usually Friday
2 Likes
Thank you for listening to us about the M60A3 TTS, but that ammo reshuffling doesn’t change much? I assume the addition of M774 was simply omitted by mistake. (and I would renew my suggestion to also add add-on ERA as a modification)
M113A1 (TOW), China, Italy, Israel 8.3 → 8.0
I will also stress again the injustice that these TOW boxes face. They are the same BR as fully capable IFVs like the Bradley and Warrior, but also sitting beside more capable ATGM TDs like the M901! The first have stabiliser/very fast aiming speeds, APDS firing autocannons, much better armor, better mobility and are more versatile with fully traversible turrets, commander sights and thermals! These vehicles are just of a different class and M113A1’s would fit much better at 8.0, where they aren’t made redundant from the very start.
ZTS63 7.7 → 7.3 or reload from 7,5s to 6s
ZTS63’s reasoning is, again, a simple comparison to the much more capable yet fulfilling the same role at the same BR vehicle - the IKV-91, they are almost a night and day difference in the feel of play:
The Swedish IKV-91 fulfills practically the same role of a fast, LRF equipped HEAT-FS slinger at the same BR. The IKV has better damage (90mm vs 85mm), better penetration (400mm vs 300mm), better reload (6s vs 7,5s), double the gun depression, better optics and 2,5 TIMES better horizontal aiming speed. To add insult to injury its hull also turns faster and has better reverse speed while having practically the same armor and HP/t. What does ZTS have over it? An HMG.
Even if the capability difference somehow isn’t enough for a 0.3 BR gap, then clearly that reload needs to be improved.
ISU-122 5.3 → 5.0
This is a new one, but also very sad. Nobody speaks of ISU series of TDs with any sort of pride, dismissing them as overtiered, clunky boxes with too long a reload, to add to that they are made redundant by vehicles in the same tree!
The KV-122 is the same chassis, same gun, same armor and also the same BR, but gets a fully traversible turret over the ISU. The difference in utility between a vehicle with a forward-locked gun and one that can just peek at 45 degrees, fire a shot and use the amazing reverse to be behind cover before the first even gets its gun on target, is massive and cannot be overstated.
Tiger II P, M26, IS-2 (1944) 6.7 → 6.3
Tiger II P and M26 are in a very weird spot currently, with direct upgrades (Tiger II) or extreme capability differences at the cost of HP/t (M26) sitting at the same BR. Why would I play the M26 when I can play one that’s invulnerable to long 88, or one that massively improves both the turret and cannon? Why would I weaken my turret face to below 120mm from 160mm+ for zero benefit?
The plight of the IS-2 is slightly harder to see, but compared to its other heavy tank contemporaries it’s clear to see that it comes out the worst. Having TRIPLE the reload time of a Tiger II and 1/3rd the depression of the US ones. It’s turret is only better than the II P, and can be penetrated by guns 2 BRs below it! And even if not, the towering cupola will take care of telling the enemy where to shoot. The only thing this tank offers is overpressure, but why bother when others will have better positions, will hit your weakspots first and will have triple the chances even if they miss?
M41D reload from 5.9s to 5.0s
This vehicle is named by many as the worst light tank, why? It doesn’t have any armor (expected), but it’s also slower than vehicles at the same BR and to top it all of it’s got HORRIBLE damage output, the APFSDS for instance has worse post penetration damage than the stock HEAT-FS (with 250mm of pen at 8.0!). The IKV-91, already praised for it’s very strong features, not only runs rings around this vehicle, but also out-damages it and out-penetrates it at a lower BR. In a fight you are practically a 6.7 vehicle (lekPZ M41) but put at 8.0 with a worse engine - which removes all the advantages in penetration and speed it had at that lower BR.
And I get it, thermals and LRF are scary, but I do not ask for it to meet Tiger II’s, just to alleviate its problems with damage output.
14 Likes
OF-40 to 8,3?
thats pretty stupid, 8,0 is a fine br for it. It doesnt have a stabilizer and putting it at 8,3 would just kill it, plus the extra armour it has over the leo1 rarely actually matters
5 Likes
One of the only good changes was that the F5E goes up in BR, but they reversed it. Both F5E and F5C should go up.
8 Likes
the IS-3 and the ZSU-37-2 are fine at the br they’re at, I dont see why they should go higher
3 Likes
It’s much more the LRF
This allows the OF-40 to be far more effective in a sniping and flanking role, which with the low armour and lack of stabilizer on either vehicle is their primarily role.
The two definitely shouldn’t be the same BR, Leo goes down or OF-40 goes up.
2 Likes
doesnt mean it should go where it doesnt belong, plus its mobility is a little bit worse than the leo1’s
2 Likes
IS-3 is fine at 7.3 it’d be awful at 7.7 because of the match making
4 Likes
Repeat again
69IIG 9.0 → 8.7
Which contrasts with the T55AM series, which is used for better protection and mobility, and 69IIG has better ammunition.
M60TTS (CN) 9.0 → 8.7
Weakened version has no reason to be in the same BR as the original version. Unless the Chinese M60TTS obtains the M774 and the same ERA as the US, it should be lowered to 8.7.
PLZ-83 6.3 → 6.0
Compared to other grenade launchers, PLZ-83 is not strong anywhere, and on the contrary, PLZ-83 lacks high equivalent HE.
12 Likes
Where is M900 for AGS? Or you really think M833 (which worse than 105 mm DM33) on 11.0 it’s enough to fight against top tier mbt?
