I agree with most of these changes, though I’d like to add a few things:
BMPT / BMPT-72 will continue to be a pain in the ass to deal with hull down even at 12.0, but I’m guessing at that point, most tanks are already starting to have APS to counter it.
Though I would rather have it go to 10.3 / 10.7 and have its 30mm belt kill the crew every time.
The VT4 is at 12.3 and is basically the ZTZ99A with much worse mobility.
At least the VT4A1 would get APS over the ZTZ99A.
I’d put the VT4 at 12.0.
T-72B3A being 0.7 BRs higher over the T-72B3 just because of the Arena-M APS doesn’t sit right with me, but maybe that’s reasonable given the number of missiles it can intercept (including helicopter ATGMs and fixed-wing aircraft), especially because of its 40 degrees of vertical protection.
I don’t think the Leopard 2A4M is better than some other 11.7s, like the M1A1, Challenger 2, and Type 90. If we compare it to the M1A1, for example, it gets a worse round, worse reload, worse hull armour… for slightly better turret armour, and gen 3 thermals. I’d say it should go down to 11.7.
I’m also not sure about the 2PL being the same BR as the 2A5, 2A6, and PSO.
The 2PL gets Gen 3 thermals (instead of Gen 1), but has worse hull armour and turret armour (unless their wedges break). But I can see how the average player may prefer one or the other depending on the map.
The Black Night being at 12.3 could make sense (if you use it at long range), but at close range, it’s effectively just an 11.7 Challenger 2 with 4 APS charges against ATGMs like the BMPT’s, and access to LWS. 0.7 BR difference may make sense for long range maps, but I think a 0.3 BR difference may make more sense in CQC (which is what most maps are at top tier anyways).
The Challenger 2E is a lot more mobile than the 11.7 Challengers, but it’s effectively a crappier M1A2 / M1A1 HC / AIM aside from not having detonatable ammo in the turret, and slightly better hull armour. I’d like to see its first stage get increased or have its ammo replenish quicker into first stage, or move it down to 12.0.
I think the Challenger 3 TD is as good as the 11.7 Challenger 2s (if they get an increased first stage / faster replenishment), so if you aren’t going to move up the 11.7s to 12.0, I’d say move down the Challenger 3 TD too.
I’d like to see the Oplot’s hull armour be more reliable.
If not, then I think it being at 12.0 would be reasonable since the T-80U-E1 would have a worse round and reverse speed, but would have better acceleration, more reliable hull armour, and slightly better gun depression over the Oplot.
I’d move down all the Leclercs to 12.3 as they are inferior to the SEP V1 / SEP V2 in every way other than acceleration and the lack of a NATO Hump. You could even argue that the Leclercs (as they are currently) are worse than the M1A2s / M1A1 HCs too, so they could possibly even go to 12.0.
Though I’d first like to see if they could get access to a better round before moving them down by 0.7 BRs.
I’m not sure about having the Ariete AMV being the same BR as the M1A2s / M1A1 HCs / AIMs.
Its mobility is better than those Abrams but the armour is considerably worse to the point where even 10.7s don’t struggle with killing it (other than maybe the M1 Abrams).
I think it going to 12.0 may be more reasonable.
One more thing I’d like to mention, the Strv 122s recently got DM53, which is a pretty noticeable buff.
So not only are they more mobile, have even better hull armour, roof armour, and smaller barrels, but now they pretty much have the same firepower too. The only reason I’d choose the 2A7V over the 122s are for the thermals, but I’m not sure if that’s a worthy trade-off. At least the Hungarian 2A7V gets better roof armour, and a 50.cal.
Though I’m not sure if all those benefits the 122s get is enough to warrant a 0.3 BR difference with the 2A7V. That’s up to debate in my opinion.
Though again, everything else about your changes seem good to me.
