.7 or perhaps 7.3
This vehicle plays nearly identical to the IL-28's, but it has slightly less forwards facing 23mm ammo and a redesigned back turret and has access to an airbrake. Current environment is too hostile for it to perform well in. 

Yak-28B 9.3 to 9.0 or perhaps 8.7
This newly added plane excited many people until it was known that it lacked air to air missiles and is very prone to ripping at High-G turns. And it's forward facing 23mm cannon only has 50 rounds of ammo. It's bombload is also slightly worse than the Il-28's, but it the plane has flares, airbrake and a good top speed with afterburning engines. 9.3 is too high of battle rating for plane with no AAM's, let alone a jet bomber.

Canberra B Mk 2 8.3 to 7.3 or perhaps 7.0
This canberra has way weaker engines compared to the American B-57A and thus also has a lower top speed. Around 100 km/h less when stock and around 60 when spaded. This Canberra also lacks any frontal facing armaments and has to rely on it's speed to save itself. Only the bombload is marginally better. 

Canberra B (I) Mk 6 8.3 to 7.3
This Canberra could be compared to the American B-57B, since both of these have guns as opposed to their earlier counterparts, but the British Canberra has a worse bombload than it's american counterpart while also lacking rockets. 

Tu-4 (both the Soviet and the Chinese version) 8.0 to 7.7
Despite having access to 10 23mm cannons as defensive armaments, these propeller driven planes have no business being able to see 9.0 planes. While it could be argued that these planes could perhaps even go down to 7.3, they would be nigh impossible to kill when it's in a full downtier then. 

S.O. 4050 Vautour IIB 9.0 to 8.3 
It has no forwards facing armaments, prone to ripping at high G manoeuvres. It does however have access to good bomb load with which it can destroy two bases and damage another. It's high top speed makes it able to escape enemies reliably at 8.3. 

S.O. 4050 Vautour IIA 9.0 to 8.7 
This Vautour should be designated as a "Strike Aircraft" since the A in it's designation stands for Attacker. Compared to the first Vautour it has access to rockets and 4 forwards facing 30mm cannons making it a heavy fighter after it has dispatched of it's load.
 

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 10
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T55a to 8.0? we knew T55AM-1 was better than T55 ,but we meant to move it to 8.7 , not to move its weaker version to 8.0.

if statistics say this , it is Ok . just move up the T55AM-1 , we will pen T55a somehow.(headache) 

also now that we have IS6 at 7.0 PLz show some love to T32e1 by moving it to 7.3 and maybe (just maybe) T32 to 7.0.

Edited by ACOMETS
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 5
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-Mirage 3C from 10.7 to 10.3

now both Mirage 3s are at the same BR, while 3E has better Radar, Flares / Chaffs, RWR and CCIP, the Mirage 3C is performance wise on level with the MiG-21MF and SMT which are both at 10.3, even thier loadouts are better with 4x R-60, the 3C has no place at 10.7

 

-Vautour IIA from 9.0 to 8.7

this thing suffering against Mach 2 jets and the missile meta at 9.0-9.7

 

-Vautour  IIB from 9.0 to 8.3

no guns, worse loadouts than its brother above

 

Edited by WreckingAres283
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First thing: Thanks to smin and other CM, to communicate more than:"it's statistic, deal with it". Even if players are not agree with all modification, giving more precision about some BR change will definitely help in our feedback. I hope to see this (and more) communication for futur BR change. It's good change.

 

Thanks to finally move AV-8A in higher BR, but i recommend to move the Yak-38 (premium) from 9.3 to 9.7. Otherwise the situation won't change at 9.3 and lower, Yak-38 will be more spammed and will fly with way too powerful missile at this BR. 2xR-60 = 30G at 9.3, airspawn and fast acceleration/climb rate for its BR, just imagine a squad of 3 to 4 Yak-38 at 9.3 match or lower... 9.7 is needed for Yak-38.

