Seafire MK47
GRB:
6.0-5.3
What’s the main point of letting a FW190 with 8* RP3 move to 6.0???
If we have Tempest Mk V and Typhoon Mk Ib/L at 5.7/4.3??? Same 4*20mm with better performance
2 Likes
still wait for those smoke launchers on the 3.3 4.0(M4) 4.7 and 5.3 and 5.7 and even JUMBO shermans… for years … things that the real tanks had in fact… and used in WW2… but the developer saw them and modeled them from the museum perspective that they patched that … that’s the realism…
imagine even the M748 (the german sherman is the wrong model)… instead be the 3.3 sherman… is the 4.0 and is the only reason that the 4.0 M4A2 has smoke granades… they share the same model.
Vehicle: ADATS
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 11.7 —> 11.0
Reason: I propose lowering the Battle Rating of the ADATS, as it is one of the weakest SPAAs at its current BR.
Its ATGMs are very slow, the radar struggles to detect targets through trees, it cannot fire accurately while moving, its thermal sight is only first-generation, and its autocannon is relatively weak.
For the 75mm vehicles it does depend on when they’re suppose to be represented. Pre-November 1943 they wouldn’t have smoke launchers.
NOPE, let stingers stay around 9.3/9.7 depending on radar or not. Move down the stormer ad alongside the gepard where it belongs and you have a nice balance.
Compared to the Z-19 series, the Apache is equipped with an anti-aircraft machine gun and an additional AAM slot. Furthermore, the Hellfire’s destructive power (in TNT equivalents) is 3.2 times that of the AKD-9=BA-9. It can carry 16 of these without sacrificing an AAM (TY-90) slot. Furthermore, whilst the time to hit at the AKD-9=BA-9’s maximum range of 6 km is roughly equivalent, the Hellfire has an additional 2 km of range, bringing its total range to 8 km.
*Compared to the 10 km range of the Mokopa AGM on the Louivalc, for which 🐌 refused to lower the BR, this is merely a difference of 2 km. In other words, this 2 km advantage constitutes a valid reason for lowering the BR by 0.3, and also proves that the increase in BR resulting from carrying the same number of AKD-9=BA-9s as the Apache is inappropriate.
The manoeuvrability of the Z-19 series renders it virtually defenceless against ‘fire-and-forget’ systems launched by enemy ARH SAMs with a BR of 12.3–12.7. This is because these SAMs fly along a high-trajectory path whilst maintaining an average speed of 1,000 m/s. Furthermore, it is unacceptable to disregard this manoeuvrability—which is assessed as appropriate at a BR of 11.3—solely on the basis of the vague reasoning that ‘with this level of manoeuvrability, raising the BR would pose no problem whatsoever’, a justification that is now entirely unrelated to the addition of the AKD-9=BA-9.
Consequently, regardless of whether additional AKD-9=BA-9 are introduced, the BR of the Z-19/Z-19E should remain at 11.3 and should not be raised to 11.7.
Z-19/Z-19E
BR 11.7 → 11.3
Vehicle: Su-30MKK / Su-30MK2V
Gamemode: Air Realistic
BR Change: 13.3 → 13.7
Reason: These aircraft and their kits exceed the capabilities of their contemporaries at 13.3 and severely dominate any aircraft at 13.0. Their loadouts are good enough to fight up to 14.7. Any statistical reason, be it winrate, average K/D, or otherwise, that merits their stay at 13.3 must be attributed to the average skill / top tier competency of the plane’s buyers, not to its actual characteristics, and a bayesian analysis of the plane’s performance when only considering experienced users against that of other planes around its BR would probably better serve as an indicator of what BR it should be.
8 Likes
Seafire F Mk XVII
GRB 5.7-5.3
Add RP3
Also, another issue: why just 1*500lb and then need 5.7? Just because some ACE players use that and then need to raise 5.7???
And also, where is the report approval? Community Bug Reporting System
R2Y2:
GRB: 8.0-7.3
Suppose IL28 and B57 is already 7.0/7.3
Why can R2Y2 still be 8.0? Did Gaijin already forget what they have? Or still efficiency because there is no more data they can recalculate? How is R2Y2 better than MB326K or Meteors in GRB???
1 Like
Vehicle: AV-8B Plus.
Gamemode: Ground Realistic.
BR Change: 12.0 → 11.7
Reason: Please, Gaijin, add the AV-8B Plus to the list of aircraft receiving a Battle Rating reduction along with the Harriers.
