Sadly this is not accurate data and not the data used to balance vehicles.
BRs are not decided based on the vehicles flight performance or weaponary solely.
1 Like
hey we didnt specialy ask for the hunter
and from the path its currently going seems like switzerland might become a german sub tree.
germany has the same potential /overall vehicles as france and UK and deserves sub trees just as much as them
germany compares better to uk and france then it does to US, russia and modern china in reality
1 Like
Other examples in air RB are:
Lim-5P/Mig-17 both being 8.7 in air RB, despite the Mig-17 lacking an afterburner.
Me-163B and B-0 being 0.7 apart.
G.91R/1 and R/4 being the same BR, despite the R/4 having Aim-9Bs.
F-86A and the CL-13 Mk.4 having different BRs.
Ariete and Saggitario 2 having the same BR.
Ki-84 Hei being 6.3, while the Ki-84 ko is 5.3 despite the flight performance being the same afaik.
There’s some more too.
2 Likes
What id give for a BR change based upon common sense rather than player stats
2 Likes
Then what are BRs based on?
Because as it stands the tornado surpasses the British F4s at its BR by almost every meaningful metric, and i promise you even if WT Data project is inaccuracte, that the massive player performance discrepancy is reflected by the actual stats as well…
They are based on efficiency.
1 Like
Canada could definitely just go to the US
Nor did we ask for the T-90 or Mig-21.
Given the high number of pre-existing Canadian and Australian vehicles within the tree, it would be nice to keep them together until such time a more permament home could be found. Given the relatively low number of non-native vehicles likely to be added for those 2 nations at this time. I dont think its unreasonable for at least some of those to end up within the British TT.
3 Likes
Which is really funny, given the highest effeciency aircraft can quite often be a lower BR :D
1 Like
Ah a metric that considers every factor… expect usage rate. Because the other stats can be diluted through high usage and poor performance (premiums/squadron vehicles)
Isn’t the rumor going that South Korea might be going to USA?
Reread:
i didnt argue that, indiginous canadian / australian vehicles could go to Uk for all i care.
But what you are proposing would still be splitting them upm even if its only a few
2 Likes
The issue specifically with Australia to US is there are already 14 Australian vehicles in the British tree whereas only 1 is in the US and its not even a tech tree vehicle, so you can understand why it gets a bit annoying when people have a go at brits when for all intents and purposes Australia is a part of the British tree just not officially
3 Likes
War thunder really should just go ahead and publicize the efficiency and performance stats for 12.0
Because its kind of ridiculous how at 12.0 exists a vehicle that is objectively superior in just about every regard to some of its peers, yet theyre considered to be in balance with one another-
Vehicle capability should hold greater weight than player performance in the vehicle. Especially for less popular nations where the smaller playerbase also tends to just be better than in a larger playerbase.
(Im less worried about the phantoms not having 9Ls and more confused how the tornados 12.0 BR is justified. That plane eats 12.0 alive every time i see it)
1 Like
its only australian indiginous stuff or with ties to Uk that were added
The F-111C doesnt coutn, it was a pity implementation from gajin born out of the sole fact the F-111K from Uk themself isnt a possible addition.
There is no modern australian vehicle in the Uk tree, neither canadian one for that matter, spaas follow rather sketchy implementation rules as well and have more freedom for additions
3 Likes
Canadian adats would like a word
2 Likes
as i said, learn reading
1 Like
Clearly my reading is clear as you stated “modern” so ig the top tier aa isn’t modern now?
2 Likes
as i said ,seems like u cant read yes
2 Likes