Gaijin do you really want me to belive that the F15 is worse than MIG 29G? Jesus… u really didnt learn anything from the past years. STOP balancing vehicles based on win rate… ofc all the dummies in the world rushed to play those F15’s and lost games in a row. PLEASE fix this, for once listen to the players and see reason.
8 Likes
AGS is still going too high without M900
22 Likes
It’s fast only on high attitudes, on the deck It’s on par with others, but good dynamics + maneuverability, so 12.7.
Soon? Anyone know how long it usually takes for them to implement this? Cant wait!
The Sprut ALREADY had a comparable round with 3BM46, 3BM60 is overkill to the extreme, and the Sprut chassis is not what I’d call bad. Again, its a light tank, meaning it really wont have much armor. Its decently mobile and the frontal plates can be trolly with darts. I really dont get why youre comparing a TT vehicle to a very very rare event vehicle. The Sprut didnt need 3BM60, but they gave it anyway, so it should be moved up accordingly
8 Likes
Therefore, China’s M60TTS is still worse than that of the United States. Maybe Gaijin thinks, “I adjusted the order of ammunition development, so it became stronger”
It’s ridiculous, Gaijin.
Chieftain and T95E1 are still not taken seriously, and it’s great that employees who never play games will never care about these poor vehicles
13 Likes
Would be nice to see the reload rate of the Merkava 1 and 2 be buffed to its historical 12RPM but it’s probably too much to ask for
3 Likes
why is the m48a2gA2 still 0.3 higher than the magach 5. They should be the same br. I would even say the magach 5 is better than the m48A2GA2
Kugelblitz at 7.0 is acrime aswell.
7 Likes
Don’t think the adjustment on the 3BM60 of 2S25M at 10.0 is making sense.
Also the F5E should keep moving up since it indeed have really high combat efficiency.
5 Likes
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