Leopard 1 is unfairly matched against technologically superior ZTZ-69 and ZTZ-59D1 at low Battle Ratings

Game Discussion Arcade Battle
1

Battle Rating and technological imbalance between Leopard 1 and Chinese tanks

Hello,

I would like to suggest a review of the Battle Ratings of the Leopard 1, ZTZ-69 and ZTZ-59D1.

My main concern is not simply the historical age of the vehicles, but the significant difference in their technological level and fire-control equipment.

The original Leopard 1 entered service in the mid-1960s. It represents a tank designed around the technology and battlefield requirements of that period. In contrast, the ZTZ-69 and especially the ZTZ-59D1 are significantly newer or heavily modernised vehicles.

The biggest problem is the difference in fire-control capabilities.

The ZTZ-69 and ZTZ-59D1 have laser rangefinders and much more modern fire-control systems, allowing them to quickly and accurately determine range and engage targets at medium and long distances.

The standard Leopard 1 does not have the same level of fire-control equipment. This creates a significant gameplay advantage for the Chinese vehicles, especially on larger maps where accurate range estimation is very important.

I believe that the standard Leopard 1 would make much more sense when compared with vehicles closer to its technological generation. If we want to compare it with a later and significantly improved Leopard, the Leopard 1A5 would be a much more appropriate comparison because it received a substantially upgraded fire-control system, including a laser rangefinder.

My concern is that the relatively low Battle Ratings of the ZTZ-69 and ZTZ-59D1 allow these vehicles to fight against considerably older vehicles while retaining major advantages in fire control and target engagement.

I am not asking for vehicles to be balanced purely according to their historical introduction date. I understand that War Thunder Battle Ratings are primarily based on in-game performance. However, I believe that technological capabilities should also be considered when a vehicle has a major advantage over opponents at the same BR.

I would therefore ask Gaijin to review the Battle Ratings of the ZTZ-69 and ZTZ-59D1, especially considering their:

  • laser rangefinders,
  • fire-control systems,
  • stabilisation,
  • night-fighting capabilities,
  • optics,
  • ammunition,
  • and overall effectiveness at medium and long range.

In my opinion, the current BR placement does not sufficiently reflect the technological difference between these vehicles and the standard Leopard 1.

Thank you for considering this feedback.

3 Likes
2

Which there will be people arguing that the 100 mm APDS-FS is way too weak for battle rating 8.3 and higher on vehicles like Type 59, Type 59A (ZTZ59A), Type 59D1 (ZTZ59D1), Type 69 and Type 69-IIA. It’s for a fact that Gaijin been ignoring, and players that own the vehicle deliberately playing ignorant of those vehicles’ questionable battle rating placement.

Chinese line-ups around battle rating 8.0 and battle rating 9.0 has—in terms of capabilities—superior vehicles. However, this doesn’t mean that I do agree with your argument of the Leopard I. As I’ve spoken in a similar thread about a similar subject of more realistic battle rating. That simply doesn’t work in War Thunder. There are practical examples of vehicles in battle rating not matching to their historical periods when compared to other vehicles in the same battle rating.

While I don’t agree with your argument, the point of using those five vehicles as examples of this clear issue is that Leopard A1A1 is another good example of questionable battle rating placement. I ask myself: What the hell is a DM23 shooter doing at battle rating 8.7? It’s not a terrible platform, a decent cannon, for an amazing penetrator at such low battle rating, no wonder people also are not speaking about this other issue and many others.

3

The ~7.0-9.3 range is all slightly over compressed

As long as the BR ranges stay the same, many vehicles that see single step adjustments (+- 0.3) will end up just as many problems as they avoided

1 Like
4

IMG_6316
IMG_63161170×471 106 KB

3 Likes
5

Tbh it is wierd to see some Chinese 8.0-8.3, that should normally be 8.7-9.0, in the game with how many other vehicles got shifted around.

More valid comparison would be Soviet T-54 (1949/51…) aginst those tanks. It is unknown to me how such T-54 is the same BR as Type 69, which has a single-plane stab (not two-axis, but still better than nothing) and a better engine as well, while not having APHE – instead suboptimal APFSDS and HEAT-FS.

And a thing like ZTZ-59D1 also gets DM23 equivalent while being 8.3 – worse engine than Type 69, but still punches properly at its BR and above it.

At the same time it is weird to see thing like T-55Ms at 9.x because, again, they kinda have similar/worse firepower, but get better mobility and/or protection packages, which scream “higher BR” yet cannot be kept at such BRs since you get 120-125mm APFSDS slammers with full-fledged stabs and, sometimes, proper thermals.

The problem is a compression – not as severe as at higher (9.x-11.x) and lower (5.x-7.x) BRs, but still visible the more you play different vehicles.

