the sufa has equal thrust at low speed, slightly lower thrust at medium speed, and higher thrust at high speed than the F-16Cs. the sufa’s engine is also quite a bit stronger than the block 40’s at all speeds
the sufa is also 10kg lighter than the block 50, and only 140kg heavier than the block 40. the flight performance is not as bad as you make it out to be.
oh, yeah, the aircraft is also missing 80% of its frontmost fuel tank, so on 100% fuel you’ve got the lightest fuel load of all F-16s
Just checked, aaaaand
Nope. Not on the stat-card, not in the module viewer.
That’ll explain your confusion.
(Might want to update the bug report before it is discarded as already been implemented)
MB-326K about to become useless because of the high speed handling.
Ahahahahah
Skink (UK/US)
Ground RB – 5.3 —> 5.0/4.7
Ground AB – 5.7 —> 5.3/5.0
Skink (UK) – Swapped with Bosvark
[Reasoning]: The Skink is currently only at 5.3/5.7 because of its armour layout, which allows it to shrug off a lot of plane based mg/cannon fire. Whilst this is very powerful, it is offset quite strongly by the anemic, if not downright awful, performance of the Polsten 20mm’s. Despite having 4 of them, the Skink feels like a much worse SPAA then any other quadruple gun SPAA in the game, and even some double gunned (Like its direct predecessor, the Bosvark, in the UK TT). Compared to the Wirbelwind and M42 Semovente, the other quad 20 WW2 SPAA, it is quite a lot worse, but sits more then 1.0 BR higher, all because it cannot be countered by planes as well (Though it is as weak to most ground vehicles as the other SPAA mentioned, and cannot fight back against ground as effectively either).
Hence it should be moved down in BR (And swapped with Bosvark) to more accurately represent its qualities as an SPAA.
germ_pzkpfw_IV_ausf_H
Realistic Battle BR: 3.7 → 4.0
Add Pzgr.40(W) (APBC)
Add Hl.Gr 38C (HEAT)
Add Add-on Turret Roof Armor modification (Suggestion)
Rationale:
The Pz.IV H has an exceptional gun for its BR, featuring great ballistics and extremely good penetration. This factor alone gives the Ausf.H a massive edge against other medium and heavy tanks. In downtiers, the armor on the hull does hold-up decently well too once the track-armor modification is researched. The turret armor and mobility are mediocre, but the gun’s higher performance means it’s not as handicapped by these shortcomings.
I’ve seen some players propose moving it all the way up to 4.3, but I think that 4.0 would be fine for the short term in order to decompress Rank II-III.
Since moving it up would mean facing some of the better armored T-34’s and M4’s more often, I propose the addition of the Pzgr.40(W) APBC round. While it is a solid shot round with less penetration at 90° than the Pzgr.39 APHECBC round, it is a flat-nosed round. This means that, like Russian APHE, it will get exceptional angle performance, making it ideal for dealing with T-34s, even when they angle their hulls.
It should also get the option to use the superior Gr.38 Hl/C HEAT round (found on the Ausf.E and F2), with the Gr.38 Hl/B round becoming a Rank I modification. This would not strongly impact gameplay, so there’s no reason not to let the Ausf.H use this round.
germ_pzkpfw_IV_ausf_J
germ_panzerbefelhswagen_IV_ausf_J
sw_pzkpfw_IV_ausf_J
Add Pzgr.40(W) (APBC)
Add Hl.Gr 38C (HEAT)
Add Add-on Turret Roof Armor modification (Suggestion)
Add Nahverteidigungswaffe modification (excluding Pz.Bef.Wg.IV J)
Rationale:
The Ausf.J is in a pretty good spot as is. While it does have the high penetration of the Ausf.H, it at least makes the sacrifice of turret rotation speed. If the Ausf.H goes up to 4.0, the Ausf.J would no longer be overshadowed by a superior variant at the same BR, and would be able serve a more significant role in Germany’s 3.7 line-up.
