It does ;) thanks for noticing maybe we should nerf your ef2000 while we are at it ?
9E and J have the same motor.
F-14D
Simulator Battles: 12.7 → 13.0
Reason:
The new Radar + IRST and improves HUD on the F-14D makes it far more formidable than the F-14B in Sim, I believe with how sim BRs work it would be a good idea to put the F-14D on par with the F-2A ADTW for simulator battles, as they are both very strong but have advantages/disadvantages over one another.
3 Likes
How is that things winrate only 60%???
StuH 42 G
- Rank : Rank II -No change-
- All Battle: BR: 3.0 (AB 3.3) → BR: 3.7
- Reload time: 13s / 10s → 9s / 7.5s
Reasoning:
StuH 42 is StuG III equipped with a short-barreled 105 mm howitzer. Its HEAT shell Gr.39 rot Hl/C penetrates 115 mm of RHA at all ranges.
However, the reload time is 13 seconds (10 seconds even with an ace crew), which is far too long for a vehicle that relies on HEAT shells.
Lacking any clear advantages over the StuG III F/G, the StuH 42 has long had very few players.
With more tanks receiving reload time buffs alongside upcoming BR changes, it will only fall further behind on the battlefield. It needs a reload time buff.
4 Likes
Proposal for Reducing Battle Rating: A6M5 Otsu
BR: 6.0 → 5.3
I’m honestly beyond frustrated that I even have to make a comment for this, let alone the several I have do for each A6M, that I know will be ignored in the end. Still, that tiny sliver of hope you developers will listen is making me write this out. But seriously Gaijin, what are we doing?? This used to be at 4.7!
Rationale:
Let’s start on the playerside to get this out of the way. Most of the playerbase agrees that the A6M5 series are horribly overtiered. Yet, despite this, the BRs continue to go up. Why is this? It’s because only more experienced players (who are willing to spade it) are playing it. The more they play it, the higher the winrates go up. To Gaijin, it looks like the plane is overperforming, but to anyone else, it’s apparent that primarily veteran players are the only ones willing to use it at the BR it’s at. This creates a feedback loop where fewer players are willing to touch the plane, but those (veterans) who do, tend to play decently enough for Gaijin to hit it with a BR nerf. In short, Gaijin is **punishing ** good players for playing an overtiered plane at the 5.7 bracket, while at the same time less-experienced players are unlikely to play it. Even I am less willing to play this plane now.
But if the developers choose to ignore the opinions of the players, they ought to at least consider that the A6M5 Ko and Otsu are outmatched by virtually EVERY FIGHTER at its BR. To name a few: the P-51-H, F8F, Spitfire F Mk. 22 and 24, the La-9, Yak-3U, G.56, the list goes on. And now Gaijin wants these Zeroes to fight the Me-262 and the Su-9? In what world is that reasonable? The Zeroes are at a BR that’s TOO HIGH for their capabilities already, and now they want them to fight improved jets? This is unacceptable.
Forgive me if I come across as overly critical, but I am frustrated. Not only do I wish a BR decrease, but I also ask for a proper explanation as to why the Zeroes keep going up despite their characteristics.
18 Likes
I also want to say that putting the A6M5 Otsu to 6.0 is crazy because now I have to use it in a 6.0-7.0 ground lineup. Absolutely nuts. If this goes to 6.3 in the very possible near future, I have to fight M163s. Insanity.
4 Likes
VT4 should be 12.0
It is worse in every way to the WZ1001 and the ZTZ99A yet it is at the same br. And the ztz96B has almost identical performance and capabilities, yet there is a 0.4 br difference between 2 very similar tanks.
2 Likes
It’s pretty crazy the T28 is 6.3 and the T95 which is just the T28 with an extra pair of tracks is 0.7 higher.
2 Likes
British RB Ground BR’s:
- Cromwell V & Cromwell V (RP-3): No change. Just compare the Cromwell V to the M4A2. No stabiliser, worse armour, no .50 cal, no APCR, and worse reverse speed. The only thing the Cromwell beats the M4A2 in is forward mobility.
Just look at the KD, it’s barely 1. The only reason the win rate is so high is because the British have a strong 3.7 line up.
4 Likes
no no NO, the KING TIGER CANNOR GO DOWN, IT CAN ONLY GO UP, IT IS LITERALLY THE SCOURGE OF 5.7-7.7 ARE YOU CRAZY??? THE T20 IS ABSOLURELY AWFUL YOU ALSO CANNOT KEEP PUTTING IT UP IN BR?
oh my lord, when will gaijin stop looking at player performance and instead look at vehicle stats and PLAY THE GAME FOR THEMSELVES???
also, how the FUCK does the T26E5 go to 7.0 but the King Tiger remains pampered at 6.7!!! what the hell is this? were yall paid off by big H???
3 Likes
Yeah, these changes REALLY show how compressed 6.7 is. The early Tiger II is clearly worse than the later one, but clearly just a slightly weaker turret doesn’t really justify 6.3.
The Kungstiger is also doing better than the T26E5, same win rate but better KD. So why is one going down and the other going up? It’s just a bizarre change.
1 Like
Okay, no shade
Vehicle Su-11
Gamemode: Air Realistic Battles
BR Change: 7.3 → 7.7
Reason: Extremely strong all around flight performance. Stronger in every way than the Ouragan at 7.7. Playerbase wide statistics seen poor due to difficult to use guns, status as a premium, and usage in GRB.
3 Likes
Vehicle Yak-38 and Yak-38M
Gamemode: Air Realistic Battles
BR Change: 9.3 → 9.7
Reason: R-60s are way too strong to be facing subsonics with no countermeasures.
4 Likes
And with scout, just like the SUB-I-II and AMX-10P
Sub I-II lost its scouting since it wasn’t intended for such.
Im not even going to bother opening your profile and i will say you struggle to maintain 1.0 KD with Abrams to even suggest such nonsensical BR change.
6 Likes
Vehicle: MB326K
Mode: Ground Realistic Battles
BR Change: 7.3 → 7.3 (Stay at 7.3)
Reasoning:
The MB326K should remain at 7.3 and not be moved up. Unlike the L39ZA at 7.7, the MB326K does not have a ballistic computer (CCIP) for guns or rockets, nor does it have a bombsight for level bombing. This forces the player to get in close for accurate ground attacks, exposing the aircraft to short‑range anti‑air fire. At 7.3, there are already dangerous SPAAs such as the M163 (with optical tracking) for the US, Israel, and Japan, as well as the ZSU‑23‑4M2 for the USSR – all of which are lethal at typical attack ranges. Moving it to 7.7 would place it against even more capable radar‑guided SPAAs like the Yenisei and VEAK 40, where the lack of CCIP becomes a critical disadvantage. The L39ZA can engage these targets from a safe distance thanks to its computer, but the MB326K cannot. Therefore, its current BR of 7.3 is appropriate and should not be increased.
4 Likes
4.0 engine btw
1 Like