Israel is the worst nation to play in, and Raam Sagol is a useless headache

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
34

ACV IP Mk.IIC (Rank I; BR 1.0)
image

One of the first ever indigenous armored vehicles built by india, the ACV IP Mk.IIC now has a speciallized turret with a elevated machine gun.

Stats:

  • Armament:
    • 1x 14mm Boys Anti-Tank Rifle (AP, AP-T)
    • 1x 7.7mm Bren Machine Gun (Turret)
  • Armor:
    • 8mm - 14mm (RHA)
  • Mobility:
    • 90 km/h Forward
    • ~40 km/h Back

Ferret ZPU-2 (Rank I; BR 1.7)

image
image1920×1080 183 KB

A Nepalese Light AA vehicle, using a british ferret and soviet ZPU-2 gun system.

Stats:

  • Armament:
    • 2x 14.5mm KPV Machine Guns (AP, AP-T)
  • Armor:
    • 12mm - 30mm (RHA)
  • Mobility:
    • 58 km/h Forward
    • ~40 km/h Back

TATRA ZU-23-2 (Rank III; BR 5.0)

image
image1024×680 69.3 KB

A TATRA truck equipped with a ZU-23-2… SHEEEEEEEEEE-

Stats:

  • Armament:
    • 2x 23mm 2A13 Autocannon (AP, AP-T)
  • Armor:
    • 5mm - 20mm (RHA)
  • Mobility:
    • ?? km/h Forward
    • ? km/h Back

Improved ZSU-23-4 (Rank VI; BR 8.3)
image

Russian Export ZSU-23-4 upgraded a new engine and Israeli radar and targeting system.

Stats:

  • Armament:
    • 4x 23mm AZP-23 Autocannons (API-T, HEF-I, HEFI-T)
  • Armor:
    • 8.9mm - 9.4mm (RHA)
  • Mobility:
    • 55 km/h Forward
    • 9 km/h Back

TATRA AK-630 (Rank VI; BR 8.7)

image
image1080×809 58.1 KB

A TATRA Truck equipped with a Russian naval AK-630 on the back, mainly used for training.

Stats:

  • Armament:
    • 1x 30mm AK-630 Rotary Cannon (API-T, HEF-I, HEFI-T)
  • Armor:
    • 5mm - 30mm (RHA)
  • Mobility:
    • ?? km/h Forward
    • ? km/h Back

Armado BDL (Rank VI; BR 9.0)
image

This is a modification of the Mahindra Armado that has a lengthened bed and is equipped with a Thales StarsStreak missile system in the back.

Stats:

  • Armament:
    • 2x StarsStreak AA Missiles
  • Armor:
    • 5mm - 20mm (RHA)
  • Mobility:
    • ?? km/h Forward
    • ? km/h Back

Trishul CV (Rank VII; BR 9.3)
image

The Trishul CV was a SAM Carrier for the Trishul SAM, developed in the 1980’s, and seeing limited service in the 2000’s.

Stats:

  • Armament:
    • 4x Trishul AA Missiles
  • Armor:
    • 6mm - 30mm (RHA)
  • Mobility:
    • 72 km/h Forward
    • 12 km/h Back

SAMAR I (Rank VII; BR 10.3)
image

A TATRA truck with two R-70s strapped to the back… wack.

Stats:

  • Armament:
    • 2x R-70
  • Armor:
    • 7mm - 10mm (RHA, Armoured Glass)
  • Mobility:
    • ?? km/h Forward
    • ?? km/h Back

SAMAR II (Rank VII; BR 10.3)
image

A TATRA truck with two P-27Ts strapped to the back… somehow more wack.

Stats:

  • Armament:
    • 2x P-27T Missiles
  • Armor:
    • 7mm - 10mm (RHA, Armoured Glass)
  • Mobility:
    • ?? km/h Forward
    • ?? km/h Back
35

I think you’re going way too off-topic, in my opinion the topic should’ve been regarding Israel.

6 Likes
36

ok

37

All Mk.3’s should be like - 11.0 ngl. The earlier Merks should have their BRs reverted and the 2D moved back to 9.7.

2 Likes
38

Im going to take a really quick jab at your logic here and ask whenever you think premium vehicles should be better than their TT counterparts (and as such, making the game pay to win).

