Now that Hawk 200 RDA (UK) is being moved from 11.0 to 10.7, there is no need for these two remain at 10.7 and they should be lower. Hawk 200 RDA is a substantially better plane due to sheer loadout alone because it doesn’t have to sacrifice anything to be better compared to those two.
Hawk 200 has no radar but has 4xAIM-9Ls paired with internal twin ADEN to compensate with alongside decent payload. Hawk 209 at least has something it could potentially receive to keep it relevant at 10.7 but Hawk 200 literally cannot get anything more. IT HAS TO BE LOWERED TO 10.3.
Hawk 209 has a radar but has 4xAIM-9P-4 with 10G less pull and only a single external gun so it has more drag. To get more of your payload or better flight performance, you have to sacrifice the ADEN pod. AGM-65G advantage is mostly due to longer track range but that is around 4km~. Unless Hawk 209 has access to 6xAIM-9P-4 and 3xSea Eagle, its pointless to let it be at 10.7. With how it is and it being a premium, there has to be an incentive to keep it relevant at 10.7. Unless its upgraded (fixed actually), it has to be lower than 200 RDA.
Vehicle: t14
Mode: ground rb
Br change: 4.7>5.0
Reason: if the Churchill mk7 is considered adequate to be raised to 5.0 i believe the similar t14 should receive a likewise increase in br
Eight Fox 3 missiles and four Fox 2 missiles on an Su-30mk? I wouldn’t want to deal with that in a 13.0 or 12.7 aircraft during a sale. It could work if proper decompression were implemented, but right now it would just be a pain in the neck.
I would overall not wanna play the MKK or MK2 if they were 13.7 in current compression, no point to play them there because from my own experience and many of my friends 13.7 is almost always 14.7. They do not stand a chance there even remotely when compared to the SM and 11B. Ask for 15.0/15.3 Air, then move them to 13.7 together with most current 13.7s going to 14.0
Vehicle: USS Aylwin/ USS Gridley/ USS Bagley( Helm)
Mode:AB
BR:3.7⇒4.0 4.0⇒4.3
These ships’ main battery firepower is clearly overtuned for their current BR bracket.
They can fire 15 rounds per minute until their ready-use ammunition is depleted, and even afterward they still maintain 12 rounds per minute, giving them an exceptionally high sustained rate of fire. On top of that, their speed, torpedoes, and every other fundamental performance characteristic are above average, making them excellent destroyers overall.
Gridley and Bagley (Helm) are even more extreme, as they do not have a ready-use ammunition limitation at all, allowing two of their guns to maintain a constant 15 rounds per minute. (The recently added Gridley also has 250 crew members, addressing what was previously its main weakness.)
They are essentially “mini Fletchers,” and I believe a +0.3 BR increase would be appropriate for all of them.
Vehicle: Forrest Sherman USS Phelps
Mode:AB
BR:4.3⇒4.0 4.0⇒3.7
Unlike the previous examples, these are cases where I believe the current BR is too high.
◆Forrest Sherman:
If the 127 mm guns are recalculated using the rate of fire and reload time of the twin Mk.22 mounts, their effective firepower is roughly equivalent to six guns. (The Mk.18 is a single mount with approximately twice the rate of fire of the Mk.22.) Since BR 5.3 is generally balanced around ships with the equivalent of eight guns, assigning Forrest Sherman a BR of 5.3 despite having only about six guns’ worth of firepower is an overly harsh balance decision.
◆USS Phelps:
This is a poor ship that seems to have been completely forgotten. BR 5.0 is far too high for a ship with only five main guns. Although she is a Porter-class destroyer, she carries only five 127 mm guns. Because she is a Porter-class ship, she also has a relatively small crew. Compared to Sumner and Gearing, she has both weaker main battery firepower and fewer crew members, making her significantly less capable despite sharing a similar BR.
sorry
Since posting them individually would result in multiple posts, I’ve grouped together ships with similar performance. I’ll be more careful in the future.
Moving the t26 while the t29 chills with those stats?! Is why people get mad
Also the solid shot of the heavies…
This isnt a good tank, the t26 being left at 6.7 is all they have worth using now
But make it make sense. Moving a tank at 6.7 to 7.0 while another US heavy at 7.0 already has better stats than the t26 at 6.7. Hurt my brain just writing it
The Ki-44-II is a fighter that combines very high levels of maneuverability, climb performance, and firepower in a well-balanced package. Its engine delivers high horsepower at both low and high altitudes. The four Ho 103 guns are also quite powerful. It can fight quite effectively even against BR 5.0 fighters.
Reason: It is the G.55 sottoserie 0 buth with x3 20mils instead of one and 1 less Breda SAFAT, which due to current cannon damage is irrelevant outside of headons, but also means it is heavier (3.16 t
vs 3.22 t) and it comes with no improved powerplant and the Serie 0 already isn’t the best performer at the altitudes Air Realistic battles usually take in (below 4km)
The 1.0 BR difference between serie 0 and serie 1 is not justified.
Reason: The main downside of the C.202 is the firepower, Breda SAFAT already show lackluster ballistics, poor AP performance and lowest firerate of all 12.7mm armaments (700RPM).
This means the C.202 is supposed to have a somewhat average flight performance, currently it doesn’t and you can see it because despite being and aircraft required to progress you don’t see it at all in current battles.
Reason: Re.2005 has the same issue as the A6Ms do currently it is incredibly good at killing not so skilled pilots.
It has the same issues currently for the BR as the A6M5 does, can’t create presence early on, spends half the match trying to reach a furball and in late game it finally reaches and perhaps cashes in 2-3 kills. But that’s if the Re.2005 plays smarts and lasts until late into the battle.
Vehicle: Object 279 Gamemode: Ground Realistic BR Change: 9.0 —> 9.3 Reason: This tank has everything it takes to be one BR step higher: top-tier armor that’s impenetrable for many vehicles, good mobility and an excellent shell. Increasing this monster’s BR won’t make it unplayable, but it will allow 8.0 vehicles to play more fairly. It still will be decent tank on 9.3.
Reason: It is closer in performance to 5.7 aircraft like the Bf-109 K-4, Ki-84 Otsu and J5N1, F4U-4B.
But it mostly falls behind with aircraft like the F7F-1 , F8F-1B or worse P-51H-5-NA
It only went up because it was the least overtiered late-prop of Italy.
It is mostly intended as a jack of all trades, but currently it is a below average at every alley.
