The aim of this topic is to address issues regarding vehicle placements in Brackets 1 to 6. Affected trees are listed in the order as in the Ground Simulator Battles menu, with brief indications followed by collapsible sections for comments per bracket.
Changes to Bracket 1:
-
USA
Out: M5A1 ; M5A1 TD ; ✪Stuart VI (5th CAD)
In: M22 -
CN
Out: ≛M5A1 -
GER
Out: Sd.Kfz.234/2, Sd.Kfz.234/2 TD -
JP
In: Chi-He ; Chi-He (5th Regiment) ; Ho-I ; Ho-Ni I -
ITA
In: Turan I ; M15/42 ; M14/41 (47/70) ; 75/34 M42 ; AB 43
Changes to Bracket 2:
-
USA
Out: M4
In: M4A3 (105) -
GB
In: Archer ; Cromwell V (RP-3) -
FRA
In: ⦿M4A3 (105) -
GER
Out: Pz.Kpfw.IV H
In: Pz.Bef.Wg.IV J -
JP
In: Chi-Ha LG -
ITA
In: ⦿Pz.IV G
Changes to Bracket 3:
-
USA
Out: M18 ; M18 “Black Cat” ; M18 (Hell)
In: M6A1 -
CN
Out: ≛M18 ; M64 -
GER
In: Sd.Kfz.234/2, Sd.Kfz.234/2 TD -
ITA
Out: ⦿M18
Changes to Bracket 4:
- GER
In: Pz.Bef.Wg.VI P
Changes to Bracket 5:
- ITA
In: AUBL/74
Changes to Bracket 6:
- ITA
In: AUBL/74
Bracket 1 Comments:
The M5 Stuart light tank, in the first bracket, is a shrunken titan. The Celere Sahariano and T-50 are examples of other vehicles which would be disruptive in the same way, yet they are not present nor should this vehicle receive exception. Thus the scourge: Well-protected against opposing medium tanks, very nimble, a lethal rapid-fire cannon that is also stabilised, housed within a turret impenetrable outside of Protection Analysis. The M5 should move out of the 1st bracket, M3A3 and M3A1 are available among others. M22 should enter into the 1st bracket as it and the BT tanks are likewise capable.
The Sd.Kfz.234/2’s capabilities exceed what belongs in the 1st bracket and should be moved out. The Pz.Sp.Wg.P204(f) KwK 39/1 and Pz.Sfl.Ic are available as well as Sd.Kfz.234/1 and Sd.Kfz.234/3.
The JP and ITA trees are missing several appropriate vehicles in the first bracket. There are many Stuarts and Crusader II/III across the Team A trees, both teams have the Pz.III J etc. but the Chi-He, Turan I, M15/42 and other vehicles comparable to available types are not present. Their tanks available at present are not competition against the assembly from Team A trees.
Bracket 2 Comments:
The M4 problem in the 2nd bracket is similar to that of the M5 but it is even worse in affecting JP and ITA, or more precisely any Team B vehicle that is not equipped to KwK40-level. The M4 can carry out rapid stabilised ‘clicks’ on, while ‘tanking’ virtually every attack from, the Chi-Nu and P40. Even tank destroyers depending on large HEAT for AT action are subject to this, and they must additionally manage ‘turretlessness’ and slow fire. To add the ⦿Sherman V, and other like vehicles elsewhere, to the 2nd bracket is not tenable. This variant should exit the 2nd bracket. It is appropriate for the M4A3 (105) to take the role of a heavy Sherman in this bracket.
The Archer should be available before the Achilles is, in the 2nd bracket. The vehicle is itself an obstacle, and is not peer to the Achilles. The Archer is appropriate for the 2nd bracket next to the Churchill Gun Carrier. The Cromwell V (RP-3), regarding operation without the four rockets, is not better protected or otherwise fundamentally enhanced over the Cromwell V to justify a restriction to a higher bracket.
The Pz.IV F2, Pz.IV G and Pz.IV J(Bef.) should be without the Pz.IV H in the 2nd bracket, to be opted between for their traits. This variant of the Pz.IV then joins the rest of the peer medium tank higher-grade variants in the 3rd bracket.
The Chi-Ha LG should be available in the 2nd bracket. The current placement deems this TD’s tank engagement capability to be typical of the 3rd bracket, which is not true.
The ⦿Pz.IV G lacks various elements, important ones included, found on the best of the type. It should be brought into the 2nd bracket.
Bracket 3 Comments:
The M18 is overdue for removal from the 3rd bracket. All affected trees have the M24 already available. USA tree T55E1 and M6A1 are appropriate here, the former is already available. The M6A1 should enter into this bracket without accompaniment by the T1E1. The T1E1 reverse is meaningfully beneficial to normal play, by itself not grounds for separation, but in combination with the strong rear it permits the T1E1 to face effectively in reverse. All manner of fire is absorbed there and cannon operation is without meaningful loss while this is performed. This additional offensive approach cannot be utilised with the M6A1.
The Sd.Kfz.234/2 is to be taken out of the 1st bracket where it should not be, and entered into the 3rd bracket where it should also be.
Bracket 4 Comments:
The Pz.Bef.Wg.VI P is not a superlative design of the Tiger I type to beget the same relationship as between the Tiger II Nr.1-50 and Tiger II for example. This design compares with a concentrated increase to protection in the front-center hull area, with protection schemes elsewhere all worse excepting two inconsequential track pieces and the common cupola problem. The Pz.Bef.Wg.VI P does not extend the capabilities of the type in the end.
Bracket 5 Comments:
The AUBL/74 and available FIAT 6614 are nearly identical in practice, the difference being how they sum their firepower in favour of speed or damage. Moreover, there are Team A vehicles in the 5th bracket which seldomly receive challenge, the AUBL/74 is fit to become another challenger.
Bracket 6 Comments:
The AUBL/74 should also accompany the FIAT 6614 in the 6th bracket.
Other Comments:
In my view there is a need for another bracket to exist below what is currently the first bracket. Make a prior bracket to roughly interwar standard using the same structure as the other brackets and have first-line units be USA tree M2 Medium and M2A4, JP tree I-Go Ko and Chi-Ha (Type 97 57mm), and so forth.