Following the Roadmap: Responding to your feedback regarding the grouping and moving of vehicles in research trees — Developer response


Following the Roadmap: Responding to your feedback regarding the grouping and moving of vehicles in research trees — Developer response

As mentioned in our previous Roadmap post, we plan to condense and revamp vehicle branches across all trees. Following discussions and feedback collection, we noticed that several new groups and the placement of certain individual vehicles sparked a lot of questions. As we said, we would update you with more information. We’d like to answer the most pressing questions here and describe the principles that govern the new changes in more detail.

When creating new groups and transferring vehicles between ranks, our primary focus is on the Battle Rating, rather than how similar vehicles are to a certain family or operating country. As a new standard, groups are formed with a BR difference of no more than one step (0.3-0.4). However, groups with a larger BR difference are present and in these instances, the larger BR gap is a result of our aim to keep ranks condensed. Our goal with this approach is to allow players to continuously expand their lineup with similar vehicles (previously some groups contained vehicles that varied drastically in BR, which could lead to an unbalanced lineup). Our additional goal is to also allow for players to skip these vehicles if they want to, allowing them to unlock more advanced vehicles quickly if they want to play at a higher BR.

In addition to BR-based grouping, we’ve also tried to group similar models of vehicles where possible. However, design similarity does not directly equate to performance, and vehicles that look similar can potentially perform very differently. We appreciate this new system may visually look strange in some cases, but our priority is to improve the flow of progression and allow players to unlock similar and more advanced machines quickly.

We’d also like to mention that due to the large-scale changes in ranks, some previous groups have lost their relevance, and machines that were part of them may now have moved to different ranks, and potentially different groups as well.

Some of you have also pointed out that the number of premium vehicles in certain ranks throughout the game can artificially raise the height of certain ranks, and we’re working on this issue as well.


We’d like to show some examples of the groupings that we made, and the reasons that we made them.

When grouping and rearranging vehicles, we prioritize the Battle Rating of aircraft in Arcade Battles, however, in some cases, the Battle Rating in Realistic Battles may also be considered.

Let’s begin and mention some of the changes that we’ve made based on your feedback:

  • F-104A / F-104C — are now grouped together.
  • Su-7B / Su-7 BKL — are now grouped together.
  • A28B / Vampire FB 52A — are now grouped together.
  • F6F-5N and F4U-1C — swapped places (with a corresponding change in rank and grouping).
  • XP-55 — moved to rank III.
  • Shenyang F-5 — moved to rank VI.

Next, we’d like to explain why certain decisions were made regarding groupings and the arrangement of certain vehicles. The following are specific examples.



  • The M4A2 was moved to rank II because it does not meet the Battle Rating requirements for rank III. The maximum Battle Rating in AB for US rank II is 3.7, and the minimum for rank III is 4.7. Because of this, the M4A2’s Battle Rating of 4.0 is closer to rank II’s maximum BR of 3.7, than rank III’s minimum BR of 4.7 (0.3 difference, over 0.7 difference).

  • The F8F-1 was removed from the grouping with the F8F-1B and moved to rank III due to the large difference in Battle Rating in both AB and RB.

  • The F-80A-5 and F-80C-10 were not grouped together because of the large difference in Battle Rating. An exception to this can be found in the same rank with the two F-84s, these are maintaining their existing group despite the BR difference to avoid giving the rank a height of 3.

  • The M1A1 HC was moved to the branch after the M60A3 TTS because it is a US Marine Corps tank, and we plan to further enhance this branch, which includes other Marine Corps vehicles as well.

  • The grouping of the M1A1 and IPM1 was done because these tanks are the same in terms of Battle Rating and combat effectiveness, compared to the proposed grouping of the M1 and IPM1.



  • The Marder III and Marder III H were separated into different ranks because their Battle Ratings fit better to ranks I and II respectively and therefore, they cannot be grouped together.

  • The M48 Super was grouped with the KPz-70, and not with the M48A2 GA2, because of their significant Battle Rating differences.

