Current GSB 1 to 6 Vehicle Placement Issues

Game Discussion Simulator Battle
,
1

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 (47/40) ; 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.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.

[Edit] Corrected inconsistent formatting, misnomer.

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.

1 Like
2

Yeah the German time travellers need to go from reserve tier battles. Those armoured cars are ridiculous and it’s mostly all you see on the Axis team. High mobility, a one-shot kill gun and oddly bouncy armour doesn’t belong there. It’s a light tank it should be made to flank (if the maps even allow that these days that is…).

I agree with the Archer as well. As much as I love my little backwards tank it wouldn’t be broken in the 2nd bracket. It’s an awkward to use (but very powerful when set up correctly) little TD.

I agree with the M18 as well. In general a lot of light tanks are OP, they should never be able to one-shot or frontally pen heavies (except in later tiers at times) as it makes heavy tanks redundant.Text

3
4

Time travellers can be justified in a GSB bracket to provide adequate competition, but it should be done sparingly and carefully considered, current GSB placements show that it has generally not been done so. The E.B.R. (1951) will also need to be moved if the developers bring the Belgian-service M24 into the game, but it can already be moved given the AMX-13-M24 and overall ubiquity of the M24 in the 3rd bracket.

I was surprised when I saw the Archer as not being available in the 2nd bracket, where the M10 already is. I can see the majority of players preferring the M10 to the Archer, but somehow it was decided to exclude the latter. I agree that as a rule, the light tanks of a given bracket should not be able to defeat the front armour of the heavy tanks there. Possible exceptions may be appropriate, though definitely not for the kind of vehicle the M18 typifies.

5

That topic does not address vehicles which are overpowered in their current first placement as are outlined in this topic.

6

There will always be ‘OP’ vehicles in each lineup… remove the top vehicles now and you’ll just replace them with the next most effective vehicle to complain about.

I just want to play my full range of vehicles in every line up…

7

To say that the best vehicles on a team of a given bracket will always be overpowered is an inane statement. To use an example from the current topic, the M4 is capable of obliterating anything on Team B and is a parody of balance, whoever plays it participates in a solo point-and-click adventure. The M4A1 is itself advantaged over the P40/Chi-Nu but they can still deal with it as an opponent.

Included in the first post are vehicle additions to both teams in the brackets in most need of change, which you seem to have ignored. Regarding the aforementioned example, you are saying introduce all late 75mm Shermans and 76mm T-34’s into the 2nd bracket simply because many are Rank II vehicles. It is anticompetitive under these circumstances and should not be applied.

8

you are saying introduce all late 75mm…

Do I need to quote myself?

“This should demonstrate the size of the issue which would be quickly fixed by just adding ALL rank 1 vehicles and most rank 2s…”

Most isn’t ALL… and there are 63 rank 1 vehicles missing in 2_1…

9

I just want to play my full range of vehicles in every line up…

Another quote from yourself. Did you bother to read through the matters discussed apart from seeing ‘Out’ as an item in sections of the list?

You are not interested in balanced brackets, you simply want GRB rules applied to GSB.

10

Balance? in WT?

Are you smoking something funky??

No, I just want Gaijin to address the obvious problems in GSB lineups by at least ADDING vehicles to lineups more than once so I can actually play them more than once in 5 days…

Arguing about balance of 1 tank vs another is a waste of time, they will ONLY balance them by looking at the stats… you really think they play ground sim?? :p

They don’t care about our opinion on vehicle strength… because it’s just an opinion… the might care about the fact that there are 63+ rank 1 tanks unplayable in 2_1.

(FYI you want the M4 removed from 2_1… but are happy to leave the Italian M4 from Rank 3 in game? nice :p

You want

Out: Pz.IV H
AND
In: ⦿Pz.IV G??

They’re 99.5% identical… explain why??)

11

I looked at your played vehicles in sim and it all becomes clear…

Low level Axis only fan eh? ;p

12

I am aware of the lack of balance in this game overall, but GSB is one mode where balance can be had straightforwardly. That they look solely at player performance without any other consideration with which to balance vehicles is abhorrent. On the examples you mention, is the M4’s dominance a matter of opinion? No, it can be seen plainly. For the Sherman I Composito, is it as strong against Team A as the M4 is against Team B? I don’t see it being so. The two Panzers you mention are close under WT conditions, but it is fair that the Pz.IV which combines of the best Pz.IV traits be moved out, as done with Shermans/T-34’s. Premium status on vehicles should not have a bearing on their placement if they relate as those two Pz.IV’s, the two Cromwell V’s and whatever else.

13

You have pointed towards something as if it could not be inferred from the topic title. Now post my GSB statistics on each Rank I-IV vehicle in a well-formatted reply. It will have the opposite effect of what you intend.

Upon seeing your stats as it relates to the topic, I realised the waste of time it was to engage you in discussion of it. If you persist in the forum-trolling efforts, perhaps you can ‘finally contribute’ to the further ruin of the game broadly.

14

Why, because I don’t waste my time in 1_1 to 6_1? I ground out most low tier tanks in ground RB…

I would play more ground sim but siting in a queue is a waste of time for everyone… but you would find more people would play ground sim if you increased the number of tanks they could pick…

Removing tanks because it’s your opinion that they’re ‘OP’ doesn’t necessarily make things better, it just makes it slightly easier… for you I guess.