What is the point of giving an aircraft a BR if matchmaker is going to put you up against a higher BR, even when said aircraft is the weakest at its current BR?
2 Likes
Guess it’s because it’s an Israeli tank ! … And I have been thinking / wondering … exactly like you !
Air RB Feedback
Changes to maps:
- City and Rocky Pillars: These maps are too small for any kinds of planes that are not dogfighters and promote too much importance of a furball fight.
Changes to planes:
-
F-4EJ: either preferably give it usable SARH like AIM-7E2 or if not, reduce it to 10.7 BR. The fact that the F-4E is at 11.0 and this thing also at 11.0 is absolutely unfair. You have to at least have the common sense to let a compulsory grind plane for Japan be good or above average.
-
F-104S.ASA: The plane is balanced for the time when the AIM-9L was busted, now, its a Starfighter at 11.3 that has (2)-4 average IR missiles and (2) slightly better AIM-7E2. Compared to the Mig-21MLs and F-4J(S), it should be clear. Either it should be able to bring more missiles or be reduced to 11.0BR.
Remember that having a good plane in a tech tree to be an incentive for the tree can be okay, especially if that country has NOTHING else at the tier. Like if planes can be at a lower BR because they don’t have all the weapons then a tech tree should have a good plane at a tier because no more planes are/can be added to make the grind bearable.
1 Like
Air RB Feedback
- Clouds: Please don’t fucking put clouds the same altitude as the airfields. Like the planes aren’t going to be cleared for takeoff in such a condition anyway. And gameplay wise, people can’t land if they can’t see the runway.
6 Likes
P.S. Where is the edit feature? Note that the ASA can’t even bring a guns if the SARH missiles are brought.
Last month’s battlerating changes saw the M26 Pershing (In USA, Italy, and France) go from 6.3 to 6.7.
This change effectively killed the vehicle for me, and I imagine for many others. It wasn’t even that good at 6.3, it was fine, but nothing to write home about.
There’s just so many other options at 6.7, all of which outperform the M26 in one or more critical areas. The T26E1-1 has much improved armor and a better gun, for a very slight mobility decrease. The T26E5 is the M26, but with almost three times as much armor, but slightly slower. The M26 isn’t very fast to begin with, so these heavier options are objectively better in vast majority of gameplay situations.
When you compare the M26 characteristics with that of other nations, I find it most analogous to the Panther tanks. The M26 has less armor overall than Panther, but compensates with irregular hull and turret shape that can deflect glancing shots. It also has a lower profile. The M26 forward mobility is slightly worse than Panther, but compensates with better reverse. The 90mm M3 has slightly less penetration and velocity than Panther 75mm, but has more HE filler.
So why should the M26 be 0.7 BR higher than Panther A, F, or G? IMO they are more or less comparable vehicles and should not be more than 0.3 BR difference, if any.
7 Likes
Hello I love(ed) the game but me(an american main) think its unplayable im at 7.7 and I cant get a kill. Im not a bad player but an stock m46 cant pen a Maus. I get killed in the spawn permanentely. I think we need longer waiting for more BRs.
2 Likes
The 2S38 and M1128 should be nerfed or put its BR at 10.7 or higher because both of that vehicle is too overpower at its current state and BR
4 Likes
absolutely
3 Likes
British RB Ground BR’s:
- A1E1 Independent: 1.3 down to 1.0. Terrible armour for a heavy tank, worse than many nations light tanks even at 1.0. Terrible mobility. Massive target. 3-Pdr gun isn’t a redeeming factor either, it’s not the worst gun in the game, but due to all the other factors combined it’s made much worse.
- SARC IVa: 1.3 down to 1.0. It’s fast, and that’s kinda it. If you compare it to the Daimler it shares a BR with, it loses in almost every respect. Worse armour, no shoulder stabiliser, gun is incredibly bouncy and kicks like a mule after firing, worse gun elevation and depression angles, and it’s open-topped.
- Churchill Mk. I: 3.3 down to 3.0. The 2-Pdr is horrendous at this point, mainly due to the lack of mobility to flank. Even taking it in downtiers it struggles to penetrate Pz. IV F2’s with add-on track armour, Pz. III M’s, M4A1’s, etc.
- AC I: 3.0 down to 2.7. It plays exactly like a faster Valentine Mk. I, the armour is good but not amazing. Like the Churchill, the 2-Pdr really begins to struggle around this BR. The Churchill Mk. I dropping to 3.0 should be the highest BR vehicle armed with a 2-Pdr.
- Crusader AA Mk II: 4.0 down to 3.7. I don’t understand why this vehicle even went up. Just compare it to the Wirbelwind, far less rate-of-fire, less penetration, and half the guns. The only advantage the Crusader AA Mk. II has is an enclosed turret and more mobility. The 2 were very asymmetrically balanced.