There was also little to no reason to say LeoA1A1 should be 8.7 while having two-plane stab + LRF, but it’s not the only thing that should not have been lowered in BR during latest balance changes. Gaijin is about statistics, not player capabilities.

6

Yes, I apologize if my post was not written very clearly. English is not my first language, so I may not have expressed my point very well.

My main point was actually not the Leopard 1 itself. I mainly wanted to point out the ZTZ-69 and ZTZ-59D1 and how strong their combination of equipment is for their current Battle Rating.

They have a stabilizer, laser rangefinder, and although their APDS-FS ammunition is not particularly strong compared to higher-BR vehicles, it is still an advantage over many of the vehicles they can face. When you combine this with their other equipment, I feel that they can be very effective against vehicles from other nations at the same BR.

I used the Leopard 1 mainly as an example of an older vehicle that can struggle against these Chinese tanks because of the difference in equipment and fire-control capabilities.

I understand that Battle Rating in War Thunder cannot simply be based on the historical age of a vehicle. My point is more about whether the current BR properly reflects the overall capabilities of the ZTZ-69 and ZTZ-59D1 compared to the vehicles they regularly face.

Thank you for explaining your point, though. I understand what you mean about historical dates not necessarily being suitable for determining BR in War Thunder.

8

The Leopard A1A1 in War Thunder does not have a laser rangefinder. It has a two-plane stabilizer, but no LRF. Personally, I don’t think it is good enough for BR 8.7.

9

It was arguably either good enough for 9.0 or just barely too weak for 9.0, depending on the stance of who you’re asking. Saying that the A1A1 is not good enough for 8.7 is hilariously out of touch with reality.

2 Likes
10

From my perspective, I don’t see the Leopard A1A1 as competitive at 9.0, especially when compared with other tanks at that BR. Its equipment is simply behind many of its competitors.

For example, the OF-40 Mk.1 is at a similar BR level to the Leopard 1, yet it already has a laser rangefinder. That is one of the reasons why I find it strange to put the Leopard A1A1 at 9.0 when it lacks even this capability.

I know I keep mentioning the rangefinder, but from my experience playing these vehicles, there is a very noticeable difference between having an LRF and not having one, especially on larger maps and at longer ranges. Of course, I understand that not every player will value it equally.

I also feel that moving the A1A1 to 9.0 would make the gap to the Leopard 1A5 at 9.3 rather small. In my opinion, the 1A5 is much better suited to 9.3 because its equipment and fire-control system are appropriate for that BR.

So I wouldn’t say the A1A1 is objectively terrible at 8.7, but from my own experience I don’t see it as a 9.0 vehicle when compared directly with its competitors.

11

Compared to the Type 74E at 9.0, the only downsides the leopard has are a lrf lack and a worse shell, but the Leopard has the advantage in across the board mobility, optics, both traverse angles, and the ability to use all of it’s gun depression without changing suspension

1 Like
12

The maps just don’t suit the thing. No matter how hard Leo drivers try, you can always visit them with some autocannon or APHE spam to ruin their day.

13

You are wrong here Arcade should have other BR and rank system completly diffrend from Realistic.

Example British Tanks 7.7 are usless vs Rus and China tanks from the front but they can pene you with 135 pene from rank 2 and 3 with 0 aim Arcade is not Realistic

14

No, it shouldn’t.

Is not worth to study a new balancing method to arcade ground battles; There major differences from realistic ground is the aim indicator, vehicles’ mobility and gun handling. Same applies to realistic ground battles when comes to simulator ground battles is the removal of allied markings in the screen and risk of friendly fire. That doesn’t make arcade battles environment; nor the less chaotic realistic battles environment makes it more realistic.

But if you feel so—instead of leaving hanging loose ends, propose your idea and properly write this down. I had difficulty to read what you wrote in your post. Nonetheless; no vehicle will simply pierce through anothers’ armor like butter. Saying a vehicle is useless because you can’t pierce a specific spot is a very bold claim I must say, there are weakspots for that reason but for the most part weakspots don’t apply to exactly every type of ammunition. Where an Armor Piercing can go through a High Explosive-Anti Tank may not be able to.

15

You are like 12?

16

Type 69 is a HEATFS slinger with far worse mobility.
Type 69 gains a laser range finder & stabilizer for having far worse mobility & gun movement over Leopard 1.
And the Leopard 1 still has a rangefinder.

This is a reminder than AMX-30B2 has 9.3 APFSDS, thermals, laser range finder, and mobility, but is 8.7 due to the lack of stabilizer.

Type 59D1 has no two-plane stabilization, but gains a good APFSDS round.
Retains all other flaws of the T-54 platform.

17

I’ve heard enough

Type 69/ZTZ59D to 12.0 immediately