Where as Q-5Ls had them , gaijin still haven’t implemented those
Yeah move all those french tanks to 8.0 , I want to kill under equipped french tanks
You haven’t changed the BR of the Fw 189 and Ju 388 J again…
Both aircraft are forgotten event vehicles and their BRs are WAY too high.
[RB] Fw 189 2.3 → 1.3/1.0 (maybe change it’s class to remove or reduce the height of the airspawn)
2x 7,92mm (500 rpg) and 4x 50kg bombs at 2.3?! Its flight performance is that of an 1.0 too.
[RB] Ju 388 J 4.3 → 2.7 (not an exaggeration)
It’s a slow and heavy aircraft with average weapons for it’s size and low ammo capacity, even compared to light aircrafts. In detail:
Comparisons
The Ju 88 C-6 [2.3] is very similar and suffers from the same issues. Both have downward-angled guns and their rudder is bad for vertical aiming. Just a little maneuvering by the enemy and it is impossible for you to hit him. Compared to the Ju 88 C-6, the Ju 388 J has more engine power and more powerful guns. But the drawbacks are too substantial and unchanged.
The Do 217 N [2.7] is similar because both…
- are slow and heavy (don’t turn well and have a terrible climb rate)
- have 2x 13mm or 1x double 13mm gunners
- have useless “Schräge Musik” and Radar
but the Do 217 N is better because…
- it’s gun shots straight
- it has a twin tail (very stable when aiming vertically)
- it has 4x20mm with 200 RPG
… what makes aiming so much easier.
→ In short: Do 217 N [2.7] > Ju 388 J > Ju 88 C-6/Do 217 J [2.3]
PS: Don’t get fooled by the stat card of the Ju 388 J:
- 2 of 4 20mm w/400 rounds are “Schräge Musik” (in WT dead weight)
- 612 kmph at 10600m !!! - the game doens’t even last long enough to get to that altitude.
At lower altitudes, your speed is very similar to that of the Do 217 N/Ju 88 C-6.
Please don’t ignore this post and don’t forget the existence of these aircraft.
1 Like
Plz gaijin save the sabres taiwanese f86f-30 is overtiered hard
First, thanks for explaining the changes. I appreciate the system of proposing changes and reacting on feedback that has been done now for a while.
Still feel the BR raise of BatChat and AMX 90 is unwarranted, although I understand they are very efficient. They probably are. But they are objectively not superior to a Object 906 for example (with a stabilizer and HEAT and a fast chassis and quick reload too). It would feel more fair when adjusting BR’s the data is corrected somehow with the average player skill, as I feel that might have something to do with it. It feels wrong to have tanks with only APHE and quite bad pen at the same tier where HEAT/APDS is the rule and stabilizers start to appear. 8.0 is firmly early MBT territory. Even more when the in my opinion superior Lorraine 40t and AMX TOA 100 (much better pen and despite only AP shells excellent post pen damage) remain at their BR. In arcade that will now be a gap of 1.0 BR!
Thanks for hearing my suggestion of adding APCR to the T20. APCR is generally not great, but it will help with King Tigers turrets and so on. But why not add the PCOT shell to the EBR? The vehicle is starting to feel overtiered now.
1 Like
Please, 2S38 and the HSTV-L needs to switch their BRs. The 2S38 is much, much more capable than HSTV-L and sits 1.3 BR lower. And there is a topic with the real documentations telling that the HSTV-L having the proximity shell and much, much higher penetration values with the APFSDS. Please consider these too when changing BR.
(26-09-2020) HSTV-L XM885 Incorrect Performance by Spookston
HSTV-L Capabilities by BlueRooster57
it uses the Delta 3 and lately Delta 6 as APFSDS-T and its performance is equivalent of the 105mm M774 round. Which penetrates about 400mm at range of 1000m. I don’t know how gaijin does implement these into Lanz-Odermatt formula, but they aren’t fit with the military test documents.
Note: Both topic links I left here has all the sources for the vehicle and the used gun.
Another Note: this is not a report or suggestion, Just a reminder for the BR of these two vehicles.
1 Like
I dont have issue with rest of your message, why should i respond to it?
It pulls 20Gs compared to 13Gs of stinger, it has bigger explosive mass and it is ever so marginally faster. Thats alone should put it at the same BR as ozelot.
But the optical/photocontrast (hiwever you want to call it) makes it immidiately better than 9.7 IR AAs. It simply cant sit with them at same BR, ergo it goes up.
Youre free to talk about that, i just dont have issue with what you said, as explained previously.
1 Like
Lol
Lmao even
The char 25t is one of the last vehicles I use when playing 7.7. Sluggish, no pen, not just unstabilized, but VERY unstabilized due to bouncy suspension with slow vertical traverse
The 7.7 line up is good because you just had to cram everything there
I actually agreed with the AMX M4 change, its a fantastic tank, but thanks for something I guess
Stop balancing based on player stats and INCREASE MAX BR
PLEASE
4 Likes
i have an idea, tell the devs to take all feedback and dump it into chatgpt to tell you what most of the community want.
I don’t think A-10s and A-6, need to be higher than 10.3, because they will strongly face with the Pantsir-S1, which both aircrafts will be useless at there. Or they can apply the BR increase to these vehiles, but the Pantsir-S1 needs to go up to like 12.3+ they somehow need to balance SPAA and CAS power.
on the other hand, Su-25 can easily go up in BR, it can easily outturn FlaRakRad’s “50G” (feels like 25G) VT-1s.
