the Luchs A2 is so f-ing bad in game and not at all as capable as irl. Frustrating af
1 Like
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.）
4 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
Lmao @ moving the Sturer emil (an already op TD) down to 4.0 this update.
anyway (all of the following is said about arcade):
Premiums are blatantly, by and large, OP
Explanation: If premiums were balanced, the lines for premium (gold) and Tech tree (blue) vehicles would be coincident, or at least statistically indifferentiable)
Russian Bias is immense and impossible to ignore (+ Gaijin hates Italy):
Explanation: If Russian bias weren’t real, the Russian line would be in line with all the others instead of nearly twice as high. For the second graph, The Russian line would have an average of 1, not start at nearly 2 and go off into space at BR>10
AAs (especially at lower BRs) and, to a lesser exent, LTs are systemically overranked in arcade:
Explanations: These graphs display SL per match, RP per match, Win%, and K/Ds by vehicle type. If vehicle types were acurrately assigned BRs, all these lines would be coincident
Seriously though, Russian bias and, to a lesser extent, American bias is insane and obvious:
Explanation: If the game were balanced, in the first graph, every nation except Israel would have a value around 2, with israel slightly below (because it starts at rank IV, where more skilled players play), and all nations would be around 1 on the second graph. Note france and Israel being below 2 on the first graph, but above 1 on the second, this indicates that they’re actually unbalanced, and their seeming deficiencies are an artifact of the fact that I have a lot of data for France from higher BRs and Israel starts at rank IV. Countries like The US, Russia, and to a lesser extent, Germany, being above average in both indicates poor balance.
and AAs are really obviously on the backfoot compared to ground vehicles:
Explanation: better blaance between AAs and other AFVs would be achieved if AAs (high Air KD vehicles) could avhieve KDs similar to ground vehicles, but by a factor of around 3, they’re SOL)
A couple egregiously undertiered vehicles are as follows:
| FR | D2 |
|---|---|
| RU | SU-57 |
| JP | Ro-Go Exp. |
| SW | SAV 20.12.48 |
| SW | Strv m/42 EH |
| RU | T-28E |
| IT | Sherman I Composito |
| JP | M24 |
| GE | Tiger H1 |
| GE | Pz.IV G |
| FR | AMX-30 S DCA |
| RU | KV-7 |
| UK | Stuart I |
| CN | T-26 |
| GE | Flakpanzer 38 |
| UK | Crusader III |
| RU | T-35 |
| US | T14 |
| RU | T-28 |
| FR | 2C bis |
| CN | M42 |
| GE | Sturer Emil |
| US | M3 GMC |
| SW | Strv m/41 S-I |
| GE | 15cm sIG 33 B Sfl |
| FR | SANTAL |
| RU | T-26-4 |
| RU | SU-122 |
| FR | Panther Dauphiné |
| GE | Nb.Fz. |
| US | M3 Stuart |
| RU | T-34 (1940) |
| GE | Sd.Kfz.251/9 |
| FR | 2C |
| JP | Chi-Ha Short Gun |
| GE | Flakpanzer 1 |
| RU | SU-76M |
| GE | Pz.IV H |
| US | M24 |
| US | M2 |
| RU | T-50 |
| RU | T-34 (1942) |
| RU | T-III |
Provisional BR recommendations, for those I excluded, my mathematical model broke down:
|D2|3.3|
|SU-57|3|
|Ro-Go Exp.|3|
|Strv m/42 EH|3.3|
|T-28E|3.7|
|Sherman I Composito|4.7|
|M24|3.7|
|Tiger H1|7.7|
|KV-7|5.7|
|Stuart I|3.3|
|T-26|3|
|Flakpanzer 38|3|
|Crusader III|3.3|
|T-35|3.7|
|T14|6.7|
|T-28|3.7|
|2C bis|3.7|
|Strv m/41 S-I|3.3|
|15cm sIG 33 B Sfl|3|
|SU-122|3.7|
|Panther Dauphiné|7.3|
|Nb.Fz.|3.3|
|M3 Stuart|3.3|
|T-34 (1940)|3.7|
|Sd.Kfz.251/9|3|
|2C|3.7|
|Chi-Ha Short Gun|3.3|
|Flakpanzer 1|3|
|SU-76M|3|
|M2|3.3|
|T-50|3.3|
|T-34 (1942)|4.3|
|T-III|3.3|
What is that graph showing?
And where are you getting this data from?
I don’t see that many undertiered tanks in that list. The majority of those are low tier tanks that are incredibly good in the hands of a good player. Some of those are undertiered such as the M24s, but some are not good, such as AMX-30DCA or T-26-4.
I think your model needs some work.
I think data analysis of BRs is a great idea, but it isn’t entirely clear what all the graphs are showing, in my opinion.
2 Likes
What is that graph showing?
Assuming you’re talking about the graph regarding preems.
it is displaying the average K/D ratio of premium and tech tree vehicles at each br sampled. More skilled players tend to play top tier, so on average the lines slope down (seal club effect), the difference in height between them is the relative disparity in vehicle performance between premiums and TT vehicles.
And where are you getting this data from?
It is my own work. I don’t think sites like thunderskill have a robust enough sampling methodology and aren’t really adept at providing enough insight into the data to say anything meaningful. Therefore I manage my own spreadsheet and collect data about the game.
I don’t see that many undertiered tanks in that list. The majority of those are low tier tanks that are incredibly good in the hands of a good player.
That’s up for contention, but I’d like to see your model for how you differentiate between “a tank with lots of room to move up in br that experienced players can recognize as a tank with stats inappropriate for its br” and that.
I think your model needs some work.
That is correct! If Gaijin would make more data public, then this would be much easier, but until then I have to collect data about the game the hard way, so I made some compromises in the model that lets me work with less data but sacrifices accuracy to do so.
I think data analysis of BRs is a great idea, but it isn’t entirely clear what all the graphs are showing, in my opinion.
I’m flattered, and I’ve never been very good at labeling or otherwise presenting my data, so I’ll try to work on that.
1 Like
…what
EXCUSE ME ACTUALLY WHAT
2 Likes
The list is quite frankly nonsensical. They have the french panther, but not the german one, and their BR recommendations are even wilder.
Like, Strv m/42 EH to 3.3? What? Yeah, it can be very good when used right, but its cannon has anemic penetration and against any sort of 75mm guns its armor is downright useless.
Hell, they even recommended the Sherman I composite go to 4.7.
1 Like