- Churchill Mk. III: 4.0 down to 3.7. Less mobility than the Churchill Mk. I, same hull armour, and worse turret armour (only 3.5 inches compared to 4 inches). The gun is better, but that’s it. It’s also the same gun that’s on the AEC Mk. II at 3.0.
- Churchill NA75: 4.3 down to 4.0. It’s more of a side-grade over the Churchill Mk. III, not a direct upgrade. You lose the good rate-of-fire, lose the shoulder stabiliser, and lose a decent amount of penetration for a better damaging shell. That’s the only difference, the shell is good but if the Churchill Mk. III goes down then the NA75 should as well.
- Comet: 5.3 down to 5.0. It’s really a shadow of its former self. The A30 Challenger is a better vehicle in almost everyway. Just compare it to the VK 3002 (M).
- AC IV: 5.3 down to 5.0. It’s just a slightly better Firefly. Again, just compare it to the VK 3002 (M).
Skink: 5.3 down to 4.7. Just like the Crusader AA Mk. II really don’t understand why it keeps going up. Again, just compare it to the Wirbelwind, you still have less firepower and penetration but now have the double the guns of the Crusader AA Mk. II, and the same amount of guns as the Whirbelwind. Is that really worth a BR increase of 1.3 currently (4.0 to 5.3)?
- Tortoise: 6.7 down to 6.3. Just compare it to the T28, very similar vehicles except the Tortoise is covered in weakspots, lacks APHE, and just as slow.
4 Likes
Why do the arcade assault AI tanks have to be so hard? It’s beyond a joke at times. Why the hell do we get spawned in the middle of nowhere with NO COVER what so ever, just to be killed 2 seconds later by AI tanks before you even know what way you are facing. THIS MUST BE CHANGED.
4 Likes
Another evening of unopposed battles. I have been on the losing side of course. I know that nothing will be done about this but I needed to vent.
2 Likes
I doubt you’re allowed to swear like a 12yo edgy kid.
Based, but slightly unhinged.
The common problem is how Relikt and other heavy ERA behave with volumetric, especially with the side armor having the uncanny ability to just absorb APFSDS.
I can agree that it’s getting to the point where the lack of volumetric or ERA fixing and leaving western tanks unnaturally vulnerable is extremely annoying.
Western tanks can sometimes eat rounds but much less often. But it’s used as an excuse that it’s working fine enough if it doesn’t just happen to eastern Bloc vehicles.
3 Likes
I’m especially annoyed by how the carousel autoloader spall-plate absorbs all fragments, but creates none. (Whereas thicker spall plates found on many western tanks create more spall than they stop)
1 Like
I was mad thus the swearing, but even if i wasnt mad, what does me swearing has to do with the ‘problem’? Swearing is everywhere on the internet and irl so yeah, cant see the reason why would u waste ur time to comment on it and mine to read it lmao unless u dont agree with me and pointing out my cussing is the only thing u can do.
1 Like
Getting this mad over a video game.
The fucking audacity to do this shit is insane and there are STILL people to come and say there is no rus bias.
There is unironically no bias in this game, ammo and fuel tank bugs happen on who knows how many vehicles at various tiers.
When it comes to Simulator battles matchmaking when I am in a squad of 2 or more players, due to there being strict player count limits on teams, we can only ever find a match if the team we are joining is down players. In specific higher tiers (5,6,&7) it is very rare to get an open Simulator room unless all of us have the ability to switch teams and happen to still have the same vehicles.
In short, squads have a hard time finding matches when our player count hits 3 people, especially with 4 people.
I know if team player number limits were changed that would lead to fairness issues. So a solution I can think of is having larger matches on maps like the 131km x 131kms that can handle more people. Or having larger matches in addition to larger maps above 131km.
In my group of friends that play WT, all of us like Sim battles the most. We just don’t get the option to play them often because of team player count limits. I’m sure other Squadrons run into similar problems with Simulator Battles.
USA and USSR top tier should never be paired in teams.
Why are two of the most strongest nations in the game paired together? It is incredibly unbalanced for minor nations who don’t measure up to the strengths of USA and USSR.
USA has complete air superiority while USSR has the strongest ground and air line up.
It should be impossible (realistically speaking) for the two to be paired together in a team as it creates a one sided battle where they are guaranteed to win by their ground and air superiority.
Minor nations have no chance to fight back against American CAS. Japan, Israel and Italy for example have no SPAA or any viable CAS for top tier ground RB.
Therefore it is crucial for USSR and USA to be in separate teams to balance each other out and create a fair environment for every nation in the game.
4 Likes