- A1E1 Independent: 1.3 down to 1.0. Terrible armour for a heavy tank, worse than many nations light tanks even at 1.0. Terrible mobility. Massive target. 3-Pdr gun isn’t a redeeming factor either, it’s not the worst gun in the game, but due to all the other factors combined it’s made much worse. Please also fix the Soviet level gun depression.
Vehicle: Ozelot
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 9.7 → 9.3
Reasoning: As it stands, the vehicles most similar to the Ozelot in role are the Type 93, Imp Chaparral, and SANTAL, that being a AA armed with only short range IR missiles. These vehicles, though practically identical, all sit at 9.3 (9.0 for the American version of the Chaparral). Along with this, the Ozelot shares its BR with the Gepard 1A2, which carries the same missiles, but also cannons, allowing it to engage air targets at a very close range and also ground targets. Overall, the Gepard 1A2 is a direct upgrade over the Ozelot, yet it shares the same BR.
- SARC IVa: 1.3 down to 1.0. It’s fast, and that’s kinda it. If you compare it to the Daimler it shares a BR with, it loses in almost every respect. Worse armour, no shoulder stabiliser, gun is incredibly bouncy and kicks like a mule after firing, worse gun elevation and depression angles, and it’s open-topped.
I think maybe 7.7 seems more fair when compared to the SAAB-105. Maybe 8.0 if we put less weight on enemy air being a thing, but past that there’s even just objectively better CAS already so I don’t think this is fair unless we move everything else up with it (which I wouldn’t mind honestly, we could use some more decompression).
- Valentine I: 2.7 down to 2.3. I don’t see why this went up. It’s clearly worse than the Matilda in nearly every way. I would drop this back down to 2.3 and reclassify it as a Heavy Tank.
- Valentine XI: 2.7 up to 3.0. I agree with this one, M61 APHE was a decent jump in performance and I think it’s time to move this variant up. I would also reclassify this as a Heavy Tank.
- Churchill Mk. I: 3.3 down to 3.0. The 2-Pdr is horrendous at this point, mainly due to the lack of mobility to flank. Even taking it in downtiers it struggles to penetrate Pz. IV F2’s with add-on track armour, Pz. III M’s, M4A3 105’s, etc. This would be a side-grade to the 3" Gun Carrier, the Gun Carrier has very similar armour but has a better gun in a casemate.
Data is a factor. Not the only factor. I am also sure the average US player probably has a better internet connection than say the average Australian or Chinese player.
It’s true the company has made some bad decisions when not looking at all factors.
- AEC AA: 3.7 down to 3.3. The only good thing about this vehicle is that it’s enclosed, I don’t understand why you keep overvaluing this. The Oerlikon’s aren’t great guns. You’re just making the low tier British SPAA gap worse.
Yeah I am not disagreeing that data is a factor, it absolutely is but in the case of a game like this it needs to be factored in with nuances data can never display, so I don’t disagree to be clear
- Cromwell V & Cromwell V (RP-3): No change. Big disagree here. This is in no way on the same level as the M4A2. No stabiliser, no .50 cal, worse armour, and no APCR. The only thing the Cromwell V beats the M4A2 at is speed. You just moved it to 3.7, I suggest waiting for the winrate and KD to stabilise a bit more and see if it’s still overperforming by the next BR change round.
- Crusader AA Mk II: 4.0 down to 3.7. I don’t understand why this vehicle even went up. Just compare it to the Wirbelwind, far less rate-of-fire, less penetration, and half the guns. The only advantage the Crusader AA Mk. II has is an enclosed turret and more mobility. The 2 were very asymmetrically balanced.
- Churchill Mk. III: 4.0 down to 3.7. Less mobility than the Churchill Mk. I, same hull armour, and worse turret armour (only 3.5 inches compared to 4 inches). The gun is better, but that’s it. It also has the wrong 6-Pdr, it should have the 6-Pdr Mk III. Which would be a nerf to also justify the drop.