Actually, it seems you didn’t read the main post carefully. As Stona explicitly stated, “many low and medium BR fighters up to 8.0” are getting a BR increase, which is exactly what I was talking about.
Wait, you’re talking about air arcade?
Where did I mention air arcade
They are reducing the BRs of a bunch of strike aircraft that can be used as fighters at the affected BRs, so what’s the problem?
Spoiler
Apart from those BRs going down in the first place, the fighters deserve BR raises, but the strike aircraft don’t need simultaneous BR reductions
Bro what are you talking about? The IPM1 has the M900 which the booker has at 10.7.
Booker sits at 10.7 because it’s armor sucks - if they modelled it better it would be 11.3.
IPM1 does not need to go down, nor does the M1A1. M1A1 is 12.0 material if they would just add more BRs above 12.7 for ground and more to Air.
I’d love it if the M1 got the m833 - but at the end of the day I’d rather it have m774 (or whatever the current round is) than get bumped in BR for the sake of line ups.
You can lower front plate, driver hatch, and breach/cupola/gunner sight every mbt at the 10.7-11.7 BR. Is it harder and occasionally prone to gaijin mechanics randomly ghosting your shell? Yeah.
If it bumps to 11.0 in the current BR structure it will start facing 12.0s it cannot compete with. So lets leave it alone.
Vehicle: C.202 EC
Mode: Air Realistic Battles
BR revision: 4.0 → 3.7
The C.202’s main upside was it’s incredible performance, with firepower taking a step back.
however the C.202 EC while improves said firepower, it doesn’t modify any other factor, even worse the new pair of 20mm are mounted on gunpods, increasing drag and eating away more at the performance.
The C.202 EC is more fit as as a sidegrade to the C.205 serie 1 with one aircraft trying to improve performance further and the other trying to fix the firepower issue
10 Likes
Mode: Air Arcade Battles
| Vehicle | Current BR | Proposed BR | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Su-30MK2 AMV | 13.3 | No change | |
| Su-30MKK | 13.3 | No change | |
| MiG-29SMT | 13.3 | 13.7 | |
| Su-34 | 13.3 | No change | |
| F-16ADF (USA) | 13.3 | No change | |
| F-16ADF (Italy) | 13.3 | No change | |
| F-14 IRIAF | 12.7 | No change | |
| JA-37DI / F21 | 13.0 | No change |
Aircraft Analysis
Su-30MK2 AMV / Su-30MKK (Reference Point – BR 13.3)
The Su-30MK2 AMV and Su-30MKK are used as the reference point for this comparison. No BR change is proposed for these aircraft.
The Su-30 provides a very complete combat package:
- HMD,
- IIR missiles,
- up to 6 Fox-3 missiles,
- strong radar capability,
- excellent maximum speed,
- strong energy retention and recovery.
Its main advantage is the combination of modern systems and strong kinematics.
The high maximum speed allows:
- higher missile launch energy,
- extended effective missile range,
- more effective disengagement after an attack.
If the Su-30 were moved to BR 13.7 , the entire comparison would change. BR evaluation is relative, and a new reference point would require reassessing all aircraft in this bracket.
MiG-29SMT
Proposed change: 13.3 → 13.7
The MiG-29SMT is the only aircraft in this comparison where the combined capabilities justify a BR increase.
Important factors:
- HMD,
- IIR missiles,
- up to 6 Fox-3 missiles,
- excellent acceleration,
- very high thrust-to-weight ratio,
- strong radar performance.
The combination of sensors, weapons and flight performance provides very high combat effectiveness in both BVR and close-range engagements.
BR 13.7 would better reflect its overall capability.
Su-34
No change – 13.3
The Su-34 has excellent BVR potential and can carry up to 8 Fox-3 missiles.
However, missile quantity alone should not determine BR.
Its limitations:
- high weight,
- increased drag,
- weaker acceleration,
- lower manoeuvrability compared with dedicated fighters.
It is a strong missile platform, but not a superior air-superiority fighter.
F-16ADF (USA / Italy)
No change – 13.3
The F-16ADF remains one of the strongest aircraft in close-range manoeuvring combat.
However, top-tier Air Arcade combat depends not only on turning performance, but also on:
- sensors,
- missile technology,
- engagement control,
- kinematics.
Compared with the Su-30, the F-16ADF lacks:
- HMD,
- IIR missiles,
- similar missile capacity,
- comparable high-speed performance.
Its advantage in turning combat does not fully compensate for these disadvantages.
F-14 IRIAF
No change – 12.7
The F-14 IRIAF is highly effective in specific situations.
Its strengths:
- AWG-9 radar,
- Fakour-90 missiles,
- long-range BVR capability.
However, it is much more dependent on map size and opponent mistakes.
Limitations:
- no HMD,
- no IIR missiles,
- large airframe,
- weaker close-range capability.
The current BR reflects its actual effectiveness.
JA-37DI / JA-37DI F21
No change – 13.0
The Viggen remains competitive but has limitations:
- maximum 4 Fox-3 missiles,
- no HMD,
- no IIR missiles.
Its flight performance is good, but its overall combat package is below newer fighters equipped with modern helmet systems and IIR capability.
BR Evaluation Criteria
BR should represent overall combat effectiveness, not a single advantage.
The following factors should be considered together:
- HMD,
- IIR missiles,
- Fox-3 capability,
- radar,
- RWR,
- missile capacity,
- flight performance,
- energy retention,
- energy recovery.
A higher BR should represent a clear increase in total combat capability.