And stop killing japanese planes. J6K1 on 6.7? Really?
AMX-50 (TO90/930) and Char 25t: 200mm pen on 8.0, no stab, no armor , and no hope for normal balance…
28 Likes
Why the T95 was removed from the changes, specially when his copula weakspot was removed and is not effective anymore???
The rate of fire for M48 plataform is good but the real problem is the crap perform of his HEATFS. Looks like buff western postpen ammunitons for Gaijin is taboo.
1 Like
4 second autoloader, but only has 200mm of pen, it really dont make sense its going to be 8.0
8 Likes
Good job! Thanks!
3 Likes
Seems like you made a fine job of ignoring everybody.
22 Likes
Sagittario 2 STILL going to 9.3?
Please leave it where it is, its going to be outright useless at 9.3 facing 10.3 missile spam.
J29D still going to 8.3?
7.3 planes do NOT need to fight an afterburning plane with great top speed and retention that they stand no chance against.
J6K1 Still going to 6.7 is just sad. The plane will be outperformed by 90% of everything it faces.
Now it will also face 7.7 jets which it simply has NO way of fighting.
This is a perfect example of a plane with mid performance at its current BR being raised simply due to being carried by its guns.
F-5E being left at 10.7 is actually insane. This plane has been over-performing at 10.7 for ages now.
The good change that was to move it to 11.0 has now been removed and the plane stays over-performing.
And I cannot state this enough… F-15 staying at 12.3?
Please tell me this is a joke.
The F-15 being one of the most powerful top tier 4th Gen fighters in the game and you are leaving it at 12.3. Even the Mig-29 SMT and G are going to 12.7 and yet the F-15 which is objectively better than BOTH of those planes still sits at 12.3.
Please move ALL the F-15’s to 12.7 with the rest of the top tier planes and do not leave it at 12.3, this plane SHOULD be 12.7 along with the rest of the top tiers.
F104A (All of them) 9.3 to 9.7 or 10.0. Please get this supersonic plane out of 8.3 matches, it is so unfair to fight its actually not funny anymore. You cannot catch it in any plane around its BR and it out accelerates, out-climbs, out-runs and out-powers 99% of everything it faces.
Su-25 and Su25k please move from 10.0 to 10.3.
9.0 planes do not need to face all aspect 30G missiles that they cannot avoid.
A10A and A10A late, please move them both to 10.3 and 10.7 respectively.
Flareless 9.0 planes do not need to face these all aspect missile carriers.
21 Likes
Thanks!
Please consider looking into the strela’s missile rather than buffing its br. The missile is far too overpowered and unrealistically effective given the small size of its FOV. Russia could use a missile spaa at that br, so nerfing the missile to realistic standards would make more sense and give the Strela more purpose for lower lineups.
3 Likes
Better remove them from game, without flales they cannot find their place in balance
1 Like
Gaijin pls how the otomatic still is at 11.3 for the love of god, it’s terrible at this BR, 2s38 is at 10.0!!!
12 Likes
It absolutely isn’t “decidedly worse” than the T25. It’s far more mobile and with the added stabilizer and faster reload I would much rather play the T20 at any BR compared to the T25.
Both KwK 40 variants (L/43 and L/48) are worse in every way except reload, which is identical. The L/48 gets closer due to it’s longer barrel, but still fires a slower projectile, with less penetration, and with less damage.
The armor on Pz.IVs is poor, even on the Pz.IV H with add-on track armor because the majority of the turret is still just 50 + 15 mm effective. The mobility of the Pz.IV H is also not that great because it’s the heaviest Pz.IV. Overall the M4A1 (76) absolutely has better armor (due to turret, hull is similarly effective on both tanks), better mobility, and far better firepower as not only is the 76 mm better, even if only slightly, it also has a .50 cal and a stabilizer.
It’s a great gun but the M36B2 is more a sidegrade to the M36 than anything. It makes a massive sacrifice in mobility in order to have HEAT. Both could and probably should be 5.7.
17 pounder has great penetration but nowhere near the same amount of damage since it is solid AP.
Since you compared the Fireflies to the M4A3 (76) you should also mention how they have poor gun depression (only -5°) and nowhere near the same amount of mobility, on top of slower reload (keep in mind they only have 5 ready rounds). Also I certainly hope you aren’t including the Comet in there with the 77 mm gun.
The M4A1 FL10 seems like a great vehicle, but the M4A4 SA50 has a much longer reload, 9.75 to 7.5 seconds depending on crew, and has much worse mobility, due to the 4 ton higher weight.
The ARL-44 only has good armor specifically on the upper glacis, everywhere else is mediocre at best, the mobility is also mediocre, and the reload is 10 to 13 seconds, which isn’t exactly “decent fast-firing”.
Firepower is undoubtedly worse. Similar penetration values, similar damage, but the SU-100 has a 40% longer reload than the Jagdpanther. A Jagdpanther with a completely stock loader will reload faster than an SU-100 with a completely maxed out loader (9.75 seconds compared to 10.52 seconds).
The armor also isn’t “slightly lower”. The SU-100 upper glacis gets penetrated by something like the US 90 mm with M82, and the lower glacis is unchanged from the T-34, still 45 mm at 60°, and while the Jagdpanther’s lower glacis isn’t anything phenomenal (currently 55 mm at 55°), it does have the transmission behind it.
8 Likes