  • The Tiger H1 and Tiger E were not grouped together because in this branch at rank III, there are only two vehicles in height. However, if a vehicle is added in the future, then they may be grouped together.

  • The Jagdpanzer IV and Jagdpanzer IV/70(V) were not grouped together due to their differences in Battle Rating. However, the Jagdpanzer 38(t) matches the Jagdpanzer IV in Battle Rating, and therefore was grouped with it.

  • The Fw 190 D-9 was separated from the Fw 190 D-12 and moved to rank III, because the Battle Rating of the Fw 190 D-9 in AB is 5.0, which falls within the scope of rank III, and the Battle Rating of the Fw 190 A-5 is 5.3, which is why it was moved to rank IV.

  • The BMP-1 was grouped with the Marder A1- because it has the same Battle Rating. The Marder 1A3 was moved after them because it has a higher Battle Rating and offers increased efficiency due to its thermal imager. With how grouped vehicles are arranged in this tree, grouping the two Marders is not possible.

  • The Leopard 2K was moved after the T-72M1 in another rank because this branch is filled with prototypes, imports, exports and GDR vehicles, among others.



  • I-185 (M-82) and I-185 (M-71) were not grouped because there are only 2 vehicles in height in this branch at rank III.

  • The MiG-3-15, which was previously grouped with the MiG-3-15 (BK), has been removed from the group, as it no longer meets the AB Battle Rating criteria for either the MiG-3-15 (BK) group or rank II.

  • The IL-10 and IL-10 (1946) have been grouped because we don’t want to make this branch have a height of 3 at this rank. At the same time, the Su-6 (M-71F) and Su-6 (AM-42) were not grouped as the first Su-6 no longer meets the Batting Rating criteria for rank IV.

  • The Yak-3 was taken out of the group with the Yak-3P and moved from rank IV to III because of its Battle Rating. The Yak-3 was grouped with the Yak-9U because it fits the Battle Rating criteria and otherwise, the rank height in this branch would be 3. The Yak-9P is grouped with the Yak-3P for the same reasons.

  • The SU-85 and SU-85M are in different groups because of the difference in Battle Rating. Grouping these two together would have also meant the branch height would have increased to 3, and the Battle Rating principles wouldn’t have been met.

  • The KV-85 was grouped with the KV-1 (ZIS-5), and not with the IS-1, because foldering the IS-1 would have violated the grouping rule in RB, and having it this way instead means that both AB and RB differences are not violated.

  • We understand that some players feel that the Object 685 should have been grouped with the BMP-3 instead of the BMP-2, and that the 2S25 should have been grouped with the 2S25M. The reason is because we would have to move either the 2S25 to a higher rank, or the 2S25M to a lower rank. Neither is possible unless we extend the Battle Rating of rank VI or VII either lower or higher.

  • The La-7 was moved to rank III because of its Battle Rating. Dolgushin’s La-7 was not moved to a lower rank because as we mentioned in a previous Roadmap news article, we will not be reducing the rank of premium vehicles.


Great Britain

  • The Conway was grouped with the Tortoise and not the FV4005 because of the Battle Rating difference.

  • The Rooikat Mk.1D was grouped with the Olifant Mk.1A, while the Rooikat MTTD was grouped with the Olifant Mk.2 because of their Battle Ratings.

  • The Jaguar GR.1 can’t be moved to rank VII and grouped with the Jaguar GR.1A because the Battle Rating of the Jaguar GR.1 would not fit rank VII.



  • The Type 87 RCV was grouped with the Type 89 instead of the Type 87 RCV (P) because of the difference in Battle Rating and rank.

  • The Ki-44-I was grouped with the Ki-61-I ko and not the Ki-44-II hei, because of the difference in Battle Rating. If they had been grouped, then the rank height would have risen to 3 because they cannot be grouped to the difference in Battle Ratings. When the Ki-44-I and Ki-61-I ko are put with each other, and the Ki-44-II hei with the Ki-61-I otsu, this does not happen.



