Accept vehicles for what they are, they are not broken

Accept vehicles for what they are, they are not broken.

I see many complaints about many vehicles.

“i am supposed to be fast but there are other fast aircraft, therefore i am not fast and useless”

“i am a turn fighter but someone else turns faster, therefore aircraft is bad”

" there is a vehicle that does what i do but better, please nerf"

“i cant 1v5 and win with a twin engine, its bad”

can we just accept vehicles for what they are and use them accordingly rather than expecting it to be the best at everything and labelling it as broken when it isn’t?

Just because you dont go on a crazy multi kill rampage with ease, it does not mean something is wrong.
The biggest asset in this game is squadmates and allows you to effectively use all vehicles without having to go to the ends of the earth to achieve something.

Suddenly negative vehicle characteristics dont matter so much and you can just enjoy playing the vehicle.
Gameplay is so much better when you have backup and can just enjoy the vehicle characteristics without having to carry.

Either accept the vehicle is crap or play it in such a way that works for it. Maybe it is crap because it was crap.
Bit silly to expect a crap vehicle to be good or to be able to achieve the same results as you would with a good aircraft.
I have said what I needed to, I am now going to fly a crap bomber - KI-49. - - - It truly is crap but hey, only need to drop some bombs.


Your point only applies in specific circumstances. If a vehicle is generally balanced at it’s BR, but it is bad in an uptier, or facing certain opponents, or in certain scenarios, then your point is valid, and I agree. However, your point is not valid when the complaints are about a poorly balanced, or poorly implemented vehicle that could be better with simple changes.

Complaining about the Strv 103 because it can’t be played aggressively or on CQC maps is wrong. However, complaining about the Char25T for being worse than other 8.0s is a valid complaint to have, because it is a worse tank.

Or it could be moved down, or changed to make it competetive. Vehicles should always be somewhat competetive at their own BR.


Perfect examples: Literally every SPG in the game.

something has to be “worse” - otherwise how do you get “good” vehicles?

There are 100% exceptions i agree and many of them.

There are however, imo, just as many coping issues.

I just dislike seeing people say “vehicle x is crap or useless and should have br reduced”

have it reduced why? so it can be good? not every vehicle can be labelled as “good” nor should they, the fact they are not so good is what makes its contemporaries “good”.

or “increase reload” like nah man, it has the reload it has, deal with it.

I just feel alot of people expect to be able to go solo hero in every vehicle and if it doesnt obv work, there is a problem.
There isnt, if i lose a dogfight against a better aircraft, i wont complain my aircraft is crap etc and demand br reduction, i lost to a better aircraft, i needed support or pulled more outta my ass.

I dont expect the same results in a bad vehicle as i would a good one, yet MANY here do.

I know guys who would kick my ass in the air with a 2.0 br lower aircraft or straight up worse aircraft.

And does anyone else have this issue right now? (excuse the resolution - using crap monitor right now)


I accept that argument to a point. For example, I never expected the Tornado F3 to be buffed to the point where it could reasonably win a dogfight against… anything else, but notably things like the Mig-29 or F-16s. Though I didnt think it totally unreasonable to expect it to get appropriate buffs such as BOL overhaul or a finished cockpit/Flightmodel.

Same with something like the Tornado IDS. I dont expect to be able to reach a target without absolute impunity but missing 99% of our CM count just sucks.

(and for both aircraft they were added maybe a year+ late after they would have been effective, in a rather poor state and have yet to recieve any TLC of any kind. Still missing loads of features for both)

and it does always suck when there are notably performance gaps that do actually have a meaningful impact on gameplay (not enjoyed the Gripen much to date due to the lack of BVR, even though its great in WVR, but that may change in this coming update)

Though I do hate the argument of “X aircraft is suppose to be better than Y aircraft due to this article/invterview I read, so nerf Y vehicle”


There’s always going to be vehicles that are better and worse. However the BR system is in place to balance ones that are either too good, or not good enough for their current BRs, that’s the whole point of it. If a tank or plane is bad, why shouldn’t it be moved down to be less bad?

If a vehicle isn’t good enough for its BR, it should be lowered.

I see and understand your point, but I fully disagree with your reasoning behind it.

1 Like

Or, maybe, hear me out; Gaijin refuse to acknowledge and/or act on bug reports that contain accurate information for a multitude of nations in order to favour nations that bring in profit, thus leading to things that shouldn’t be shit being incredibly bad. The best example being tornadoes.

Or the Ariete (Tank). Or Leclerc.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

US mains after trying to turn fight a zero in a p47 or f82

This is just objectively true, unless your enemies have one more or less chromosomes then all of us, you are Royally Fucked.

I love the BF-110’s but man, it’s impossible to win unless your enemy plays all their cards wrong.

1 Like

Accept vehicles for what they are challenge (impossible)

There will always be crybabies on this forum that want to nerf everything

1 Like