+

If all VTOL move to 9.7 (which will clearly help BR 8.3-8.7), please at least consider to move every superior version of F86 and MiG-15 (F86F and MiG-15 bis) from 8.3 to 8.7.

These planes (F86F, MiG-15bis and ISH) are way superior from the previous version (F86A, MiG-15). They sit with no competitor in case of downtiered match (8.3 or lower).

There is difference of BR with MD.452 IIA and IIC, Me 163 and Me 163b0, G.91 pre-serie and G.91 R/1. But not for F86A and F86F or MiG-15  and MiG-15 Bis and ISH? Their superior flight perf are quite clear.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the Panzer IV G need to be lower than 4.0.. but now the German one is still 3.3, and it's ruined by reducing the tier, which seems to be the intention all along, and the Italian one 3.7, meanwhile the objectively worst Panzer IV J is still 4.0, despite having no real benefits over the G, horrible turret traverse rate, as well as an increase in weight reducing it's mobility.. and I think you will find statistically it's the worst performing Panzer IV as well.

 

In comparison Japan has very similar vehicles in the Chi-To and Chi-To Late, very similar to the Panzer IVs, but they're a lot heavier, slower reload, similar armor values but a full 1.3 BR higher than the Panzer IV G, and higher than all the other turreted Panzer IV versions.

 

The only noteworthy advantage the Chi-to have is the slightly more powerful shell, but considering that comes with a 2.5 second slower reload, and more importantly at default enemies the Panzer IV won't even see in an uptier, and possibly having to face 5.7 with this 3.3 gun, you can hardly call that an advantage.

 

I feel minor nations lose out across the board because the calculations don't consider the player numbers or the experience level of those players, the major nations have a ton of veteran and new players to balance out the statistics, whilst minor nations tend to have lower player numbers and they tend to be more experienced, which creates an endless loop if Gaijin refuses to acknowledge this issue, causing situations like this, that in my opinion, make no sense.

 

The Me 163 situation is very similar to this, I would love to hear Gaijin's view on the matter and why this issue is never acknowledged and endlessly repeated.

 

chito.thumb.jpg.ab321b4a64c2f82cf707daef

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

firstly, add dynamic BR affected by modificiations please, it is best solution for all BR problems..

look TEC video:

 

im here for Leopard a1a1(8.7-without thermal one)... look, this tank DON'T has thermals, autorange finder, 400mm(it has 330mm pen apfsds) pen APFSDS and it is 8.7. AT THE SAME TİME, LeoA1A5 has all of them and it is 9.0.. these modifications are game changer if we compare 8.7 and 9.0.. and just 0.3 BR increase..

SO, lets decrease LeoA1A1's BR to 8.3...... look counterpart of LeoA1A1: merkava mk.1.. merkava mk.1 has great armor and surviveabilty, autorange finder, smoke sheel... LeoA1A1 dont has them.....

what about if we did LeoA1A1 8.3? we should look M60A1(8.3).. we should give it APFSDS or decrease its BR....(AND YOU DECREASED ITS BR-NOW IT IS TIME FOR LEOA1A1 8.3)

 

EDIT!!!: i forgot t3485... t3485 zis(5.7) should be 5.3.. only using apcr and 5 crew.. in fact, d5t(5.0) is better than 5.7 one, because it dont has ammo in turret as first replenishment.

 

Edited by modern_primat
  • Confused 2
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Flak_Dancer said:

Cambios solo para RB:

 

- Leopardo 1.

Cambio sugerido: 7.3 a 7.7.

Este tanque no necesita permanecer en 7.3, Alemania necesita más potencia en 7.7 ahora solo reduce un tanque, todos los tanques similares permanecen en 7.7 y este tanque no es una excepción.

 

- Flakpanzer 341:

Cambio sugerido: de 6.3 a 6.0.

Este tanque es solo una versión sin protección de Oswind 2, el mismo sistema de armas con la misma munición, la única ventaja es el blindaje frontal, nada más, por lo que este tanque necesita abajo porque 1.0 punto de BR solo para mejorar son el blindaje frontal es demasiado.

