Few years ago before the stupid movility nerfs, the removal of the most of the sniping positions and continues nerfs for CAS or hide key vehicles behind pay wall “cuz is Germany”.
Well, they’re definitely doing worse than before, but even then, most of their vehicles are still very competitive at their respective BRs.
Not only that, Germany has gotten multiple [unnecessary] BR / reload buffs from the most recent balance changes.
2 Likes
Most of the people specially allies mains tend to exagerate the perform of the Germans vehicles.
Im boring see how people cry and call bad monsters like Jumbo 76 or KV-220 meanwhile complaing about meh tanks like Panzer IV or Leopard 1.
Tiger 2 pre-`production to 6.3 retaining his insane movility nerf is far from be a problem and the realod buff for Panzer IVs is more usefull for italy or Sweden due his rank 3 than Germany.
Meanwhile all IS-2 going down retaining his previous buffs, Soviets and USA receving multiple reload buffs too.
Most of the complains about Germany are more hate form Allies mains the real game issues.
I’m definitely not those people 😅
I know how good the KV-220 and Jumbo 76 are.
Nethertheless, I also know that the 6.0 Panthers are still solid, and that both the Tiger H1s and Tiger Es are still exceedingly good… and others that I won’t spend the time mentioning.
Even with the mobility nerf, the previous BR changes made it so that it now faces vehicles (that were 5.3 - 5.7 before) in just a 0.3 / 0.7 downtier.
I’ll give you an example:
Jumbo 75 was 5.3 and the Tiger II (P) was 6.3. (1.0 BR difference, which is fair in my opinion)
Jumbo 75 was then moved up to 5.7 and the Tiger II (P) also went up to 6.7 (still a 1.0 BR difference).
The Tiger II (P) now moved down to 6.3 (now a 0.7 BR difference).
Same with the Panther Dauphine, Jumbo 76, KV-220, etc…
It’s still a monster as it had been in the past.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. How is the vehicles’ rank relevant to balancing here?
They are still miles worse compared to the Tiger II (P).
Their 20.8s reload, gun depression, gun handling, lack of smoke grenades, and one-shot cupola / turret makes it that way. I’d say the IS-2 (1944) should be 0.3 BR lower than the Tiger II (P), and 0.7 BR lower than the Tiger II (H).
That’s true, though that doesn’t exclude Germany from these unnecessary BR / reload buff changes.
I still think the early Tiger 2 is just better than the normal tiger 2 because of the turret getting volumetricy. Less raw armor but now it’s like a KV-1 turret.
To be fair, 105mm DM63 isn’t that much better than DM33. ~9mm of extra penetration doesn’t really make much of a difference – (even less than M774 compared to M833). It would make UFPing T-72s from certain angles easier but DM33 doesn’t really struggle that much anyways.
Would DM63 make the Leopard 1A5 overpowered and warrant a 0.3 BR increase? I don’t think so.
Does the Leopard 1A5 need DM63 to remain competitive? Definitely not 😅
I would rather have an almost 100% guarantee that anything less than ~150mm is not going to penetrate my turret cheeks over gambling with volumetric.
The thing with British low rank tanks is that most of them are implemented very inaccurately, which usually leads to them sitting at unfitting BRs. Crusaders in particular have a lot of bug reports unaddressed, though I’m only including the ones relevant to the Crusader III here:
The armor should be noticeably stronger in places.
(Bug Report Link 1), (Bug Report Link 2), (Bug Report Link 3), (Bug Report Link 4)
It should have internal bulkheads for the driver and engine compartment.
(Bug Report Link)
The engine power should be marginally higher, but Gajin is being stubborn about simple unit conversion for some reason.
(Bug Report Link)
The top speed should be slightly higher.
(Bug Report Link)
It should have rear smoke dischargers that function akin to ESS.
(Bug Report Link)
Individually, most of these don’t change much, but I think the cumulative value of them pushes the Crusader III into 3.3 territory.
However it would instantly make it far better than tanks like the Olifant Mk.2, Gal Batesh and Magach 7C. DM63 was one of their only advantages they had over the Leo 1A5 at 9.3.