Like the Ausf.H, I propose the addition of the Pzgr.40(W) APBC round. While it is a solid shot round with less penetration at 90° than the Pzgr.39 APHECBC round, it is a flat-nosed round. This means that, like Russian APHE, it will get exceptional angle performance, making it ideal for dealing with T-34s, even when they angle their hulls.
It should also get the option to use the superior Gr.38 Hl/C HEAT round (found on the Ausf.E and F2), with the Gr.38 Hl/B round becoming a Rank I modification. This would not strongly impact gameplay, so there’s no reason not to let the Ausf.J use this round.
The nahverteidigungswaffe was a breach-loaded mortar mounted on the roof of tanks for close defence against infantry using a small variety of ammunition, including smoke rounds. It was found on many later-war German tanks, though the Pz.IV J was the only Pz.IV variant to see it consistently mounted. It’s already visually present on the Ausf.J in-game, and would operate as a smoke grenade launcher.
On the Pz.Bef.Wg.IV J, the nahverteidigungswaffe was replaced with an antenna for the additional radio equipment.
germ_pzkpfw_IV_ausf_G
Realistic Battle BR: 3.3 → 3.7
Add Pzgr.40(W) (APBC)
Rationale:
Aside from worse penetration, the Ausf.G isn’t that much of a step down compared to the Ausf.H. If anything, the higher p/w and higher top speed make it arguably more usable in some circumstances than the Ausf.H, particularly if you intend to take them in higher BR line-ups. It could go up in BR to act as a sidegrade to the Ausf.J, trading penetration for mobility and turret rotation speed.
Since moving it up would mean facing some of the better armored T-34’s and M4’s more often, I propose the addition of the Pzgr.40(W) APBC round. While it is a solid shot round with less penetration at 90° than the Pzgr.39 APHECBC round, it is a flat-nosed round. This means that, like Russian APHE, it will get exceptional angle performance, making it ideal for dealing with T-34s, even when they angle their hulls.
TURM III (Ground RB) – 8.3 —> 8.7/9.0
[Reasoning]: As someone who owns this tank myself, it is one of the most broken, unfair to play against tanks in the entire game right now. The access to a full stab, rapid autoloader, 30mm SAPHEI coax, and incredible mobility make it by far the most potent 8.3 tank in the game currently, and even better then a lot of stuff at 8.7.
A move up in BR is long overdue.
it_pzkpfw_IV_ausf_G
Ground RB BR: 3.7 → 4.0
Add Pzgr.40(W) (APBC)
Add Hl.Gr 38C (HEAT)
Rationale:
The up-armed version of the Pz.IV G found in the Italian tree is arguably outright better than the Ausf.H. It gets the better mobility of the Ausf.G with the better gun of the Ausf.H, with the only real downside being unable to access ostketten. If the Ausf.H goes up in BR, the Italian Ausf.G must follow.
Since moving it up would mean facing some of the better armored T-34’s and M4’s more often, I propose the addition of the Pzgr.40(W) APBC round. While it is a solid shot round with less penetration at 90° than the Pzgr.39 APHECBC round, it is a flat-nosed round. This means that, like Russian APHE, it will get exceptional angle performance, making it ideal for dealing with T-34s, even when they angle their hulls.
It should also get the option to use the superior Gr.38 Hl/C HEAT round (found on the Ausf.E and F2), with the Gr.38 Hl/B round becoming a Rank I modification. This would not strongly impact gameplay, so there’s no reason not to let the Ausf.H use this round.
EFV – 9.3 —> 9.0/8.7
[Reasoning]: While all 30mm Bushmaster equipped vehicles are ostensibly placed too high, it is the EFV that needs to go down in BR the most. Because not only does it not get access to any kind of viable secondary armament such as missiles, it is also the biggest light tank in the game, being almost comparable to a Maus, but with none of the protection.
It’s mobility cannot make up for its anemic firepower and atrocious stealth, it needs to go down.
