ngl, dont understand what you mean here
They have used, are using and will use those statistics
So that we had ~9.7 all aspects vs no flr
Then Reversed Decompression for mig15 and sabre only
Now F8F to 4.7 due to US brains but Luftwaffe BRs still high / F111A probably still being with those lots of kills from when it had mobility, since gaijin messed up induced drag and gun elevation so no one plays it
And these things will happen in the future
If you mean to say that it’s a bit silly I agree that they do it without taking into account nuance or context
Yep.
Under this thread I shall say…
Gaijin Get rid of those statistics and Try manage those BRs by practical performance
The Sabra should go to 10.0, it is too good for 9.7 especially compared to the 120S.
The 120S is a better tank, but not by enough to warrant a two BR step difference, and I think they would be better balanced 1 BR step apart.
2 Likes
the Luchs A2 is so f-ing bad in game and not at all as capable as irl. Frustrating af
we need the VEXTRA to be at 10.0 or 10.3 with it’s proper APFSDS and transmission. With the addition of the VCBI probably at 9.3, we can have a “top” tier light tank for France after 4-5 years.
1 Like
Scharnhorst need balance
Now the Scharnhorst has extremely strong protective performance and decent firepower output capability, and no battleship can destroy the Scharnhorst in one-on-one or even two-on-one battles. She is destroying the top-level naval battle ecosystem!
The root cause of the imbalance of the Scharnhorst lies in a certain version of the battleship’s depth adjustment. In this adjustment, Scharnhorst gained the ability to penetrate the same depth as other battleships, but the increased depth of penetration by other battleships was not enough to hit Scharnhorst’s main armor belt and dome armor. The equivalent of the 320mm main armor belt and 110mm dome armor of the Scharnhorst exceeds the homogeneous armor steel of 700mm!
The horizontal defect of the Scharnhorst requires a combat distance of at least 16km or even 20km to be effectively penetrated by other top-level battleships in the current game, which is not currently available on most naval battle maps.
Secondly, there is also a problem with the crew distribution of the Scharnhorst. After destroying all crew compartments, Scharnhorst still has over 45% of its crew remaining. Based on the core area’s anti strike capability, you can only reduce its crew by continuously destroying Scharnhorst’s main guns. What’s even more ridiculous is that destroying a Scharnhorst turret will only cause its crew to decrease by 1% -2%. Therefore, it is almost impossible to destroy Scharnhorst by reducing its crew in the game (currently, the vast majority of Scharnhorst ships that are destroyed in the game have been bombarded by 4-5 battleships at the same time)
And the Scharnhorst is a battleship with a comprehensive protection concept. Currently, the secondary armor at the beginning and end of the hull in the game provides excellent anti sinking performance to Scharnhorst. In most cases, you cannot even sink Scharnhorst by destroying its hull. At present, it is almost impossible to destroy the Scharnhorst through underwater bombs.
The above issues pose a serious challenge to the balance of the game for the Scharnhorst. I suggest balancing the game by adjusting the reserve buoyancy value and hull health of the Scharnhorst.（As shown in the picture, the Scharnhorst was almost invincible in naval battles, and I obtained a huge number of silver lions through the Scharnhorst without even using any skills.）
2 Likes
The japanese air tree confuses me incredibly (air sim BRs).
A6M3 has better engine, better energy retention, better visibility, better high altitude performance, better climb and it’s 3.7
Ki-61-I tei is 4.0
Ki-100 (yet to test live, but according to https://wtapc.org/ the ki-100 outperforms the ki-61-I handily too and it’s roughly the same airframe so better power should be objectively better performance all around). Test flight also shows much better visibility (no annoying frame right as you look to the side. comparable to p-51c/cannonstang). The gunsight is also way better (just like mustangs!)
The b7a2, being a torpedo/dive bomber… also outperforms the ki-61 and has similar visibility. Its gunsight sucks but, can just aim with the little screen thing or gutshoot.
Am I missing something about the ki-61 that makes it better than the ki-100 and a6m3?
1 Like
Hey, does anyone know why Italy’s first IFV is at 9.3 despite not having any ATGMS and despite having the Bradley at 8.7 with TOWs?
It’s very mobile and has a cannon, with APFSDS belt and high RoF, which is pretty good against most targets it meets, kinda similar to Japanese Type 87 RCV, but stabilized and larger. Stock can be hard, but once spaded it’s a pretty good vehicle.
For lower brs other vehicles can be added, like these for example:
No last time I checked it only had APDS belts on it, also, idea: what if you can research a missile for it.
And yes I totally agree with adding more unique Italian vehicles but they still need to balance the current ones AHEM Sidam 25
It has PMB 090 apfsds, top belt is full apfsds.
You should probably wait for another VBC if you want the one with ATGMs.
Although the one with TOW will go to higher brs, unless they limit the main cannon to just apds.
1 Like
Yes, true
Is it the highest IFV without a missile tho?
I personally don’t have it but does it stand a chance against MBTS?
Yeah Sidam sucks, they need to give it SAPHEI-T belt, would make a bit better and able to defend itself against more targets on the ground + an upgrade to a more expensive prototype variant would be nice, especially if you could toggle it by researchable modification.
French VBCI sits at 9.7 with 30 mm + there are multiple with higher caliber (mainly CV90 family).
Yes, there are always many lightly armored targets at these brs, including MBTs, some you won’t be able to penetrate from the front (mostly Soviet with good armor), but you shred everything through sides in seconds and this is exactly what you will do most of time - flank and surprise attack. I should say that 9.3 became a very nice place since stuff like 2A4 was moved higher.
1 Like
IFVs are overtiered in general, referring to the 9.0+ ones.
Cent 2 is my most used tank, It is basically invulnerable to Tiger 1 frontally in downtiers, can traverse maps quite easily and will pen near enough anything quite easy unless its a full uptier in which you become useless, 6.7 is its sweet spot. American Heavies are good at 6.7, would do just fine at 7.0.
I think you’re mistaking overtiering for BR compression. the tech difference from 6.7 to 8.7 is the most dramatic in the game making some extremely good lineups (like 7.7 britain) still be destroyed in uptiers because its tanks from the early 50s seeing stuff from the 60s and newer. Dont put them lower, spread them all out more
You didn’t really play with it. The issue is a mess to play with it if you’re not under 7.0 battle and of course, if decompression is getting fix, it would be ‘fine’ in 6.7
for now they are fine enough at that BR as any higher or lower they become OP or trash, with decompression of course the BR will change