it’s going so high it will end in the pearly gates real soon
Strasbourg is 7.3 and should be reduced to 7.0, like Dunkerque which has nearly identical barrel counts.
They are so weak I wonder if the armour is working properly, but sorting the BR out would be something
damn right.! that thing is ridiculous!
1 Like
m829? i thought we were on about m774 considering they are the same br?
Nos shit m829 pens a t80b…
That’s what you get when you don’t read people’s posts properly.
Vehicle: Me 262 A-1a
Mode: Air realistic battles
BR revision: 7.0 → 6.7
Reason: Current BR only exists because the word “Jet” is scary for props, 262 A-1a’s poor acceleration and climbrate means it will never be present early on, as the battle timer slowly ticks down and props eventually fly to the deck, Schwalbe will finally be able to start providing support to it’s teamates.
Why is the revision a BR change? Because an interceptor spawn won’t do much already, you can look into the Me 262 A-1a/Jabo and see even the strike spawn won’t help it make a dent the moment any other jet throws itself at it. The 262 simply can’t compete with most early jets.
The Schwalbe’s main downside will be it’s ballistics and ammo count, it means the 262 will need to conserve ammo, but it will also miss a lot which then translates into constant airfield runs and constant takeoff, where the poor acceleration and climbrate will make themselves known.
The 262 will be easy to catch on the constant takeoff, misjudged turns and sometimes even just diving on them will work, they won’t reasonably reach 3km altitudes reliably.
And even if you can’t reach it because of AA, you can essentially force it to leave the match by camping it’s airfield, because remember, Mk-108s don’t perform well in headon attacks either.
This post, while not 100% accurate to what I said now (262 doesn’t need an airspawn) it does explain how props would counter the 262.
4 Likes
So… Meteor Mk.3 back to 7.0 ?
1 Like
But if it receives a coastal vessel spawn, then it’s bound for a BR increase in the future. It would perform too well by farming pesky little motor boats. Average 3.3 boats and below cannot inflict reasonable damage on the HMS Spey with 40 mm Bofors guns and smaller calibers.
The M-802 used to be 3.7, and it’s now at 4.3 because of this.
The Flower-class corvettes at 2.3 are too good, especially in AB, where you can simply start farming motor boats in open spawn areas. So I want to avoid this change for the Spey.
Instead, I’d argue that it should keep its status as a bluewater vessel but have its BR reduced to 3.0. There are plenty of overtiered bluewater vessels that should have their BR reduced to 3.0, such as HMS Churchill, Commandant Dominé, and La Surprise.
Don’t use red font in your text. That’s reserved for the forum staff only.
1 Like
Sure? I never played it and I only see later meteors currently so I can’t really speak for it.
Also isn’t the current Mk.3 a later variant with a more powerful powerplant? if an earlier one is added go ahead and drop it even lower.
1 Like
Sea meteor Mk.3 =/= Meteor mk.3
1 Like
Sea Meteor go wheeeee
No - gaijin has implemented the F Mk III late variant, the first models had weaker engines.
Sea meteor is like the Spifire LF Mk.IX variant (spacefire)
→
1 Like
From what I can tell (wiki)
Meteor F Mk.3 has a weaker engine (by 850ish kgf) but it is like a ton lighter compared to the Sea Meteor F Mk 3, which also carries less fuel.
But idk man, if you want meteor to 7.0 you make the post, I really can’t talk here, only for the 262. The meteors I kind of see them and I usually see them die somewhere else or by my hand really.
Wheee? Severely undertiered prototype from 1948:
T-44(FM) 6.3 ➜ 6.0
T-44 6.7 ➜ 6.3
Both tanks should serve as counters to the Panther and Pershing. Moving the T-44 (FM) to 6.0 would also strengthen the Soviet lineup, while the standard T-44 could move to 6.3 and take its place.
2 Likes
I don’t know about the regular T-44, but the FM seems to get a fine K/D of around 1.6 according to statshark, so I don’t think that one should move down
Also, we don’t need more compression.
Vehicle: M60 120S
Mode: Ground Realitic Battles
Proposed BR change: 10.3 → 10.0 or increase engine power to 1200hp
Reason: Since its been added to the game in 2024, the M60 120S has been a really contended vehicle. Its great fire power is much appreciated but the 1950 era slop mobility at 10.3 doomed its playing experience to be abominable. Its several modernized patton peers like the M60 AMBT and Sabra Mk.1 are performing much better than the 120S while both sitting at a lower BR.
Henceforward in order to make the BR of M60 120S more matching its performance. Moving it down from 10.3 to 10.0 would be a great change. At 10.0 the 120s is a tech tree version of the M60 AMBT with better firepower but worse mobility. Or alternatively, GDLS once proposed a 1200hp diesel engine for the 120S. (General Dynamics Land Systems AVDS-1790 V-12 diesel engine) With that brand new engine , the 120S gets a power-to-weight ratio of 21.35. Both alternations would make the 120S a more appealing vehicle in sense of reasonable BR and to better gameplay.
Also changing its name from 120S to M60-2000 would be cool as well. (feelin the millennial vibe)
A revelant photo material indicating the M60 120S has a 1200hp engine proposal:
3 Likes
It would also be a decent counter to the T20. The treatment of Allied medium tanks around this battle rating has always seemed inconsistent. Panthers sit at relatively low battle ratings, largely because many of the players using them don’t perform particularly well, while vehicles like the M26 and T-44 remain at 6.7 because the players seem to know what they’re doing.
The T-44 can certainly be difficult to deal with, but it’s far from invincible. This also isn’t an unreasonable request, especially considering the Tiger II (Nr.1-50) is being moved down to 6.3 and the IS-2s are also moving down in as well.
Nah.
So long as reserve cant see top tier, there is plenty of room to increase compression :P
1 Like