I never said it was good.
But the vehicle you compared it to is worse in many ways - so there’s no justifying putting it at same BR as the Wiesel. It’s almost like you think UAV and STAB don’t have any impact …
2 Likes
Here’s a few things from my google docs of balance change proposals. I’ll probably post these on my own in the next official balance suggestion thread, but I figure I can at least gauge public sentiment with my proposed changes here.
Pz.III F
germ_pzkpfw_III_ausf_F
-
Arcade Battle BR: 1.3 → 1.7
-
Realistic Battle BR: 1.3 → 1.7
-
Reload Speed: 4.0 s → 3.7 s
Rationale:
The Pz.III F is a bit too good across the board for its current BR. The APC round has great pen and decent damage, the speed is well above average with sufficient p/w to reach it, the 70 mm effective mantlet can stop many lower power guns, and the hull armor holds up well enough against autocannons when angling correctly.
It’s a huge step up in performance for a 1.3 vehicle. It makes more sense for it to be closer in BR to the Pz.III J, as the only thing that really changes between the two is the front hull armor increasing.
While the Ausf.F doesn’t have the convenient turret ready rack of the later Pz.III variants, it still uses shorter rounds than those of the L/60-armed variants, so I believe it would be fair to buff the reload to a comparable level as compensation for a BR increase. For consistency’s sake, the Pz.III J’s reload should probably also be buffed to a comparable level, if not to 3.5 s.
Type 2 Ka-Mi
jp_type_2_ka_mi
- Reload Speed: 4.0 s → 3.1 s
Rationale:
The Ka-Mi arbitrarily gets much worse reload than most other 37 mm armed vehicles despite having a semi-automatic breech and two-man turret (+2 on-board engineers that would be able to pass ammunition to the turret crew, but aren’t modeled atm). The gun is extremely close in performance to the Swedish 37 mm, so a comparable reload to Swedish tanks is reasonable.
Type 2 Ho-I
jp_type_2_ho_i
- Reload Speed: 5.9 s → 3.3 s
Rationale:
Other vehicles with low velocity howitzers like the T-28 (1938), M8 HMC, and early Panzer IV’s have aced reload speeds of 3.3-4 seconds, but the Ho-I’s is longer than even many higher velocity 75 mm guns. This should be the opposite. The Ho-I’s rounds are shorter and lighter than the German short 75 mm’s rounds, and are more accessible than those of the Panzer IV’s due to the convenient bustle ammunition rack. Additionally, the Ho-I has greater need for faster reload than the Pz. IVs due to the much worse HEAT shell muzzle velocity, meaning misses at range are more frequent, and with the current reload rate, more punishing.
3 Likes
lol i knew that so many times that i wrote the Conquer i will confuse it with conquest one time
The Panhard is absolut garbage in the mobility department, a slight slope and it wont get up. Getting up to speed is also slow.
The 234/2 is fine at 3.7. It just needs to be bumpt up to Rank III, no BR change required.
Generally you start decompressing over preforming vehicles first.
Tiger II, and T26E5 are in need of an uptier.
You’re more than welcome to post them here. The forum moderators take down duplicate posts all h the time, and it makes little sense to start a new thread when they watch this one already.
Especially since this is for GRB. I could change the title to GRB / SB.
While we’re at it, we need to fix all these German “free traverse” rates. 25 degrees is just a ridiculous estimate based on placeholder Gaijin values. There was no math done to make even a semi-accurate free traverse rate based on other systems. Just a “Similar to other light tank turrets in game” which were all the same players bug reports referencing each other. For example, his suggested rate (which Gaijin have now used) was for a vehicle that doesn’t even have a turret.
- Pz.II C, Pz.II F, Pz.II C (DAK) should be using their geared traverse. Which is 12 degrees a second. 360/90 = 4 degrees per wheel turn X 3 wheel turns a second.
-
Pz.35(t), Pz.38(t) A, Pz.38(t) F should be using their geared traverse. Which is 9 degrees a second. 3 degrees per wheel turn, assuming 3 wheel turns a second. Pz.38(t) n.A. likely would use this value as well but I’m currently investigating.
-
Pz.Sfl.Ic shouldn’t have a turret. See hyperlink above.
-
Sd.Kfz.234/2, Sd.Kfz.234/2 TD, Sd.Kfz.234/2 “Biene” are all around the 10 degree mark as well.
-
Sd.Kfz.222, Sd.Kfz.234/1, Sd.Kfz. 140/1 could very well be slower.
It’s too early to report, but this is the issue when people create values. Free traverse is even harder to gauge than geared traverse, because now you have to factor in the diametre and mass.
3 Likes
I never reported it for the Pz.Sfl.Ic, thats not my fault.
And i referenced it based on the US light M2A4 tanks.
And the option of Free traverse (even if estimated too high, one could argue 15°/sec would have been more fitting.) isnt wrong, even if opinions may differ.
But while your at it, are the US and UK tanks correct, with their hand geared turrets? They are all quite fast. (Tho i wouldnt mind a buff for the Medium M2.)
1 Like
The M2A4 and M3 Stuarts are probably not accurate. Iirc, one of the major improvements of the M3A1 Stuart was the introduction of power traverse, but the M2A4 and M3 are still traversing at the same speed. That, and 3 other major historical nerfs for the M3 could bring it down to 1.7.