 

- Jagdtiger

Cambio sugerido: de 6.7 a 6.3. o quedarse en 6.7 con caparazón Maus.

Este vehículo es inútil en 6.7 y constantes altibajos, mala movilidad y velocidad de recarga. Con las adiciones de municiones de posguerra, su armadura ya no es confiable, ahora mismo se encuentra en una proporción de victorias del 45% muy pobre.

 

- M60 Patton

Cambio sugerido: 7.7 a 7.3.

Razón del cambio: M60 no es mucho mejor que Leopard 1 o T-54 mod 49, no hay razón para dejar este tanque con capacidades similares o incluso inferiores 0.3 por encima de las contrapartes principales.

 

 

- M26 / M26 Ariete / M26A1

Cambio sugerido: 6.3 a 6.0

Motivo del cambio: Tanque muy obsoleto en comparación con otro 6.3 como SuperPershing o Tiger 2 P, bajando a 6.0 esos tanques más de lo que probablemente no crearán ningún problema de equilibrio y que BR pueden respirar un poco desde los constantes 7.3 niveles superiores donde están obsoletos .

 

I wish you could give a better reason for lowering some vehicles
but I will talk about the vehicles that caught my attention, I do not plan to talk about the M47 since I do not have it and the maus that I do not feel like, let's continue.

 

Leopard 1: (7.3 to 7.7):
 It has similar capacities of most tanks of 7.7, good mobility, armament, reloading, the armor is mediocre but as I said it has good mobility in general, being similar to the OF-40, T54 1951, M60, etc. found at 7.7 for their capabilities


- Flakpanzer 341: (hold):
I will remind you that it is one of the best anti-aircraft, because it has a better capacity than its predecessor Oswind 2, having a superior chassis and armor, it gives good coverage to the battlefield and since it is necessary to use a bomb to eliminate it, Although it sounds difficult due to the rate of fire it has.


Jagdtiger (keep): you are literally doing compression with a vehicle too armored for the br in which it is, being invulnerable for most of its br guns and for the down tier, what will you tell me how difficult it will be to make a good game with the best capabilities of being a sniper against cannons that can not do anything to you, in up tier it suffers a little because there are already capable cannons, but you still make good games if you are a good player, the idea to solve this compression problem, is Do not do more compression, and expand the br of higher vehicles so that others can move.

 

M60 Patton (hold):
the armor of the chassis is superior to that of the T54, armament of the good 105mm L7 cannon, the turret can stop shots of old bullets, acceptable maneuverability and acceleration, in addition to a good survivability when hit by a projectile.
The only bad thing is that it is large and its maximum speed is bad, but is that why it is a reason to lower it along with other vehicles that should not have dropped to 7.3 due to their capabilities (leopard 1, T54 1949)? You said above that we must raise the leopard 1 to 7.7, so that we lower the M60 if you are going to do the same problem with the leopard.

 

M26 / M26 Ariete / M26A1 (hold):
Another tank that they underestimate a lot, has a good armor being normal to bounce projectiles or stop them, the armament is good next to the apcr if you see a tank you cannot easily pierce, the bad thing is its maximum speed and acceleration, but with its other capacities it compensate by being a medium tank

I'm sorry for my spelling and writing mistakes, I speak Spanish.

Edited by torderxd
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stona said:

AV-8A - Will be increased to 9.7 BR based on your feedback.

Uh....
1189197682_shot2021_08_1709_41_58.thumb.
:facepalm:
I dont think there is one place where this change was needed more than in Simulator Battles, where the AV-8A faces MiG-15's, La-200's, Ki-200's, F-84's... with its superb acceleration, top speed and AIM-9G missiles.
It should go to 9.7.