Player Statistics and Premium Aircraft
Player statistics are an important part of BR balancing, but they require context.
Su-30MK2 AMV and Su-30MKK are premium aircraft and are often used by players with limited top-tier experience.
This can reduce average statistics through:
- poor BVR decisions,
- ineffective missile usage,
- incorrect energy management,
- tactical mistakes.
Therefore, statistics alone may not always represent the full potential of an aircraft.
Matchmaking Impact
Moving several aircraft from BR 13.3 to BR 13.7 while leaving Su-30 at 13.3 may reduce matchmaking diversity.
Possible effects:
- more frequent Su-30 vs Su-30 matches,
- fewer comparable opponents,
- increased number of battles against lower BR aircraft.
BR changes should consider not only individual aircraft performance but also the effect on the entire matchmaking environment.
Personal Note
I am currently researching the Chinese aviation tree.
From a personal perspective, keeping the Su-30 at BR 13.3 while increasing the BR of competing aircraft would make my progression easier.
However, personal progression should remain separate from balance evaluation.
This proposal is based on aircraft capabilities and consistency of BR assessment, not personal advantage.
Personal Air Arcade K/D Results
These values are provided only as additional context:
| Aircraft | K/D |
|---|---|
| Su-30MKK | 6.0 |
| Su-30MK2 AMV | ~5.0 |
| F-16ADF USA | 4.0 |
| JA-37DI | 4.0 |
| F-14 IRIAF | 2.5 |
Conclusion
Using Su-30MK2 AMV and Su-30MKK at BR 13.3 as the reference point, the available characteristics do not indicate a need to increase the BR of:
- Su-34,
- F-16ADF,
- F-14 IRIAF,
- JA-37DI variants.
The aircraft where the combination of sensors, weapons and flight performance provides sufficient justification for a BR increase is:
MiG-29SMT: 13.3 → 13.7
If the Su-30 itself were moved to BR 13.7, the entire comparison would require a new evaluation because the reference point for this BR range would change.
1 Like
Uh I am still seeing ghost shells. Not as many, but still seeing them happen.
I play WWII vehicles and honestly don’t see the attackers you are talking about being used as valid substitutes for good fighters that will suffer a BR increase. This will mean that air cover will be less effective because some players will have to remove certain fighters from their lineups due to the battle rating increase, forcing them to use fighters with lower BRs or capabilities to try and achieve the same result. The problem will be even more pronounced when these players enter matches where they will be bottom tier and will try (if they don’t deem it pointless) to provide air cover with fighters that will perform worse in the already difficult position of being bottom tier. Even now, matches are a bomb festival; if we also limit the few defenses we had left to at least manage to engage enemy tanks with our own, then our fun with ground units will be much more limited, that’s for sure.
Vehicle: BTR-3E1
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 9.0 —> 8.7
Reason: This APC is absolutely inferior to its Soviet counterpart in every way: it lacks a thermal sight, have two ATGMs, but they are mounted on the side of the turret (the Soviet APC at this BR has one ATGM mounted at a high altitude, allowing it to play safely in cover of terrain). Furthermore, the opponents themselves are different for this APC: its Soviet counterpart does not play against the huge number of well-armored (even on the sides) soviet MBTs. I don’t think lowering this APC’s BR will make it an OP-vehicle.
7 Likes
It does not have IIR missiles
IR yes, not IIR
No aircraft in-game carries IIR A2A munitions
Also, MiG-29SMT is straight up worse than the Su-30MK2 and MKK even in arcade what are you cooking
It’s heavier, has less missiles and the better radar doesn’t matter since you’ll be in HMD anyways
3 Likes
I see where youre coming from. Maybe if the game gets more decompression they could do the alternative of what we have now but we dont exactly know how the game would be in that scenario
1 Like
pls no
lets all remember the strv 103 C rip after becomeing 9.0
How is the M4A3 (105) not getting moved up to 3.3?!? Leave the jumbo Pershing alone and move the 105 up instead!!!
2 Likes
betther move both up
im colourblind and half deaf yet i still stomp most people despite having a natural disadvantage.
out of all my favourite vehicles to play only one id say is completely fairly BR’d. most have 60% win rates at minimum
however do need to say that the cromwells absolutely needed to move up after giving them APHE, cromwell 1 (pre 75mm update and new player skill issue stats for comparison)
1 Like
You are right about the real-world specs (the R-73 missile features the dual-band Mayak-80 IR seeker), but in the game, it functions like a focal-plane array system and holds a significant advantage over other infrared-guided missiles.
About MiG-29SMT. It have much better overall flying characteristics in an Arcade Battles than both premium SU.
But i think main probllem isnt MIG-29 but SU-30…
1 Like
BTR-82AT gets:
- Slower top speed
- Slower reverse
- Less hp/t
- No commander override
- Less atgm’s
- No ess
- Less armour
- Less ammo
- Stupid aimable atgm
The only thing it actually gets is a better atgm and thermal sight
R-73 IRCCM functons no different from Magic 2 IRCCM or other gatewidth IRCCM missiles
Not to mention the Su-30MKK/MK2 get 4 more missiles than the MiG-29SMT
What exactly do you think makes the MiG-29SMT deserving of a higher br?
3 Likes
Literally what are you talking about? MK-80 is single band
MK-2200 for R-73M is dual band.
It’s FOV and FOV only, whatever you’re saying means, bot
IRCCM type that the AIM-9M gets is just superb imo, especially with the AAM-3
Also Su-34 is 13.7