No Further changes to The AGS? are you kidding me? all it gets is a terrible APFSDS for its BR?
3 Likes
Indeed they do.
Game is tilted towards CAS so much it isnt funny anymore.
1 Like
ayo what about the 2S25M? that thing isnt going up in br and its getting 3BM60??
You are insane if you still think AMX-50 (TO90/930) and Char 25t is on par with obj 906. AGS should go further and receive m900. Also why no M833 for standard M1 Abrams?
4 Likes
Italy need new AA at 11.7 Auto shouldn’t be 11.7 more like 10.0-10.7
There are still F-16’s and MiG-29’s that are sitting unjustifiably at 12.0 and constantly fight F-4E Phantoms that have zero chance of defending themself in terms of armament and maneuverability ESPECIALLY the japanese F-4EJ that is an even inferior F-4E with worse AIM-7E’s and no Slats compared to the US version at the same BR of 11.0. Please move all 12.0 F-16’s and MiG-29’s up to 12.3 to give 11.0 breathing room.
1 Like
so lemme get this right the 10.0 tank that often fights 9.0 and at the same br as the TAM2C at a slightly lower br than the AGS its getting a top tier round with 580 mm of pen and a tandem atgm with 850 mm of pen meanwhile the AGS cannot use M900 altough ill give it the advantage of the autoloader but the TAM2C, has at best 3rd gen thermals and that’s it
TAM2C:
- Non autoloaded, 6.7 ACED
- DM63 with 430mm of pen at 10 meters
- decent mobility, with decent HP per ton ratio
- 3rd gen thermals
2S25M:
- Autoloaded, 7.1
- 3BM60 580MM of pen at 10 meters
- very high mobility with good HP per ton ratio
- 3rd gen thermals
1 Like
Obj906 and BC25t at same br, why? Stab and Heat costs nothing
It make sense that Gaijin balance base on stats, but it should be stats that take each vehicle’s player base in consideration, some vehicles have good stats simply because no new players playing. Vehicles in US Germany and USSR can always pose an advantage as new players gather in these 3 countries
2 Likes
Please let the Devs know that a large majority of the community also wants the MAX BR for ground vehicles increased. The Ground Battle Rating range for RB is stupidly compressed , you have early cold war tanks around 9.3 facing vastly superior 10.3 tech tree and premium vehicles. 9.3 around 95% of the time gets pulled in to 10.3 games which is unfair, these vehicles should not have to face these late cold war tanks . Why is the XM1, MBT-70,Leo1a5, AMX-30 facing things like the Abrams,Leo2a4 and t-80 etc.
GROUND RB needs further decompression of the BR range from 9.0-11.7, it is over-compressed to an unfair point that is not enjoyable . They need to move everything at 10.3 further up, I dont think its fair 10.3 gets to just seal club 9.3, these vehicles are on another level in terms of Armor, firepower and agility .
There is absolutely no good reason why they cant increase the max ground battle rating to that of the newly raised max air BR . We should at this point with the amount of vehicles and their vastly different ranges of capabilities have a max BR of 13.0-13.3
F-5E staying at its current BR is something i can agree with. The plane sits in a precarious spot because while it excels in dog fighting and fits the meta that air RB devolves into , its not the fastest nor does it carry much armament. I could see the vehicles BR getting raised with better armament and IF the BR ranges get more spread out on top of increasing the MAX BR past 12.7. Having played and faced against the F-5E I can say also with confidence that many people at this BR just don’t know how to counter it and end up playing right into its strengths. On the other hand moving it further up takes away a large part of any advantage the plane could exploit as at the proposed BR it would be food for vastly better armed and significantly more capable air vehicles.
Mirage 2000C-S5- Just like the F-5E, the issue this plane has is that its great at its current BR due to the range of vehicles it can meet , but moving it further up would significantly impact its effectiveness. Down the line if the MAX BR is increase and the BR ranges are further decompressed I would fully support moving them up by another .3 of a BR
Strela- I still think 10.0 is still too low and this goes for any of the SAM systems in that range. This is a compression issue within the game in my opinion . You have early cold war jets with dumb bombs and ammunition sitting at the same BR range as more modern vehicles that have vastly superior stand off munitions such as laser/TV guided bombs that have no issue engaging ground targets while at the same time staying out of anti air range while also having access to countermeasures. This is another reason why the game needs more decompression, the jump in capabilities vehicles take at these BR ratings are huge and the game and gameplay itself would benefit from a larger increase in the MAX BR for both Ground and AIR.
P.S Unrelated to the BR changes, please ask the devs to stop ruining the MAPS for ground RB by reducing the map sizes . It is ruining the game and the gameplay we have come to love , can they at least let us vote before these asinine map changes are implemented !!! We dont want smaller maps, the original maps were vastly better then the current edited version they implemented in the recent patches. We need bigger maps, larger variety of terrains that can complement all type of playstyles/vehices. Why are they reducing the maps sizes, removing cover that benefits only one type of playstyle/vehicle ? Its feels like by the end of the year we will have no cover just a flat map spawn to spawn. God Forbid newer players have to spend time learning the maps and line of sights.
4 Likes
the F-16C is better in every way. 6 9M compared to 4, better flight model, has HMD. and no, the flight model is not even remotely as good as people say it is, it’s an air superiority fighter, it should have a better flight model than the multirole F-16, not the other way around.
2 Likes