A big +1 to everything on this list:

Spoiler
3 hours ago, przybysz86 said:

all below is for SB:


Mig-3-15 (base model) should also go to EC2 (2.3). It does have weaker armament than BK variant (lack gunpods) but it have even better performance making it impossible target for reserve biplanes

Corsair mk II - performance wise it's even faster and rolls better compared to other F4U1 models while being only marginally worse at turning (which is not corsair's strong suit anyway). Basiocally it's the same plane or better than F4U1s and should also go to EC3 (3.7)


XP55 it runs updated Alison that no longer suffers at higher altitude and it can easiuly pull 14G out of 850km/h dive. It's also armed with 50cals and cannons. Plane ideally should be EC4 (5.0) but should at least be moved up to EC3 (3.7). It is not novice friendly but in hands of even mediocre pilot it's much too dangerous in EC2

 

Me-264 should be moved to EC4 (5.0). in EC3, especially against Russia, it can fly in level flight almost as fast as RU planes can dive. Also it have muych stronger armament than RU planes while being much more durable. RU planes even at fuyll dive at edge of ripping wings (ca 700-750km/h) can barely get 100-150km/h advantage over it. They lack armament to kill it in one pass while single hit from mouse-aimed 264 guns will destroy soviet plane - especially since 100-150km/h closing speed is not enough to avoid being hit

Ju-288 same story as 264 above but in EC4 and should be moved to EC5 (6.7). It almost as fast in level flight as opponents (Russians) are in dive and sports very strong armament

 

F3H should be moved to EC7 (9.7). it have radar that is better than some EC7 planes have, have radar guided missiles (as only plane in EC6) and have engine powerful enough to make it at least as fast as all other planes around but with much greater acceleration

 

 

MB5 should go to EC4 (5.0) or even EC5 (6.7)- it's a 3rd fastest propeller-driven plane in game faster than almost any thing Germany (main enemy) can use in EC4 and yet it's in EC3 where it's even more "OP"

 

Wyvern should go to EC4 (5.0). It is a CAS Plane that is faster than any fighter in EC3 right now. There is no way any plane can catch it even if it's loaded with full bomb load unless it's flow very badly (any plane can be shot down it flown stupidly enough), It should be EC5 (6.7) but EC4 is bare minimum for it.

 


Additionally:

F7F-1 / F7F-3 should go back to EC4, alongside similar twin engine aircraft such as the Ki-83 and the Hornet, with a battle rating of 6.0 ~ 6.3.

F8F-1B should go back to EC4, it was doing just fine there. Not sure if there's any reason to fly it now, against Su-11's. 6.3 would be fine.

The russian BI rocket plane should go up to EC5 with the P-59A, since in EC4 there's nothing its competitors can do other than pray it runs out of bullets and fuel. Since the SP + Timer removal, it has become spammable, which is a big problem. 6.7.

  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CL-13A mk.5 9.3>8.7 AIRRB

 

This plane has a legacy BR. Everything it used to face has had a BR reduction while it has stood at a BR that makes it useless. No counter measures, no missiles, no ballistics computer and no after burner. 
 

CL-13B MK.6 9.7>9.0 AIRRB

 

Most if the same reasons as above except it gets AIM-9Bs.

Edited by CodyBlues
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really thunk that the M48A2GA2 should also go to 8.0 in AB. It is never top dog. Good ammo, very weak 7.0 armor. 

 

Begeleitpanzer

AB 8.3 to 8.0. 

No armor, gun is very inaccurate and the missiles are like the Marder AMD Warrior, and they are lower in BR.

 

Just my 2 cents.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Stona said:

cover_facebook_answers_developers_07a5fc

  • Planned Battle Rating changes have been implemented

To open the Battle Rating changes list in a new tab, click here!

 

 

If you think we should make some additional changes in the future 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.

 

Information from previous topic:

 

Firstly, regarding Naval Forces. In this release, we did not make any changes to the fleet's BR, but we still received very noticeable requests from you, including the separation of battleships from cruisers.

 

The answer to them is this: we are working to raise the fleet's BR ceiling. Stay tuned for news and thanks for your feedback..

 

Some additional changes from your feedback:

 

Based on your feedback, the planed change of the Leopard 2PL and T-90 was reconsidered and will now remain at their current BR.

