They are airplanes in an air battle mode. They just had to suffer asinine move because skill issue.
Still sad that none of my suggestions ever get considered. I’ve been saying many of the same ones for years. I’m also disappointed you didn’t go all the way up to 12.7 like the air tree does. There are players who take 12.7 aircraft into ground RB who are forced to wait for an incredibly long time just to get a game. Simply due to only being able to match up with 11.7 and now 12.0 tanks.
British RB Ground BR’s:
- RB, A1E1 Independent: 1.3 down to 1.0. Terrible armour for a heavy tank, worse than many nations light tanks even at 1.0. Terrible mobility. Massive target. 3-Pdr gun isn’t a redeeming factor either, it’s not the worst gun in the game, but due to all the other factors combined it’s made much worse. It’s still not going to be an amazing tank at BR 1.0, but people might actually buy it more. So there’s incentive for you to drop it too.
- RB, SARC IVa: 1.3 down to 1.0. It’s fast, and that’s kind of it. If you compare it to the Daimler it shares a BR with, it loses in almost every respect. Worse armour, no shoulder stabiliser, gun is incredibly bouncy and kicks like a mule after firing, worse gun elevation and depression angles, and it’s open-topped. Even comparing it to the Tetrarch it does poorly against, with much of the same issues as the Daimler.
- RB, Churchill Mk. I: 3.3 down to 3.0. The 2-Pdr is horrendous at this point, mainly due to the lack of mobility to flank. Even taking it in full downtiers it struggles to penetrate Pz. III M’s, M4A1’s, T-34’s, etc. Just look at protection analysis.
- RB, Sherman II: 3.7 down to 3.3. Just get rid of the APCR and drop it down to 3.3 with the rest of the M4A1’s in-game. It doesn’t need to be artificially increased in BR due to a round it never received. Dropping it down to 3.3 also means you can add the Sherman V as a tech-tree vehicle at 3.7 and even a 3.7 premium with a pair of RP-3 rockets.
- RB, Crusader AA Mk II: 4.0 down to 3.7. I don’t understand why this vehicle even went up. Just compare it to the Wirbelwind, far less rate-of-fire, less penetration, and half the guns. The only advantage the Crusader AA Mk. II has is an enclosed turret and more mobility. The 2 were very asymmetrically balanced.
- RB, Churchill Mk. III: 4.0 down to 3.7. Less mobility than the Churchill Mk. I, same hull armour, and worse turret armour (only 3.5 inches compared to 4 inches). The gun is better, but that’s it. It’s also the same gun that’s on the AEC Mk. II at 3.0. It’s also the wrong gun, see my bug report, it should be a 6-Pdr Mk III which is even more justification for a drop in BR.
- RB, Churchill NA75: 4.3 down to 4.0. It’s more of a side-grade over the Churchill Mk. III, not a direct upgrade. You lose the good rate-of-fire, lose the shoulder stabiliser, and lose a decent amount of penetration for a better damaging shell. That’s the only difference, the shell is good but if the Churchill Mk. III goes down then the NA75 should as well.
- RB, Comet: 5.3 down to 5.0. It’s really a shadow of its former self. The A30 Challenger is a better vehicle in almost everyway. Just compare it to the VK 3002 (M).
- RB, AC IV: 5.3 down to 5.0. It’s just a better Firefly. Again, just compare it to the VK 3002 (M).
- RB, Skink: 5.3 down to 4.7. Just like the Crusader AA Mk. II really don’t understand why it keeps going up. Again, just compare it to the Wirbelwind, you still have less firepower and penetration but now have the double the guns of the Crusader AA Mk. II, and the same amount of guns as the Whirbelwind. Is that really worth a BR increase of 1.3 currently (4.0 to 5.3)? The Bosvark is a far better SPAA at 5.3.
- RB, Tortoise: 6.7 down to 6.3. Just compare it to the T28, very similar vehicles except the Tortoise is covered in weakspots, lacks APHE, and just as slow. If you add the missing APDS round then it can stay at 6.7.