But you still don’t see the AIM-9M on the A-10A, AIM-7F on the F-4C or E and the R-60M on the MiG-21S
Mode: GRB
Vehicle: Bosvark
Change: 5.3 → 5.0/4.7
Condition: The Skink goes down in BR.
Reason: Many people act like it better than the Skink when it’s equal. It trades everything(ammo, armour, mobility, etc.) for a good gun. As the weak armour and a blind spot the size of the moon is easy to take advantage of, compared to the Skinks’ armour and 360-degree aim.
I did mention a condition, as if you ask me, it never should be higher than the Skink, as it’s not a better AA if you factor in everything and not just its gun. But I also can’t see it having a lower BR as it’s not worse than the Skink
(Swe) Strv m/41 S-II
Ground RB: 2.7 > 3.0
Ground AB: 2.3 > 2.7
Ground SB: 2.3 > 2.7
(Replace stock AP with APHE or APDS)
(Increase its top speed to the accurate 43 km/h instead of the 41km/h) (Bug report)
This is a excellent support and scouting tank. it features a Good APDS round for its BR, along with better mobility than the Strv m/41 S-I, decent armor, and excellent gun depression.
The current main drawback is the stock AP round, which has very poor penetration (~50mm) and significantly limits performance when stock. Once fully upgraded, however, it becomes highly effective vehicles, capable of performing well even above their BR into 3.7
Increasing its top speed and removing the stock AP with the APHE or even the APDS would make this tank more enjoyable and give sweden a great Scouting light tank.
Because it’s both a matter of technical compatibility and that loadouts are a means of “balanz”
Of which you listed, none were deemed necessary for balance.
Don’t think it’s very reasonable to move the Zeros and Spitfire Mk24 up. These planes are already underpowered and it’s only because people keep turning with them that they get any kills. A Zero has no businessfighting early jets.
Vehicle: F-4F Early
Mode: Air SB
Change: 10.7 → 10.3
Reason: it is the same BR as the normal F-4F which has Flares/Chaff (and AGM-65) unlike the Early which has neither of both…
Or
Plan B:
Add the AIM-9L to the F-4F (which has CMs) and push it to 11.0
(Swe) (Premium) Strv m/41 S-I
Ground RB: 2.7 > 2.0
Ground AB: 2.7 > 2.0
Ground SB: 2.7 > 2.0
(Remove APDS Round)
The Strv m/41 S-I was the first version of the tank made in Sweden, later an upgraded version was developed. Compared with the original Czech version, the Strv m/41 model had minor differences in appearance, the most noticeable modification is the addition of a periscope above the loader seat on the top of the turret. Once production started, the tank was quickly delivered between 1942 and 1943 and operated with the Third Armored Regiment.
As this is the previous version to the improved Strv m/41 S-II with worse side armour, it should differate from the Strv m/41 S-II. So it should have its APDS removed and be moved to 2.0 instead of 2.7.
Would give this tank more variety aswell as increase its effectiveness for the new BR while not having the APDS round making it overkill in all aspects.
Wiesel 1a2 from 9.7 to 9.0. The Wiesel takes 10 sec to reload 1 round and that round can be shot out making it very hard to get kills at distance or just in general and you can get killed by .50cals and it has no secondary weapon (like bmp3 9.3 or bmp 4 9.7). AFT09 is 9.0 with 4 missiles ready to shoot has 400mm more pen but .38 less explosive.
(Swe) Strv m/31
Ground RB: Reserve > Reserve
Ground AB: Reserve > Reserve
Ground SB: Reserve > Reserve
(Remove APDS Round)
The Strv m/31, also known as Landsverk L-10, was designed and built by AB Landsverk during the interwar period.
The tank was not in-service when the “37/24 mm skarp patron m/34 spårljuspansarprojektil m/1949” was invented in 1949
Whilst I do agree, this is clearly meant to be a generalistic BR decompression rather then a genuine belief the Zeros are too good for 5.0 in any other way.
That being said, I would have loved to see an early-jet age decompression at the same time too.