 

The IPM1 will also undergo ammunition changes as a result of its new BR.  M735 and M774 will be removed. M833 will be moved from IV - I tier and M900 will be introduced into IV tier modifications.

 

The 76 Jumbo Sherman will not increase and will remain at its current BR.

 

Ariete - BR will be reduced from 11.0 to 10.7 (RB)

 

Panzer IVG (Italy) - BR will be reduced from 4.3 to 4.0 (AB) and 3.7 from 4.0 (RB)


Some responses on several discussed vehicles:

 

M1A1 - At its current BR and position, the M1A1 is performing at an acceptable level without any immediate indications it is in need of ammunition changes or other adjustments. We have received several suggestions for new ammunition / upgrade packages which we are aware of. But at this time, the tank shows no indication of a lack of performance compared to other contemporaries. If a situation arises after the current planned changes are implemented where upon the next review, the tank has dropped as a result, various options can be considered and we will closely follow the situation. But this will of course depend on a review of its position after we have had some time to review the effects of the current changes with the IPM1.

 

Black Prince - A common suggestion is for this vehicle to be lowered in BR in Realistic Battles. Currently however, among all Heavy and Medium tanks in RB, at rank IV, this vehicle has the highest efficiency compared to its counterparts. At this time, the vehicle is currently not in any position to receive a lower BR based on how it is currently performing. 

 

AMX-50 Surblindé - Currently this vehicle is performing more effectively than than its peer, the AMX-50 Surbaissé, despite the later being at a lower rating. So a reduction for the Surblindé would be illogical given the performance of both machines currently in game.

 

French Roland 1 - The French Roland currently has an efficiency equal to that of the French Crotale NG and higher than the German FlaRakPz. As such, there is no need to introduce any further ammunition upgrades to this machine at present that would further boost its performance when it is currently already at above sufficient levels. 

 

Strf 9040 BILL - A lot of comparisons have been raised about specific attributes of this vehicle compared to others of a similar class / nature. It is important to understand that a vehicle can be inferior to the individual vehicle with which it is compared, by some values or attributes, but at the same time have an efficiency that is still higher than the average on its BR. In this case, the Strf 9040's efficiency exceeds both Bradley and Dardo.

 

 

Centurion Mk 5 AVRE has become even more dangerous with the introduction of the overpressure mechanic in War Thunder. Its 165 mm cannon is now very difficult to resist, so in Arcade battles (where it is much easier to aim with it), the vehicle will be slightly increased. From 7.3 to 7.7. Tanks with guns with low ballistic performance have a number of disadvantages (aimed shooting at long distances, projectile flight time and its trajectory), which create problems in Realistic battles. Such units are much more effective in arcade battles, and most often they have weapons that shoot powerful high-explosive shells, one hit of which, on average, is enough to destroy most opponents at its rank and even higher. At the moment, Centurion has shown itself to be a very effective tank in AB at the current battle rating and therefore deservedly moves to the "major league", that is, gets a higher battle rating. This tank will not lose its destructive power, but some of the tanks, which were frankly weak in the event of encounters with it, will receive some improvement in the situation.

 

IS-6 - Some of your comments mentioned a decrease in survivability with the appearance of an increasing number of opponents with HEAT shells. The statistics agree with this and the tank will be reduced in RB. 

 

We also received comments on the effectiveness of the T-55AM-1. Our data suggests that the machine is efficient and in place. But the standard T-55A will be reduced to 8.0. AM-1 is currently performing as intended at 8.3, having an efficiency indicator corresponding to the average value at its rank. But having paid attention to the T-55A, we observe its significantly lagging behind in efficiency from the T-55AM-1, with an equal number of battles fought. Therefore, it was decided not to change the rating of the T-55AM-1 with balanced efficiency, but to reduce the combat rating of the T-55A. Along with it, the American M60A1 AOS and the German 48A2 GA2, which are somewhat inferior in efficiency to the T-55A.