- The turret side armor is too thick, and was only raised from 25.4 mm to 31.8 mm in later models, which the in-game version is not.
- The fire rate is a bit excessive for the 37 mm M5’s non-semi-automatic breech.
- The M51 APCBC round were only capable of reaching 2550 ft/s from the M5 (2600 ft/s from the M3/M6) around the time the M3 Stuart was in service. It wasn’t until some point in 1943-1944 that the alterations to the cartridge or propellent enabled the M51 round to reach 2800 ft/s.
The M2 Medium’s abysmal traverse was definitely just some odd balance decision since they have a ton of leeway to make up whatever traverse speed for manually rotated turrets. It’s slower than the BT-42’s traverse rate atm for Christ sake. It’s also missing the shoulder stab, seen in the top images.
1 Like
I don’t wish to sound like I’m brushing your opinions off, but this is a ground vehicles only thread. Might want to look for a separate thread to bring this up.
Thanks for the heads up! I will delete the comment.
1 Like
You’re right 8.0
This is bait lol
“Just like the Pz.Sfl.Ic same gun, and system and also 25°/sec in game. (The Screenshot doesnt show it fully as i dont have it and its not represented with the Turret traverse improvement modification.)"
I haven’t started on US tanks, so I can’t say. I do believe some of the early Stuart’s might be too high.
Many of the UK ones are. I’ve personally bought over two dozen manuals to report them, or shared those manuals with others to do the same. I’m the guy who caught crap for cutting the Fox and Scimitar traverse in half (man, people online hated that). Even now it’s likely still too fast. I’m trying to track down the gear ratio for the two speed traverse.
Right now I’m tracking down turret ring and turret weights for these free traverse systems. Then I can use Rotational Dynamics and Moment of Inertia to get more accurate turret speeds.
3 Likes
Sounds interesting. Good luck.
1 Like
Man I totally forgot the M2 exists.
I like playing bad 1.0 vehicles but I probably haven’t played the M2 since 2018.
It’s just so ugly and has that awful turret traverse 😂
It feels more like a parody of tank with the amount of machine guns it has.
1 Like
Gotta love how it has two roof mg’s we aren’t able to use, but it gets a co-ax mg that just should not exist.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/OBBK2dQWe7Ij
2 Likes
Even Gaijin forgot this vehicle exists 😂
That’s hilarious.
Suggestion for new player retainment. The jump from 2.0 - 2.7 into 3.0 - 3.7 uptiers is massive. Many of these 2.0 - 2.7 vehicles struggle in 1.0 uptiers. This is damaging to new player retainment, as constant losses can put someone off the game.
3.0 - 4.0 is fairly balanced, at least for the major nations vehicles and their copy-pasted versions. 4.3 is effectively a dead BR bracket due to a lack of lineups for most nations. So I think if we shift up most of the 3.0 - 4.0 vehicles to 3.3 - 4.3 we’ll help balance out the new player experience.
USA:
- M4A3 105: 3.0 up to 3.3
- T18E2: 3.0 up to 3.7
- M4A1: 3.3 up to 3.7
- M4: 3.7 up to 4.0
- M24: 3.7 up to 4.0, and make it Rank III
- M4A5: 3.7 up to 4.0
- M4A2: 4.0 up to 4.3
- Calliope: 4.0 up to 4.3
Germany:
- StuH 42 G: 3.0 up to 3.3
- Panzer IV F2: 3.3 up to 3.7
- Panzer IV G: 3.3 up to 4.0
- Panzer IV J: 3.7 up to 4.0
- Sd.Kfz.234/2: 3.7 up to 4.0, and make it Rank III
- Panzer IV H: 3.7 up to 4.3
- M4 748(a): 4.0 up to 4.3
USSR:
- SU-122: 2.7 up to 3.0
- T-34 (1940): 3.3 up to 3.7
- T34E STZ: 4.0 up to 4.3
UK:
- Cromwell V: 3.3 up to 3.7
- Cromwell V (RP-3): 3.3 up to 3.7
- Cromwell I: 3.7 up to 4.0
- Ram II: 3.7 up to 4.0
Japan:
- M24: 3.7 up to 4.0
China:
- M24: 3.7 up to 4.0
- M4A4: 3.7 up to 4.0
- M4A4 (1st PTG): 3.7 up to 4.0
Italy:
- M24: 3.7 up to 4.0
- Sherman V: 3.7 up to 4.0
- Sherman I Composite: 3.7 up to 4.0
- Panzer IV G: 3.7 up to 4.3
France:
- M4A3 (105): 3.0 up to 3.3
- M4A1: 3.3 up to 3.7
- M4A4: 3.7 up to 4.0
- AMX-13-M24: 3.7 up to 4.0
Sweden:
- M24DK: 3.7 up to 4.0
- Pz IV: 3.7 up to 4.0
- Sherman III/IV: 3.7 up to 4.0
- SAV 20.12.48: 3.7 up to 4.3
Something like this would maintain this brackets internal balance. I’d highly recommend looking at some of Fourche7’s suggestions here. With his M4A3 105 improvements it could potentially even go up to 3.7 in this list. Further improving the new player experience.
I’ve left heavy tanks and tank destroyers untouched for the moment.
3 Likes