- RB, Centurion Mk 3: 7.7 down to 7.3. It’s been power creeped by new additions and previous BR adjustments. Just compare it to the Centurion Mk 5/1 which has far better armour and secondary weapons, the Caernarvon which has a better front plate, and then the Conqueror which has amazing armour especially with the add-on armour module. At 7.3 the Centurion Mk 3 can make a line up with the FV4202 which it compares well against. This also opens up an opportunity to add a new Centurion 7/1 or 8/1 as a new 7.7 vehicle, with the other being a new premium.
- RB, Falcon: 8.3 down to 7.7. Just remove the APDS and/or adjust the belts. There’s now 3 British SPAA’s at 8.3 now, what’s the point? The Falcon has no radar and should be lower. Just compare it to the ZSU-37-2 and the VEAK 40 which have similar shells and radar, yet both are 7.7. If the APDS is removed it will have worse penetration than both of the above mentioned vehicles.
- Chieftain Mk 10: 9.0 to 9.3. Remove L15A3 as the stock round and replace it with L15A5. Remove the fake L23 round and replace it with the correct L23A1, this bug report has been outstanding for like 4 years. Add a tier IV modification to turn the vehicle into a Mk 11 with TOGS, it’s a very minor visual change swapping the IR light box for a TOGS box. This also adds the potential for a new Mk 5/4 to be added at 9.0, you lose the stillbrew of the Mk 10 and the .50 ranging gun of the Mk 5 but gain L15A5 as a stock round and L23A1 as the top round.
Khalid: 9.3 to 9.0. This thing is just a faster Mk 5 and definitely not worth a 0.7 BR increase, especially when the Mk 5 missing LRF bug report is actioned. It should also get L15A5 as a top round. It would compare quite well against a new Mk 5/4, this offers far more power-to-weight and speed, while the Mk 5/4 has better firepower.
Swedish RB Ground BR’s:
- RB, SAV 20.12.48: 3.7 to 4.0. This vehicle is a monster. Not much else to be said really.
Soviet RB Ground BR’s:
- RB, SU-122: 2.7 to 3.0. This, and the two vehicles below are incredibly powerful. Especially against new players. You see entire squads of SU-122, M4A3 (105), and StuH 42 G when playing these BR’s.
US RB Ground BR’s:
- RB, M4A3 (105): 3.0 to 3.3. Again, low tier monster. Armour might as well be a Jumbo in a 2.0 uptier.
German RB Ground BR’s:
- RB, StuH 42 G: 3.0 to 3.3. Same story as the SU-122 and M4A3 (105).
French RB BR changes:
- RB, AMD.35 (SA35): 1.7 to 1.0. This thing is trash. It’s basically a side-grade to the 1.0 AMD 35.
- RB, M4A3 (105): 3.0 to 3.3. Same reasons as above mentioned SU-122, StuH 42 G, and US M4A3 (105). Moving all these vehicles up would improve the new player experience drastically.
Italian RB BR changes:
- RB, M15/42: 2.7 to 2.3. It’s really not a massive jump from the M13/40 (II), M13/40 (III), or M14/41. Very small jump in penetration, small jump in top speed and power-to-weight, and better hull armour. That’s pretty much it.
we just spent 2-3 years trying to get the brain-off all aspect mobiles away from most flareless subsonic planes
we absolutely do not need to shove them right back down again because aim9L’s/r60s are no longer a 100% free kill
1 Like
For example, from the technique that was well played and became unplayable OF-40 MSTA, who was given a new scrap that did not change anything for him in terms of gameplay : since his old one was enough to hit everything head - on up to and including 9.7 ( old ) . But he began to play constantly at the bottom of the list due to the fact that 9.3 almost always hits against 10.3 - where, in fact, his only plus other than the gun in maneuverability was lost because there are faster tanks : the same ones, for example, from 9.3 already beat him faster by taking positions. And since the tank is not tenacious, everything turns into a stable death on the way to the position, if we talk about open cards. And in closed Derivations and the like simply do not leave him a chance, since he has a wide enough cardboard body and a tower so that everything flies in there . Previously, he fought with cars of his level - for example, BMP3 or leopard1A1 : but now, because of the “curse” of 9.3, he plays against unsuccessful rivals all the time. I have this tank - I paid money for it and now I can’t use it because I can’t do anything to the 10.0-10.3 technique, which I get into literally almost every fight, it is faster and is aimed and takes positions. And he also doesn 't have a thermal imager . On maps with trees, he will lose to any tank with 9.3 with a thermal imager - simply because it is impossible to find him: while on 9.0 there is a BMP-3 with as many as two guns that will destroy him in a second and a thermal imager. This is clearly difficult to call a balance - it would be more honest to send it back or make its fork a preferential one so that it does not fall above 9.7 for example: this tank is difficult to implement due to the fact that it does not forgive mistakes and with its opponents now in exchange for scrap that it did not need and for which not all tanks raised BR ( Type 74 for example ) he just doesn 't have a place in the new game .