 

In fact, we have considered many more of your proposals, but there are several that greatly conflict. For example, although the premium German TAM 2IP differs from the researchable TAM in terms of performance characteristics and weapons, this does not help the indicated light tank, and statistically both vehicles are very close.

 

Separately, we would like to touch upon the issue of reduction for the T-34-85 (D-5T). To explain this, let's use a simple comparison with vehicles on the same Battle Rating. For the D-5T modification, these are the Tiger H1 and Panther D, the effectiveness of which, according to statistics, is at the level of similar heavy and medium tanks. At the same time, the effectiveness of the T-38-85 (D-5T) is noticeably inferior to other medium tanks on its BR, and this is the main reason for the decrease in the BR of this particular vehicle. You also actively recommended lowering the Battle rating for similar modifications of the famous T-34, since some of them are not much different from the version in question (D-5T). In fact, the differences turned out to be significant, which ultimately significantly affects the overall efficiency in battle, and with it, the statistics, the gap between which is noticeable. These same variants are doing rather well statistically, so they do not require changes from their current BRs at this time.

Aviation

Spitfire Mk 24 - Will remain at its current BR, but we will closely monitor the efficiency of this aircraft. As a number of aircraft have changed near this BR, we will retain the current BR and review the situation in the next BR update. If it remains high in efficiency, it will be increased. 

 

Similarly, the  Me 163 B-0 Will remain at its current BR, but we will also closely follow the efficiency of this aircraft. 

 

Ki-84 Hei - Will remain at its current BR. But again, will be monitored for next time.

 

AV-8A - Will be increased to 9.7 BR based on your feedback.

 

A6M5s otsu/hei - Currently, these aircraft are the leaders in terms of efficiency in their battle ratings. As such, the planned increase will take place.

 

Kikka - This aircraft currently suits its BR in terms of its characteristics and performance.

 

CL-13 Mk.4 - Currently this aircraft has one of the best efficiencies for its BR. So a decrease is currently not possible. 

 

H-34 (France and USA) - Will be lowered to 8.0 based on your feedback. 

 

The final amendment will be the reduction in RB for the EC-665 Tiger HAP helicopter, which is good in terms of characteristics, but its main anti-tank weapon - the HOT-3 ATGM is inferior in performance characteristics to analogues of the armed Hellfire. Decreased from 10.3 to 10.0.

 
Simulator Specific:

 

G.91 YS will receive a decrease in Simulator mode from 9.7 to 9.3 due to the lack of radar and RWRs, which at the 7th rank of ED are already a necessity and not just a pleasant bonus. 

 

J-7II is a licensed Chinese copy of the MiG-21F-13. Although the Chinese fighter received slightly more powerful engines and another 30mm cannon, we agree that the gap in the Battle rating of the Simulator mode between 10.3 for the J-7II and 9.7 for the MiG-21F-13 is too large. The Chinese J-7II will receive a BR reduction.

 

F-104G (China) and F-104J (Japan) - The vehicles are nearly identical in overall performance, but the BR of the Chinese in SB is 0.3 units higher. We will reduce the BR, the Chinese F-104G in SB.

 

 

Thanks!

I can't thank you enough for listening to the community!!

 

I do have one small question: would it be possible to move the AV-8A to 9.7 in SB too?

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the IS6 gets a BR reduction due to HEATFS, then the same should be applied to the T32, T32E1 and other heavies in the 7.0-8.0 bracket. Especially those tanks that don’t have HEATDS or APDS, themselves. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Kikka stays at 6.7 the Me 262 A1a should move to 6.7 also, and get rocket assisted takeoff.

 

The Kikka in game has the (never built) Ne20 Kai engines instead of the much weaker ne20 that the Kikka originally had in Warthunder. I think you should give the Kikka the second gun as a starting weapon to make it the fighter version with the Ne 20 Kai engines it currently has, and move it to 7.0. Kikkas can handle 7.7 aircraft much easier than the 7.0 Me262 can fight 8.0 aircraft. The Kikka outperforms the 262 in every metric except firepower. Even then the Japanese have much higher velocity cannons.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...