3 Likes
39

Let me respond briefly to that line of reasoning and respectfully challenge the assumption behind it. When exactly do you believe premium vehicles should be worse than their tech tree counterparts to the point of being outright uncompetitive? Because if the logic is to avoid “pay-to-win” scenarios, then making a premium tank functionally worse than every other vehicle in its BR including tech tree tanks from lower tiers is not balance; it’s negligence.

Let’s be clear: no one is asking for premium vehicles to be overpowered. We don’t expect them to dominate or carry entire matches. But a premium vehicle should at minimum offer parity with its BR — it should be viable, competitive, and fair to use. It should not be a punishment for the player who invested real money into it. That’s just bad game design, and it borders on disrespect to the player base.

Let’s take the Raam Segol as a case in point. This is a BR 11.3 vehicle that is worse in survivability, optics, mobility, and internal layout than many tech tree tanks one or even two BRs below it. Its ammo placement makes it a death trap. Its thermals are weak. Its massive profile is hard to hide, and it can be frontally penned by tanks at 10.3. Meanwhile, it’s expected to compete against 12.0 lineups? That’s not a challenge it’s a guaranteed loss.

Now contrast that with the Russian tree, where vehicles like the 2S38, T-72AV (TURMS-T), and even older premiums like the T-55AM-1 are often superior to their tech tree equivalents, with better thermals, survivability, or firepower. The same goes for US premiums, like the M1A1 AIM or the RDF/LT, which are highly effective and comfortably hold their own at their BRs. These premiums deliver value and performance appropriate to their cost which is what any reasonable player expects.

No one is saying the Raam Segol needs to win games on its own, but it should at least stand a fighting chance. As it stands, it feels like it was intentionally made to underperform and that raises serious concerns about consistency in premium vehicle design. Can anyone honestly name another premium vehicle that feels like it’s deliberately built to make the game harder for the person who paid for it?

At the end of the day, people aren’t paying to win. But they also shouldn’t be paying to lose.

40

still not a subtree, the canadian leo and australian abrams are placed where they belong

2 Likes
41

it a CAS nightmare, though… Send a KH-29T Air to Ground missle 180KG of TNT and it just absorbed everything from the top of the turret.

42

I still think India and Israel should be in the same tech tree after a certain BR. They share too much tech today not to be together at the top tier.

1 Like
43

And all that would be fixed if they added ✨nation folders✨

1 Like
44

I dont.

Avoiding pay to win scenarios in any freemium game can never be a bad thing for players.

Just because it is premium doesnt mean the vehicle should perform the same as every other vehicle in its BR.

Taking this example to the extreme, look at premiums like Panzerwerfer 42. There isnt a BR where this thing would be competitive, so if premium tank = cant be functionally worse than every other vehicle in its BR and should be viable, competetive and fair to use, it would need some artificial buff, which is not a good thing.

Of course top tier premiums and MBTs are more naunced but i just wanted to get a point across.

Anyway

Premium status should have absolutely no bearing on vehicle balance, be it Raam Segol, Clickbait or TURMS.

Premium vehicles should not have any special privileges when it comes to their balance.

Take look at Clickbait vs. TT M1A1HC. These tanks are identical as far as i know bar Clickbaits unique decorations and premium status and as such they should always share the BR and any balance decision about their kit. In no way shape or form should Clickbait recieve preferential treatment over M1A1HC just because its premium.

If you want to argue that Raam Segol (and 11.3 Merkavas in general) isnt competetive, sure go ahead.

Just dont build your argument off Raam Segols premium status.

45

Besides- holy Jesus, use Spoilers, scrolling down past that felt like that intro scene from Spaceballs where the starship just keeps going for like 2 minutes lmao

5 Likes
46

I have had bad luck when fighting the Raam sagol. I shoot it and my shot bounces or does minimal damage and then they look at me and one tap me.

1 Like
47

Small off topic, but they DEFINITELY spent some bucks on that render :P

48

Actually, I’ll agree with you in general terms. Yesterday, I took the time to thoroughly review Israel’s entire ground tree, and the situation is quite concerningb especially in top tier. The Merkava Mk.3s sitting at BR 11.3 simply make no sense. These are vehicles that cannot compete fairly with others in that battle rating. In my opinion, they should be dropped to 10.7 at the very least, and honestly, they could easily fit into 10.3 or even 10.0, if not for their main gun, which still performs decently though even that isn’t enough to justify their current placement.

