IMO a big issue is player quality causing overtiered vehicles. Not many new players are drawn to minor nations, so they’re often stuck with stuff like the Re 2005 a full BR above where it belongs.
The balance of top-level ground combat has always been very poor, and now it has reached an unbearable level. We spent the same amount of money grinding TT but only got an extremely bad experience.
There are two options now.
1.BUFF China, Italy, Israel, UK, France top MBT.
2. delete all other factions. Only the Soviet and Sweden remain in this game.
For the first option, I propose the following.
China:
fiexd the turret armor of ZTZ99A. hull KE increased to 800 (acknowledged suggestion)
fiexd the armor thickness of Khalid/MBT2000/VT4 hull (acknowledged suggestion)
Increase the loading speed of VT4/99A to 6.66s.
Increase the penetration power of DTC-10 to 635mm（gaijin refused to accept on the grounds of confidentiality）
Britain：
Challenger 2 and Challenger 3 loading speed reduced to 5 s.
France：
Supplement Leclerc’s upper hull armor ≈ 400+KE
The loading speed reduced to 4s.
Israel：
Mekava 4M hull KE increased to 600
Italy：
Improve the defense of the Ariete WAR kit.
Additional:
Partial vehicles lowered their matching level from 12.0 to 11.7 or 11.3
Here are some other noted issues:
Challenger 2 add-on armor packages also provide not enough armor. The composite armor/era kit for 2F and TES barely provides any protection.
Leclerc is missing spall liner.
Ariete should just go down in BR. Ariete also has composite armor and not spaced armor in hull.
1 Like
The Abrams should’ve never gotten 5 second reload imo. I hate how Gaijin uses reload speed as a way to balance tanks, especially when tanks with autoloaders exist and are always implemented with fixed reload time.
Before, tanks like Leclerc had an advantage with 5 second reload. Now, Abrams has same 5 second reload. Who will now play Leclerc over Abrams now? The Abrams is better than the Leclerc in pretty much every way. The only reason you will play Leclerc is because you like the tank itself, and not the performance ingame.
The Challenger 2 suffers even more. One of the only advantages of the Challenger 2 was the 5 second reload. The Challengers are heavy and slow, yet they do not have the armor to back it up and have massive weakspots. They also fire the worst shell at top tier. And yet Gaijin still refuses to fix their armor profile and improve the effectiveness of add-on armor.
2 Likes
I find it odd that they do not add the jewish brigade as israel’s rank 1 and rank 2.
For the jewish brigade was the predecessor to the paramilitaries of the Yishuv that in turn were the
predecessors of the IDF.
true true
It would be awesome if developers fix volumetric shells, armor and maybe overpressure. These mechanics creates a lot of issues mostly for ground battles. I love when 70 SP vehicle destroys tanks better than actual tanks (Falcon, AMX 30 DCA, any Oerlikon KDA carrier)
Spoiler
NO
1 Like
Really funny thing is I’d wager you lot and the Italians getting Gripen are partly to blame for the abysmal state of it. Too many minor nations with the same decent kit, obviously they had to kill it.
In the case of France, the new sub tree is pretty good example of the fact that they use them to copy paste instead of adding in native options. France has an obscene number missing native options, and instead of implementing any of them they give us leopards. Plenty of light tanks they could add, we get copy pastes and such. A few jets they could have added, got a tech tree that really shouldn’t be with the French, because copy paste.
They just need to stop with sub trees and focus on native options. They could even outsource the research to the community for upcoming native additions, and I would wager would have significantly more accurate outcomes alongside significantly fewer people getting pissed that they modeled shit wrong.
I am pretty upset at the tree they added to France. Could have given us any number of light options, and instead we get leopards. Could have unfucked the myriad issues with Leclerc, and instead we got leopards. Sub trees are just an excuse not to give native options and not to fix what needs fixing. French tree could have been receiving updates of native options (outside of air) for a few years, but instead we get this crap.