  • The M4A4 (1st PTG) has the same Battle Rating as its counterpart in the regular research tree, the M4A4, which is also rank II, falling within the Battle Rating limits for this tree, hence the increase in rank is not justified.

  • The ZTZ-96 and the ZTZ-96A cannot be grouped because of the difference in Battle Rating, and consequently, their ranks.

  • The WZ1001(E) LCT was moved after the CM11 because we plan to fill this line with export and prototype vehicles, as well as vehicles from the Republic of China.



  • The G.55 serie 1 was moved up in rank and grouped with the Re.2005 serie 0 because of their Battle Ratings. We did not group it with the G.55 sottoserie 0 because of the difference in Battle Rating in AB mode.

  • The SM.91 was moved to rank II because of its Battle Rating, and as a consequence, cannot be grouped with the SM.92.

  • The Sherman VC was not grouped with the M4 Tipo IC and was moved to rank IV because of its Battle Rating.

  • The SIDAM-25 (Mistral) and the SIDAM-25 were not grouped together due to the large difference in their Battle Ratings, and consequently, their different ranks.



  • The AMX-13-90 and AMX-13 (HOT) were not grouped because of their difference in Battle Rating, and consequently, their rank difference.

  • The F6F-5 was moved to rank II, the same in the US tree, because of its Battle Rating.

  • The Milan was not moved from rank VI to VII because it has a Battle Rating of 9.7 like other rank VI aircraft, and not a Battle Rating of 10.0-11.3 like rank VII aircraft have.



  • The Strv 101 was grouped with the Strv 103A, and not the Strv 81, because they both have the same Battle Rating.

  • The Strv 103A was not grouped with the Strv 103C because of their Battle Ratings, which also puts them at different ranks.



  • The Magach 3/6 and Magach 6A/5 groups were made because the 6A/5 are late Magachs with better shells, while the Magach 3/6 models do not have as good shells.

I think that 4.7 is far too high as a “minimum” for a rank III. There are already far too many vehicles stuck in tier II that should be able to be used to do BP tasks and event grinding that are excluded because of “minimum tier III” requirements. At this pace of setting even more vehicles to tier II, you are cutting out even more vehicles & also handicapping new players even more for from such events and it is a troubling trend.
If this “trend” is to continue, then it is time to rethink going back to a minimum BR requirement as opposed to the tier III we currently have. When they did this before, it was BR 3.0, which I personally think might have been too low and caused the tier III requirement to be re-implemented. I would suggest 3.3 or maybe 3.7 BR would be a more viable option and would hope the Dev team might consider this. As concentrating too hard on “progression” values is having side effects to a lot of other parts of the game. Please to pass this idea along to the Devs.
Thank You
p.s. I know this is a lot of work and sorry to seem to be adding more, but as one that does not grind vehicles so much anymore and focuses on BP tasks and events when they come along, these things are more noticeable to me . . . 8 )


I understand the developers reasonings but I still think its a mistake grouping vehicles that are so different. It will lead to less diversity in battles and having unique vehicles “hidden” is not good and looks very disorganized. Id prefer only similar vehicles (variants) be grouped. If the aim is to make progression faster there are other ways to do so. This is a mistake!


Considering that BR’s change based on gamemode, it doesn’t make sense to make folders based on BR’s over likeness.

For example, AB/RB/SB all have planes that have different BR’s for each mode. How do you determine what modes BR is the correct one for tree placement? And what about future BR changes? Are you gonna shuffle the vehicle trees everytime a BR is adjusted?


I have the same opinion. Most of the iconic vehicles of World War II have been moved to rank 2. This means that during game events, they are completely ignored by players.


I also agree that moving very capable vehicles to Rank II and making them useless for tasks is a big mistake. It’s another step that only screws over the playerbase.

The resulting effects of these reduced ranks are, you’re taking away vehicles from us, and you’re adding more barriers to new players who want to participate in events and challenges.