Vehicle: A-4B/E Early
mode: ARB
BR Change: 8.7 → 8.3
3 Likes
Vehicle - Strv 103C
Mode: Ground RB
BR: 9.0 > 8.7
Reasoning: The earlier versions at 8.0 are fine because they can somewhat rely on their armor against APDS and other earlier AP shells. Against APFSDS and more powerful HEAT-FS, it’s completely powerless. This problem is only worsened by the fact that pretty much every vehicle at 9.0-10.0 has full stabilisers, lightning fast reaction time and much more powerful cannons, while the Strv 103C has to stop before you can accurately aim which means it has a MUCH slower reaction time.
Even if the Strv 103C survives the first hit, it’s very likely that either the gearbox or the engines (or both) gets hit, and the aiming system is rendered completely powerless, i.e. there is nothing you can do to retaliate. Speaking of engines, all of the Strv 103s have two independent engines. Even if one is destroyed, the other one can function completely independently, something that is not modeled in War Thunder. Oh, and it doesn’t even get thermals, something that many other MBTs are starting to get.
8 Likes
Will we see this fix implemented soon?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/cYfsRX4FdAx9
1 Like
He said I was negative in all planes except the IRIAF which is untrue.
F-16-C is actually very fast for its br almost on par with the F-15E the aim120C is already better in bvr than the A give it some good starting energy and its a good missile
The 2005s were just soooo oppressive and totally not borderline overtiered at 6.0. Not like they get dogged on by every other fighter at their br or anything. These changes prove the genius of balancing around player stats.
10 Likes
A-4B sure, A-4E why?
I only play a few BRs in ground and 4.7 GB is a fat RIP :(
Same, it was the only Israeli plane that was actually fun to play
2 Likes
Vehicle: HMS Enterprise
Gamemode: Naval Realistic
BR Change: 5.0 -----> 4.7
Reason:Lack of armor
1 Like
Eh right now they are kind of comparable, the VDM is definitely a lot better in climb though.
VDM is still heavily underperforming
1 Like
80% win rate? sounds like squadron play, good luck playing this solo at 9.3
Kurnass 2000 12.3 → 11.7
With only non-irccm IR guided missiles, the Kurnass 2000 is much weaker compared to any other plane it faces. At 11.7, it would be at a BR to equal opponents (MiG-23ML/D with 6x IR missiles/2x Radar)
25 Likes
i am practically solo in 95% of my games 👍
1 Like
SUGGESTION:
Challenger 3 (TD):
OPTION 1: lower BR to 11.7; so its higher penetration vs lower rate of fire is truly a sidegrade to the rest of the base Challengers.
OPTION 2: reduce the reload to 5 seconds, like every other Challenger tank, and make it 12.7.
Why keep it at 12.0 the way it is? It has no lineup there, it is pointless.
It should either remain nerfed as a 11.7, or increase its rate of fire and make it a proper 12.7; at 12.0 with this reload it fulfills no role at all.
7 Likes
F14 IRIAF is gonna struggle so hard at 13.3 because of crappy radar and horrendous RWR even with the 6x Fakours. Can we at least get the R73 on it since it was tested and was actually more successful than R27? Also can the F14B get 9M and F14A get 9L, with the F15’s and F16’s at 12.7 with 9M’s this wouldn’t be broken anymore
5 Likes
For ARB the F8U going to 10.0 should not happen, I cannot stress this point enough.
The flight performance of the F8U is actually slightly better than the F8E that sits at 10.7 and the missile kit is almost the same. This plane has no bussiness being moved down to 10.0 and 9.0 planes should NOT have to deal with it.
It was previously at 10.0 before and was an absolute menace to the BR bracket before it was rightly moved up to 10.3.
Please do not move this plane down as it does not need it and it’s flight performance is already good for it’s current BR.
18 Likes
I understand your point, but it only gets 6 missile. Considering most player can easily notch any missile at longer range, why waste them at targets at 40km+ range? And bellow 40km range isn’t 120A better?
