There’s so many aircraft that need to go up in BR it’s beyond a joke, there’s no room between 8.3 and 10.3 for anything to make sense going up or down, everything is too compressed.
Vehicle: Bf-109 G-2
Gamemode: Air realistic Battles
Change: 4.3 → 4.0
Reason: its a bf109 f4 that turns worse and is slower while being at a higher br for some reason
and the one thing it does slightly better than the f4 (climb) is not enough since its only such a slight increase
4 Likes
It’s incredibly frustrating.
Hi Smin, I’ve wondered myself a gazillion amount of times, and I really wish i could get an aswer. So, here’s the question — Tiger II 105 isn’t making a cameo ever again? Like the boring ahhh mous does every WT anniversary, perhaps, this relic can find its way back maybe once. Or it’s removed like Ho-Ris are going to be — “to never see a daylight ever again”?
P.s. Yeah, I know ur a CM, not a devteam member, but ig you should know gaijins pov on this matter
Hey
There are no current plans to return this vehicle, the Panther II or Flak 341. Just like we mentioned with the Ho-Ri.
1 Like
I don’t think that’s the best comparison. A better example would be the F-4J and the premium F-4S, since the premium aircraft is actually superior to the tech tree version thanks to the Agile Eagle package.
The F-4J(UK) wouldn’t outperform the FGR.2 just because it receives AIM-9Ls and Skyflash SuperTEMPs. The FGR.2 would still have the advantage of more powerful engines and a larger countermeasure load of 90 compared to the F-4J(UK)’s 60. Those advantages would still make it the better aircraft overall.
The F-4J(UK) has been in a poor state ever since it was introduced in 2022. Giving it these missiles wouldn’t suddenly make it overpowered, it would simply make it competitive and enjoyable to fly again in the current meta. I covered these differences in detail in my post about the British Phantoms, explaining why these changes would improve both aircraft without creating any balance issues.
If you’ve spent a reasonable amount of time flying the F-4J(UK) in the current meta, I think you’d understand why so many players are asking for these changes.
1 Like
I’m upset with this, however I was expecting something like that…
Thanks for swift answer, good luck!
T20
us_t20
- Model the 17 round ready rack
- Gun Elevation Speed: 6 °/s → 4 °/s
- Remove M93 Shot (APCR)
Rationale
This is the best I can come up with within the realm of realism to nerf the T20, which isn’t much frankly.
The 19 rounds located right next to the loader should be properly modeled as the ready rack, which would reduce its sustained fire rate, though admittedly, most people aren’t going to be burning through 19 rounds anyways.
T20 Ready Rack
The elevation speed of the gun is currently higher than the 76 Shermans arbitrarily (6 °/s vs 4 °/s). This is especially odd considering the turret and gun mount of the T23 adopted for the Shermans were expressly designed to improve gun balance compared to the earlier T2X series by moving the gun further back (Pershing - A History of the Medium Tank T20 Series by R.P Hunnicutt, pg. 72-73), which would facilitate elevation instead of hampering it.
Lastly, the M93 Shot is an asynchronous round that should not be available to the T20. The pilot model we have in-game ceased testing around February of 1944 (Pershing - A History of the Medium Tank T20 Series, pg. 52). The M93 HVAP round only started being produced in extremely limited quantities a few months later in July of 1944 (Official Munitions Production of the United States, 1940-1945, pg. 175). Similar rationale is already used to deny the T20 a smoke round.
76 mm Ammunition Production Chart
None of these changes are too impactful to gameplay, but as I said, it’s the best I can come up with without resorting to stretching reality. Hopefully the devs can at least pull from some of these ideas, though I’d say the removal of M93 is the most important due to it also being a somewhat significant historical issue.
5 Likes
Realistically the highest BR in the game for Air RB shouldn’t be 14.7, as of right now, everything below 14.7 is so compressed that moving certain planes up or down don’t make any sense and is completely pointless.
The Hunter F6 currently can face 8.7 jets that don’t have countermeasures and you’re forced to rely on sheer chance that they don’t spot you first and end up behind you especially if it’s a night battle you’re at the mercy of the spotting system.
This doesn’t automatically mean that the problem is fixed with moving the Hunter F6 up to 10.0, this would mean that this jet would be .3 below the J35XS, a jet with countermeasures, superior speed, superior mobility and 6 decent missiles, it goes without saying that this is pretty silly. It also would mean that the hunter would be a BR step above jets like the F-6C, a mig19 with aim9p.
F6c being at a lower BR than the hunter f6 just doesn’t make any sense, I’m fully aware that the game is balanced because of player performance, winrate etc but there’s clearly no room for anything to go up or down.
Does this mean that the hunter should be facing the current 8.7 aircraft? No. Should the hunter f6 go up in BR? Yes, but currently this isn’t going to fix anything because of the compression. The only thing that will happen is the hunter will be basically pointless to play unless downtiered.
And this is a widespead problem, there’s probably over 50 jets currently that are in need of balancing and they CANNOT because of the compression and this doesnt end there either, everything in game needs more room to be moved around, until a higher ceiling is made any changes are completely null and void.
the game balance should not be downtier = too easy and uptiers = terrible expierence.
I could spend hours going over why certain aircraft can’t go up while also going over how actually they need to go up in the same breath, until more room, why even bother changing anything at all.
3 Likes
L-39ZA/ART Albatros (Thailand): 7.3 → 8.0+ (Ground RB)
Reasoning: Yes, it’s slow and not super agile, but its ballistic computer makes it ridiculously deadly against most if not all AA systems in its bracket. Once those are gone the entire roster of ground units is fair game. I think it’s been clearly demonstrated that the vehicle is too strong at 7.3, not least of which because it slots into a lineup with the Ho-Ri Production.
4 Likes
That’s extremely based take on the current situation, bravo!
This is what I have been trying to say without giving an in-depth explanation.
F-104G (China): 10.7 → 10.3 (Air RB)
Reasoning: The F-104J is superior in air battles, considering it handles the same but has 2 more AIM-9P, and is at 10.3. Both planes lack countermeasures. Meanwhile the payloads and ballistic computer on the F-104G don’t provide enough match impact to justify being 10.7. With ground and air BR being split for a long time now, it’s surprising to see this plane hasn’t moved down.
3 Likes
The “GREAT RE-COMPRESSIONING”
These changes basically undo the tiny gains in decompression that have been made over the last few years in one go.
2 Likes
My poor F86’s…
5.7-6.3 is going to be a mess.
1 Like
Then explain the worse WR of the Italian
Me 264: 5.0 → 5.3 (Air RB)
Reasoning: Despite its lesser match impact, it has extraordinary high altitude performance, strong defensive armament, and can stall out a match against nearly anything in its bracket by climbing. If this is how bombers are supposed to be balanced, a lot of other bombers need to go down by a lot.
USA
Air Realistic and Ground Realistic
XF5U-1
5.3 → 4.3
Very slow, and can’t really dogfight due to borked energy retention. It could probably be 3.7 and still be mid, but I say 4.3 to be safe.
2 Likes
I already did if you read all my posts. Italy has a small player base comparatively. That plus skill level creates an unreliable data set. The best nations for data are probably the U.S and Russia. Other nations rank behind them particularly due to number of games played. Again. Agree to disagree.