There is 1 TAM who also raised the BR - yes to 9.0, he does not experience any problems: the problem is that his very increase was not honest on the part of the developer - since he was the only one who could resist the Finnish and Soviet T55 possessing the same penetrating and destructive weapon : but also with armor , unlike him . And who were not raised on the BR with him - although they have a much better chance : what led to a disbalance of forces is that Soviet equipment simply tries to destroy almost any equipment with impunity . And you either need to raise them too by BR - or lower it back to 8.7 as an alternative for Germany to this technique .
There are Radkamphagen and Leopard 2K who also raised the BR and who also did not deserve it either, since they have all the same disadvantages as raising the OF-40 MSTA on the BR. Which are multiplied by the fact that the equipment at 10.7 with which they often fight is much more dangerous than the conventional Turms or BMP-2M at 10.3 : these are conventional KW and Amrams that are not inferior to them in maneuverability , but also superior in survivability and booking . Their place is on 9.7 next to the T64B - since their main dangerous opponents against whom they have no chance are on 10.7, not 11.0, and so they will have a chance to get into battle with them less often, while not destroying the balance, since on 9.7-10.0 there are many machines with similar weapons, but better protection and a thermal imager .
2A5 was raised in vain by BR . Soviet pre-tops and Italian ones with British ones, for example, are on 11.7 . And it cannot be called a top-end machine : there is no top - end trunk in the branch ( which is from 2A7 ) , top- end heat , armor and survivability ( PSO , 2A7 , unlike it , are able to withstand several hits ) . If we talk about him, now he is simply not relevant on this rating: there are Italian MBTs on 11.7 with the same scrap and a smaller CD, but they also have problems with armor and survivability : but compared to them , he doesn 't even have that advantage . In Britain, on this BR, armored vehicles are able to successfully win back from the tower due to booking and also accordingly have their advantages. On 12.0, it is simply not needed - it is easier to take 2A7 and 2A6 if a low-maneuverable PSO is not suitable for continuing the battle : yes, it also does not have armor - but a gun with 2A7, which is also a plus. 2A6 has none of this and is able to compete relatively successfully, except with the Soviet MBT 11.7, which also have a number of disadvantages.
Arieta is the Prototype . She did not receive an ap CD, which is why she is now simply irrelevant compared to 2A4 due to survivability : a scrap of 480 is not able to compensate for it, because 400 on the Leopard is enough in almost all situations. If it had been left to her at 10.3 , it would not have been a dangerous car - she would be successfully hit by any technique with 8.7 in fact : at 10.3 there is already a Derivation and a T80 with reduced recharge and increased maneuverability relative to the T72 . She needs either a CD upgrade or a BR reduction to the former . Since even a conditional Cougar on the same BR successfully hits her in the forehead.
I am not an speaker that’s why I created a video for the Western community where I steamed up with the text . Where he described the problem more clearly, touching on the technique that I noticed at the first moment - I did not make him a translator directly with translation errors .
Text problem for those who do not want to be horrified by the accent and the quality of the direction
This is my call for help to the Tanks community .
This is my first video, so I ask you not to judge me strictly for mistakes .
We all asked the developers for several years in a row to lower the combat rating of unplayable tanks .
But we know how he listens to us .
Instead of making bad tanks good , he made good tanks bad .
So today I want to tell you about how an ordinary person sees the latest change in combat ratings , who unfortunately bought premium tanks that fell under the nerfs .
The developers did not put specific tanks to the vote , as was the case with armor-piercing shells .
They simply made unplayable everything that their hands could reach , traditionally without touching a part of Soviet tanks .
Let me tell you exactly what has changed for the worse for the ordinary player .
ТАМ 1
For example .