The AV-8B Plus is a fairly weak and slow aircraft. It only carries four Mavericks. At 12.0 , the F/A-18A has four anti-radiation missiles, while the AV-8B Plus has no equivalent capability.
Its low speed makes it an easy target, and it performs poorly in dogfights. On top of that, its AIM-120A missiles are not very effective when launched at such low speeds.
1 Like
Vehicle: AV-8B Plus.
Gamemode: Air Realistic
BR Change: 13.0 → 12.7
Reason: Please, Gaijin, add the AV-8B Plus to the list of aircraft receiving a Battle Rating reduction along with the Harriers.
The reason for lowering its Battle Rating is its poor effectiveness in air combat. It only carries four AIM-120A missiles, which are simply not very effective when launched at such low speeds.
To get the best performance out of the AIM-120, the launching aircraft needs to be flying at high speed, but the AV-8B Plus is a subsonic aircraft. It’s like launching AIM-120s from an A-10.
If you look at its statistics, you’ll see that its overall performance is quite poor. Many players enjoy this aircraft because it’s an iconic platform, and many of us—including myself—would like to continue playing it.
The F-14s at 21.7 will be far more effective. They have the speed needed to make full use of their Phoenix missiles. The AV-8B Plus, on the other hand, has neither the speed nor the maneuverability to compete.
1 Like
Over 90% of the new BR changes are completely brain-dead. This is yet more proof that you don’t play your own game at all. The current BR system is outdated and completely behind the times. Constantly balancing vehicles solely based on your own statistics doesn’t help either, because that’s exactly how we end up with what you’re presenting to us today. It is simply pathetic what you are showing us here.
3 Likes
those AH1 are easy pray for a good AA player… in the event… that is on … when i saw one i got him down easy…
the AH1 does not have the ballistic computer of the L39 that dominates with them… and is much slower airplane … from the late 40s… that make it easy target… no maneuverability… and no accurate strikes even with zunis… so that thing should be at 5.7… in the place of the AD2… that goes at 5.3
As an add-on to this:
The J-11A in the Chinese Tech Tree is the most statistically dominant 13.3 plane, having worse characteristics compared to the premium Su-30. This is proof that experienced players with these planes enjoy a massive advantage.
vehicle: ADF F-16
Change: 12.7>12.0 Ground RB
Reason: It has no Air to ground weaponry (not even dumb bombs or rockets) and so should be put alongside other arh in ground with no air to ground weaponry.
Vehicle: XM1C and XM1gm
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 9.3 —> 9.0
Reason:The M735 cannot handle tanks with a BR.M735 is inferior to 3bm22 Dm33 type93 dm63 m/90c.
Or need powerful apfsds to 9.3
1 Like
Are you rage baiting or what? The Cromwell I is NOT better than any 3.7 medium tank. What is this logic
1 Like
[quote=“EXTOR_9, post:2160, topic:343793”]
k is practically immune to all CAS strafing aside f
[/quote] it has the worst velocity… the only possitive that has is the bait … the airplanes on it… thats all…
and in matter of fact… is NOT immune to airplanes…
can the 20mil cannons can get in … and i died from that without bombs… is not as thick as you believe.
Why is the T26E5 being moved to 7.0? It has a M3 90mm with APHE that only pens 185mm at 10 meters. It has thick armor, but the gun forces it to be a passive vehicle in most upteirs to 7.0, 7.3, and 7.7.
It struggles against most head-on engagements with heavy tanks, even at its battle rating of 6.7. The tank often relies on the use of APCR to do any damage.
This strikes me as odd considering you are separating it from many of its counterpart vehicles like the Tiger II Nr.1-50, and all of the IS-2 tanks which are being lowered to either 6.3 or 6.0.
The tanks is now more likely to fight 7.3, 7.7, and 8.0 tanks. How is a T26E5 vs. an IS-3, T-10A, IS-4M, T-55O, Vickers Mk.1, or Centurion Mk.10 a fair fight? All of those tanks have significantly better guns and stabilizers with ammunition that will make mince meat of the tank. APCR wont even frontally work on any many of these tanks listed.
This is simply an unfair change to its battle rating regardless of what win rates tell you.
You can only hand hold german teams so much. Its already annoying fighting Ferdinands or Tiger II H’s with APCR and a hope and a prayer. At least when the T29 was moved to 7.0 it had a gun capable of doing damage to 8.0 vehicles.
1 Like
I imagine the only thing holding it back previously was controller using players who have a significant disadvantage. Completely justified anger though.