yeee balancing based on win rate and KD is definitely an unwise decision.
1 Like
airframe maybe not the best but Fakour are the best BVR missile in the game btw, speed-wise anyway.
Vehicle: Strv-103C
Mode: GRB
Change: BR 9.0 → BR 8.7
To the best of my knowledge 103C currently has the worst time-to-aim out of all 9.0 and 8.7 vehicles, between lack of stabilizer, lack of turret and horrible vertical traverse rate. Its survivability is nonexistent outside of one specific situation: perfectly head-on and perfectly hull-down (otherwise it instantly loses ammo rack through the side or transmission through the tip of the wedge).
The mobility is average for 8.7-9.0 tanks, on the slow side forward, but with good reverse. The shell is bog standard for 8.7. In terms of firepower, it is exactly the same as SK-105 (which, however, has a turret and the light tank utility kit), slightly better than O685 (but only as long as you ignore that one being able to use APHE, and that’s also a light tank) and massively worse than PTZ89 (which is what a 9.0 TD should be like). What, exactly, does 103C offer that makes it 9.0-worthy?
4 Likes
We’ve since added the Type 99 and 75 SPGs as tank destroyers for Japan. With the Type 99 being both the same BR and class.
There are no more direct replacements available that directly match the Ho-Ri.
3 Likes
Vehicle : F-16A OCU (JPN)
Mode : Air Realistic
Change : 13.7 > 13.3
Reason : Unlike F16AMs it lacks extra countermeasure pods that you can sacrifice your missiles for. It’s more akin to the F-16A ADF from the US Tree. IR HMD is too situational to be useful. Simply make no sense that it’s the same BR as the superior F-16C
4 Likes
Yakovlev Yak-130
Realistic ground battles: battle rating 9.3 → battle rating 10.7
Realistic air battles: battle rating 9.0 → battle rating 10.7
Arcade air battles: battle rating 9.0 → battle rating 11.0
Adding the missing R-73 air-to-air infra-red missiles and wing-tip countermeasure pods would substantially improve the airplane gameplay while using its existing weapons and increasing the battle rating to a more fairer. Yakovlev Yak-130M still distant and crucial information to compare between this improved version and the current Yak-130 still scarce and I doubt we’re seeing it anytime in the soon future to add as a new vehicle.
3 Likes
Except that the YS should be 9.0 with the Y, neither plane belongs at 9.3, you are right that nords are better than 9B’s without flares the Y and YS do not have the flight performance for 9.3. Even if you have insane flight performance like in the MiG-19S it still only takes one player with good missiles to focus you down and ruin your match.
Those missiles will only kill people who are tabbed out or utterly clueless
IRIAF is nothing but an awareness check
It’ll keep going up until people learn to pay attention (They won’t)
4 Likes
Add the O-I which Atleast had parts produced for jt then. Atleast then Japan has AN example of heavy armour
1 Like
The humble notch is still yet to be learned
Can you not artificially nerf T20 to bring the BR down? It is literally perfectly fine at 6.3.
5 Likes
Or multipathing
Vehicle: Re.2005
Mode: GRB
Change: BR 6.3 → BR 6.0
Setting ARB aside for the moment, in GRB both Re.2005 ended up being moved to 6.7 (due to lack of 6.3 ground lineup) where they routinely see and are horribly outclassed by the 6.7-7.7 range jets (as well as A2D-1 and sometimes Spitfire Mk24) that just use speed disparity to freely ignore or attack the 2005 however it suits them. At the same time, reduction in number of open-top vehicles made MG 151 guns and 100 kg bombs a lot less effective vs ground, so it’s also thoroughly unremarkable as CAS.
And in the meanwhile 6.0 lineup now only has G.55 in the fighter slot, which similarly struggles with F8F-1, Yak-9UT, Spitfire LF Mk9 and other meta late props.
7 Likes
Requested change: G-91YS - 9.3 > 9.0
Reasoning: The G91YS is identical to the G91Y in terms of flight performance except for the fact that it swaps out the 2X AA.20 Nords for 2x Aim-9B’s (I want people to take note of the fact that AA.20s are objectively also a better and more versatile missile than the Aim-9B).
This shouldn’t warrent it being a BR higher and playing it into all aspect, or high powered missile carriers using stuff such as the R-60M and Aim-9L/J/P combind with far superior flight performance is extremely unfun and has virtually no counterplay.
Please move this plane down to 9.0 so it is the same BR as the G91Y since this functionally the same plane with a different and slightly worse missile kit.
19 Likes
Naval vessels have different requirements to tanks to be introduced. Requiring simply to be laid down.
We have no current plans to reintroduce the Flankpanzer 341.
3 Likes
i don’t even think the missile is all aspect
A heavy SPG perhaps not but you can add the O-I to give Japan some TT heavy armour.
Ground RB
Valentine I
2.7 → 2.3
IT never should have gone up in BR in teh first place, it gets a peashooter, extremely poor mobility, and armour that is not effective against most threats it fights
3 Likes
Vehicle: Re.2005 (VDM)
Mode: GRB
Change: BR 6.3 → BR 6.0
Setting ARB aside for the moment, in GRB both Re.2005 ended up being moved to 6.7 (due to lack of 6.3 ground lineup) where they routinely see and are horribly outclassed by the 6.7-7.7 range jets (as well as A2D-1 and sometimes Spitfire Mk24) that just use speed disparity to freely ignore or attack the 2005 however it suits them. At the same time, reduction in number of open-top vehicles made MG 151 guns and 100 kg bombs a lot less effective vs ground, so it’s also thoroughly unremarkable as CAS.
And in the meanwhile 6.0 lineup now only has G.55 in the fighter slot, which similarly struggles with F8F-1, Yak-9UT, Spitfire LF Mk9 and other meta late props.
10 Likes
Worst BR changes I’ve seen in a while
5 Likes