The combat rating was overestimate fo TAM 1 . Although it was a dangerous tank that was easy to defeat .
Do you know why ? Yes - to T55AM1 started playing even better .
TAM He was the only one who equally could resist him . He had only one plus - a very good gun . Which he pay for with a long reload for tanks NATO . And no armor .
But T55AM1 have good gun and armor . Now he dominates .
Cording to the developers, this is fair . Do you believe that ?
And another one TAM . TAM 2 IP . This is the same tank , only with a more powerful shell . DM33 . And he was overpower for his rating so much that DM23 also had enough .
But he paid for it with a higher combat rating . For what he does not need . Despite this he was very playable .
But he does not have any other plus . For example, a thermal visor . And on the tanks of the new combat ratings , almost all enemies have a thermal visor .
Now it is useless on forest maps due to vulnerability . And it’s not playable .
But do you know what did not get a rating upgrade ? Ox yes yes . Another Soviet tank . BMP3 .
He has the power of a tank - two whole guns and thermal visor . Now it’s God in top .
For some reason, this did not become a problem for Type 74 . He have DM33 and he was not affected . Because it is not premium . This is fair ? Really ?
There is another similar tank . OF-40 MTCA . Now it is the he one there , only falling apart from any hit larger than 10mm . Motor does not protect the front .
Who was he bothering ? Did anyone have a problem with him ?
His version with the old shell is played the same way on the old combat rating - not better even now . Old shell is enough , but he dies instantly .
If we talk about Italy . I would like to recall one more . Tank Areite . The prototype . He was not reduced reload . But he received a combat rating upgrade .
If you leave new tanks in 10.3 to him , he will still suffer - because he does not have armor . But on 10.7 this is nonsense . It does not have ony plus .
Such unplayable tanks ording to the developer , this is a balance .
USA has suffered too . KVT was not the best premium tanks . He also received a combat rating upgrade . Although apart from weapons , he also has no special advantages .
On the new 10.3 , almost every machine will destroy it without a problem . The vulnerable area in the forehead under the tower - it is a argument .
Why did he need to raise his combat rating ?
There are also Spike carriers . KF41 and new Puma .
Why are they not on the Vilkas rating ? Are they better ? They come across more dangerous tanks . Who does not care about Spikes .
They will simply destroy them from an incredible distance . Faster then guidance systems will point the Spike at the target .
There are some good changes, but there are much fewer of them .I would like to do the opposite . if there is a problem , the developer must put it to the vote on all points .
To not to make it was based on statistics that have nothing to do with the real game .
At the moment i have spent a lot of money in the game to get unplayable tanks . That is why I came to you . The developers only listen to you, and you can get them to do the voting.
Fair voting for the combat rating of each tank separately from each other .
So that unplayable tank becomes playable - and not the other way around : we all benefit from this . Then it can be accepted no matter what it is .
The changes must be agreed upon by the entire community - and not by the 1% who sits on the forum . I suggest boycotting the new combat ratings play on tops and tanks until 9.0 .
Also by writing a bunch of topics on the forum with claims to the developer . They caused too much damage to the players this time . They have to fix it .
For example, the Leopard L44 with a weak shell - DM13 which is often destroyed when meeting with strong armor, for example T-72 .
And which has not been downgraded according to the new combat rating .
For the higher-top tier BR changes, I don’t believe nuking the 10.0 bracket was the right decision. Breaking lineups to save another BR bracket isn’t the way to go. The way I see it, is the maximum Ground BR should be similar to Air. Decompression across ALL BRs would help alleviate several of the concerns raised in this thread. 10.0 Lineups should not see Drones or Aircraft with standoff weaponry capable of outranging SPAA systems within a full BR uptier. 9.0 shouldn’t see modern IR SPAA systems that completely nullify aircraft or ground vehicles with much better capabilities.
Most lineups remained the same just uptiered by 0.3
One of the issues is certain vehicles got moved, not all of them in a lineup. That results in the higher tiered vehicles being able to see vehicles they normally didn’t. I do play the 10.3/10.7 US lineup and a good chunk of my matches have been uptiers to 11.3 or 11.7 and few have actually been at 10.7. Full decompression could alleviate some of those issues.
I disagree with 90% of what you said as a US main at that, also you got basically all the br’s of the helicopters wrong