what? the missiles are bad, the radar is the worst and you want it to face 12.7 aircraft?
What nonsense is this? BMPT 11.7? Bravo, it’s unplayable. Another tank that will be in the tree and no one will play it! If BMPT is 11.7, why isn’t HSTVL 12.7? and why does HSTVL play simulators against tanks 10.0 and BMPT with a smaller BR is not there!? Why? I’m really tired of this bias against Russian tanks. Russian tanks at their BR from 9.3 are simply nonsense. BR is too high and tanks have nothing compared to NATO. T72B is total garbage at 10.3, it has no zoom, no thermal vision, no reverse and no gun depression, so why doesn’t BR be reduced to 9.7? Why? After all, Russian tanks from 9.3 can only drive forward and hope to destroy something before they die. Playable maps are only in the city. and now even BMPT is another machine that will only be fodder for opponents. This is such nonsense, raising BR just based on stupid statistics without regard to the quality and equipment of the machine.
1 Like
British RB Ground BR’s:
- Valentine Mk I: 2.7 down to 2.3 and reclassify as a Heavy Tank. I still don’t understand why this was even necessary. It’s now sharing a BR with its direct upgrade and now is completely pointless to play. It’s also worse than the Matilda II in many ways.
I would also reclassify the other Valentine’s as Heavy Tanks
4 Likes
British RB Ground BR’s:
- 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 downtiers it struggles to penetrate Pz. IV F2’s with add-on track armour, Pz. III M’s, M4A1’s, etc.
British RB Ground BR’s:
- AEC AA Mk II: 3.7 down to 3.3. From 2.7 to 3.7, that’s a massive jump. Now you’re expected to use the Staghound AA from 2.0 to 3.3 (the Crusader AA Mk I is a terrible SPAA and you’re better off playing that like a Fox). It should go back down to 3.3
2 Likes
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
4 Likes
When I heard people claiming the T-80UD is “super good” and should go to 10.7 - despite lacking thermals and a decent reverse speed - while also arguing that the 2S38 is much better than the HSTV-L, I realized there was no point in further discussion.
Furthermore, everyone seems to forget that the statistics for these tanks were heavily inflated by the BMPT being at 10.3 at the time. To be honest, the BMPT can be incredibly toxic, but not because it can destroy any tank in seconds. It’s toxic because it shreds all your modules, turning your match into a “repair simulator,” which is beyond frustrating. It’s essentially something like a Gepard or XM800T but with heavy armor at top tier. However, unlike the Gepard, which can actually shred many tanks through the front, the BMPT usually can’t do that; it just disables you and leaves you helpless.
I completely agree with your point: instead of being given worthy opponents to face, many tanks are simply up-tiered until they become ineffective or downright useless.
1 Like
British RB Ground BR’s:
- 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.
4 Likes
British RB Ground BR’s:
- 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 3.3 (which is also incorrect, see my bug report, it should have the worse 6-Pdr Mk III further justifying the drop).
5 Likes
British RB Ground BR’s:
- 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.
5 Likes
Looking exclusively at march data (and so post any BR changes)
the BMPT remains the best performing 11.3 by a substantial margin (the only vehicles that get even close are also both soviet). It moving to 11.7 is the bare minimum that needs to be done and it will mean 10.3s that lack the power to do anything about it wont face it. Though whether 10.7 should still be able to see it remains to be seen.
both the T-80UD and 2S38 are performing perfectly well. (it was stupid to continue to expect one of the strongest 10.3 MBTs of the time from not being moved up to at least 10.7) and once again, the top 6 highest winrates at 10.7 are all soviet vehicles.
I think soviet mains need to stop crying wolf when their clearly OP vehicles are actually balanced for a change and Id argue the ONLY reason the T-80UD isnt 11.0+ is because it doesnt have thermals, the 2S38 is still an incredibly annoying AFV to fight even at 10.7 and the BMPT is only limited to going to 11.7 because its still a giant cashcow
I have no idea why this was flagged other than soviet mains wanting to hide the truth
3 Likes
British RB Ground BR’s:
- 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).
3 Likes
British RB Ground BR’s:
- AC IV: 5.3 down to 5.0. It’s just a slightly better Firefly. Again, just compare it to the VK 3002 (M).
2 Likes
British RB Ground BR’s:
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)?
2 Likes
It’s capability is what should matter. Not stats.
3 Likes
I didn’t expect anything new from you; it’s quite predictable. While I appreciate you bringing up the win rate data, looking at statistics in a vacuum doesn’t tell the whole story. Win rates are often skewed by the popularity of certain lineups and the density of experienced players in a specific bracket, rather than just the vehicle’s raw performance.
My point wasn’t to “cry wolf,” but to highlight a fundamental mechanical difference: the BMPT’s “annoyance factor” comes from module damage, not objective combat superiority. If we follow your logic that any vehicle with a high win rate is “clearly OP,” then we’d have to up-tier half the minor nations’ lineups just because veteran players use them to stomp.
It’s easy to dismiss any counter-argument as “bias,” but it would be more productive to discuss actual performance metrics-like the T-80UD’s lack of thermals and poor reverse speed-rather than just pointing at a leaderboard. Labeling every disagreement as “crying” doesn’t make your argument stronger; it just shuts down any chance of constructive discussion.
Finally, if you truly believe the game is built on a foundation of “Russian bias,” it makes me wonder why you continue to play it. It seems counterproductive to engage with a project where you believe the balance is fundamentally rigged against you.
1 Like
British RB Ground BR’s:
- 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.
4 Likes
finally play the game so you can comment. you’re stuck in the past. everything you say is nonsense.
British RB Ground BR’s:
- Falcon: 8.3 down to 7.7. You removed the APDS and Britain need something to address the massive SPAA gap. If the SAP is an issue then just remove the AP belt as well, just keep the default AP/HE mix and the HE belts. I would rather have a better SPAA at an appropriate BR than an SPAA playing light tank.
5 Likes