From my own experience, I’ve taken out Merkava Mk.3s with little effort using even older T-72s, which says a lot. The armor protection on the Mk.3 is far below what you’d expect from a modern medium tank, and its lack of mobility makes it an easy target in nearly any scenario. If it at least had a decent thermal sight, one might be able to compensate for its weaknesses, but it doesn’t. So what we’re left with is a slow, poorly protected, and under-equipped vehicle that simply cannot hold its own in 11.3. It’s not that these tanks should be the best in the game but they should at least be able to compete with others at the same level.

To put things into perspective: when I play top tier with Israel, I get much better performance out of the Merkava Mk.2D, which is theoretically an inferior tank. Yet it somehow holds up better, absorbs more damage, and I’ve even gone toe-to-toe with T-80s both tech tree and premium and survived. Its gun might not always penetrate, but at least it gives you time to reposition or react. That’s already more than the Mk.3s offer. That contrast speaks volumes.

Also, when I play against Israel whether with Germany, Russia, the U.S., Sweden, or the UK I almost always win. The Israeli ground tree is noticeably weak overall. That said, there’s an interesting proposal floating around suggesting the addition of Chile into the Israeli tech tree, adding local or modified German vehicles to provide more versatility and depth. I don’t think that would suddenly make Israel the best nation in the game, but it would help them climb out of the bottom in terms of performance and make them a far more viable and appealing tree to grind.

And honestly, I agree with the general consensus: maybe Israel should never have been a standalone tech tree in the first place. But now that it exists, it should be balanced properly and at least offer a basic level of competitive gameplay. Ironically, the only branch I’ve genuinely enjoyed so far is the Israeli air tree, which is essentially a blend of the U.S. and French lines well-structured, but without breaking balance.

49

I’m going to nitpick here. The M1A1 HC is better because of the dozer (Eats even full-calibre APFSDS) and a lack of clutter on the roof. But otherwise identical.

50

Yeah, the thing is with the Merkavas is that their in-game armor is far better than it is in the protection analysis.

51

The Merkava Mk.3’s are 11.0 material. End of story. Saying they should go to 10.3 or 10.0 is a deluded statement.

52

What are you basing your claim on when you say that the Merkava is appropriate for BR 11.0, if it lacks the components and capabilities that other vehicles at that tier have? Technically and practically, it’s at a clear disadvantage. It doesn’t have modern thermals, its mobility is subpar, its armor is ineffective against most common threats, and its high profile makes it an easy target.

Realistically, the only two redeemable traits are its generous smoke deployment and its powerful main gun. However, even its firepower is nothing extraordinary. Its reload time is perfectly average neither slow nor fast — and doesn’t offer a competitive edge over comparable tanks. If having a strong gun alone were enough to justify a high BR, then by that logic, artillery pieces like the M109 should be sitting at BR 10 or higher, which is clearly absurd.

The point isn’t that the Merkava should be dropped to 10.0 or 10.3 — when I referenced those BRs, it was to emphasize that even in those lower tiers, the tank barely feels superior, which highlights how misplaced it is at 11.3.

The most reasonable adjustment would be to move it to BR 10.7, placing it alongside vehicles like the Leopard 2A4, which it closely parallels in terms of generation and role. The Leopard is more agile and has better optics, while the Merkava compensates with more smoke and a slightly stronger gun. In essence, the Merkava Mk.3 functions like a heavy Leopard 2A4 one that lacks proper armor but trades that for marginally better firepower and support tools. At 10.7, it would finally face enemies it can reasonably compete with, restoring balance and making it a viable choice without being overpowered.

53

Merkava Mk.3 is well suited for 11.0. It has many little features that make it nice to play. I’ll list a few:

  • Good Optics (5x-12x and Gen 1 Thermals - Standard for 11.3)
  • ESS + Like 60 Smokes XD
  • Fantastic round even for 11.3, it would have the best firepower at its BR if moved to 11.0. Also paired with a decent reload, which could be buffed to 5s
  • Good survivability, you will tank a hit or two before dying, however the name of the game is to not get hit
  • Trolly armor, its armor is stronger in-game than it is in the protection analysis

Where it lacks is in the mobility department, where it is not much better than a Challenger.
Unless you can find it a round worse than M322 it is not going below 11.0.