That aside;
There is some evidence that Leclerc could reload notably faster in a combat setting. I don’t have the claimed figures to hand though. Strv 103s could get a reload of 2.7s, from memory. I am of the mind they could improve it to this rate on account of the abysmal hull aim, and the fact that it was one of the more notable things of Strv 103. Especially for the strv 103 that’s at 8.7. Doesn’t help 103s are missing redundant systems. However, I am also biased and the 103 is my favourite tank.
1 Like
Not because of the C&P.
The BeNeLux TT is around 70% totally unique.
The only things we have seen for BeNeLux are within the 30% of C&P.
BeNeLux is the only possible standalone TT with a BIG navy - unlike the 2 lines for other proposed TT’s.
Also, BeNeLux has stealth fighters, a very big submarine navy, a big arsenal of attackdrones, unmanned vehicles and a reasonable big sized helicopter TT.
BeNeLux SHOULD have been an independend TT. NO other proposed standalone TT has the equivalant amount of vehicles as BeNeLux. You only reach that size when combining the entire European East-Block together, and even then, you have a very small navy - with no subs - no attack drones, no unmanned vehicles and no stealth fighters.
So not really future proof.
The Gripen is finally balanced, what’s wrong with it?
- FM is likely underperforming by quite a bit
- BOL are at less than 1/4 IRL strength (BOL “Flares” should be about the strength of large calibre flares, but with reduced burn time, the chaff should be equal to regular chaff)
- Missing centre line hardpoint for A2G weapons
- Missing MAWS
- Missing a number of miscellaneous items (like voice warning)
- Missing A2G radar
- A2A radar might be underperforming
Probably more that Im forgetting. You also have the SAAF one with R-Darters that are notably weaker than the AMRAAM.
2 Likes
Oh sorry didn’t realize you wanted a 15.0 plane instead
If its a 15.0 plane, then F-15C MSIP II and F-15E should already be at 16.0
3 Likes
With its old FM and countermeasures it was almost immune to most missiles and was undogfighteable by anything else. It belongs at a higher BR than those.
With the reduction in burn time on the flares and the fact you actually need to run chaff now, that wouldnt happen. You dont exactly see F-15s running 240 regular flares and dropping them at regular intervals to make themselves immune to IR missiles do you
Fake nerfs for the sake of “balance” should never be done. Totally fake, ahisotircal nerfs ruin the game. BOL especially because they applied that change to EVERYTHING that has BOL. Tornado, Viggen, SHar, etc all got screwed by the fact they basically dont have flares or chaff that work. Tornado F3 Late and SHar FA2 and VIggen Di probably all should be more like 12.7 due to the lack of CMs.
2 Likes
Benelux will only give France copy paste options. Because that is what Gaijin added it for. Specifically so they didn’t have to do work on unique native options for France.
4 Likes
Funny how F15s are allowed to keep a FM that is overperforming compared to a few documents I’ve read, but the moment Sweden players suggest Gripen be brought up to parity with the most credible sources (in any way) we’re shouted down because “It’d be too good”. *
So much for “Make better things” then.
* Gripen is even under performing compared to the least charitable papers.
1 Like
Its just inconcievable to US mains that nations besides the US made good aircraft.
2 Likes
You see, F-15C and F-16C are pretty accurate to their respective EM and turn rate diagrams. Regarding F-15A and F-16A, they are 100% overperforming and sometimes by quite a bit. The F-16A flight model is just completely nuts; the F-16s in general should not be able to pull over 26 degrees of AOA because it is limited by the FCS. This applies also to the F-16C, but the F-16A with sim controls can easily maneuver safely up to near 40 degrees of AOA with sim controls which it absolutely cannot do in real life. The entire reason why the F-16 has an AOA limiter is because the aerodynamic configuration would mean that past the limit, the F-16 wouldn’t even be able to sustain controlled flight and enter a stall.
So you get funny things such as the F-16s winning a low-speed one-circle fight with the Su-27 Flanker ingame. If the flight models are accurate, the F-15 and the Su-27 would clap the F-16 in that area, but the opposite is true currently.
…Which isn’t modeled because it is simply not compatible with a game where pulling 12Gs is the norm.