That isn’t really true.
Olifant Mk.2 gets access to Gen 2 thermals for both the gunner and commander sight, access to ESS (OP combo with the thermals, sight, round, and reverse speed btw) has slightly better gun depression (10 degrees), more useful turret armour, and fuel tanks that can eat shots.
Gal Batash gets very trolly turret armour (which is enough to stop 3BM25 and DM23 in a lot of cases, and sometimes even DM33, gets access to ESS (for the thermals + ESS combo), LWS, a coaxial 50.cal, a whole lot of smoke grenades, 10 degrees of gun depression, and is mostly immune to autocannons and HEATFS frontally (unlike with the 1A5).
Magach 7C is the same concept as the Gal Batash except it sacrifices the trolly turret armour, LWS, and 1 degree of gun depression for better hull armour (UFP now stops 3BM25 and sometimes M735 / XM578E1), slightly better turret traverse speed.
Which is stuck to the gun, meaning it has abysmal gun handling like the main gun.
Only against really poorly aimed shots, the mantlet and turret rings are still massive and easy pens for even DM23.
The far superior gun handling and mobility of the Leo 1A5 far outweight any of the small advantages that the Gal Batesh has.
And the Magach 7C is just a worse Gal Batesh.
Well, I did say it was coaxial, so yes, it would have the same gun handling as the main gun.
But that’s better than not having it.
Well, you’re basically describing the Abrams here, but you can make the turret armour work well if you play hull down and try not to expose the turret ring.
Bad shots are plentiful because not many people expect an M60 out of all things to be tanking shots.
I think you’re underestimating how good the Gal Batash is hull-down and in CQC (especially because it gets access to thermals and ESS).
Overall, yes, I agree with you.
1 Like
The gun mantlet isn’t 30% of the frontal turret area on the Abrams.
I have played the Gal batesh plenty. It’s a really good tank, but the Leo 1A5 just has a considerably higher ceiling.
That’s true, but why would anyone go only for the mantlet if they think they can go through the turret cheeks?
That may be true, though I’d say their general skill ceiling is similar. Using mobility to the best possible use cases is quite hard to master but you can often use ESS + Thermals in a lot of precarious situations that the Leopard 1A5 may either have to extensively work around or hope their good positioning wasn’t ever compromised in the first place (which can still happen, especially if you need to take capture points).
1 Like
In general US 8.7 and 9.3 line ups are very opressive, it takes a combined effort, maps and some uptiers to stop them. However T-30 has a 24 second reload it stays 6.7 T-58 needs to get its shot nerfed it has to aim, if it remains the way it is then it should be moved to 9.0. If it becomes aim at turret ring and hatches then it should remain 8.7 cause its slow. As for T-34 its reload is too slow, if the T-30s and T-34s go up so should Tigers II and Hori mori pori as well. In general vehicles with DM-33 rounds and top tier mbts style turret rotation should go up. T- series tanks are way to slow and can never reach places on the map. (On the Soviet side IS-6 and 4m should have their frontal armor relaxed a bit and down in br.
For me anything with good gun handling and good mobility will always have more potential.
And in this case the 1A5 has like a 2-3x faster elevation speed, double the reverse speed and a considerably faster forward speed and acceleration.
1 Like
I mean, I can see where you’re coming from.
Those are certainly good traits to have.
100%
The Leopard 1A5s are pretty good for 9.3, but even without these features, I’d say the Gal Batash makes up for those shortcomings.
It’s not like the T-72A where it has nothing really to offer other than armour that’s only really good in a downtier 😅
1 Like
What BR increase for a shell with at max 10mms better penetration??? The weight doesnt matter either since there is not a single short rod APFSDS for 105mm L7.
DM63 is basically the most pointless shell of the game when DM33 does the same thing.
Prenther.
1 Like
Been going back to german 3.7 to get research bonus for unlocked modules.
Kinda blown away by how insanely bad other german players are. And the tanks at 3.0- 3.7 are soooo good.
1 Like