B7A2 for Arcade, it’s a bad decision because now there’ll be no lineup for it. P-40Fs why are they going up to 2.7? They’re fine if a little weak at 2.3
IS-2 (all types)
No BR change
These tanks are balanced nicely where they sit. While limited in potential by slow rate of fire, the strong side armor, good mobility, and great reverse speed give you the tools and flexibility to work around this slow reload. You can simply tank enemy hits through good positioning or back into cover, then nuke another enemy once your reload time is over. They are well-balanced currently and do not need to move up or down.
By moving these tanks down, especially the late model IS-2, you throw this balance off. The Late IS-2 with its strong lower plate would leave most 5.3 tanks hopeless against it unless they can hit the cupola with a good APHE shell.
1 Like
Tiger II (Nr. 1-50), Kungstiger
No BR Change
This tank is fine where it is. While it is weaker than the later Tiger II, the Tiger II is a very effective tank. If there must be a separation, it would be better to move the Tiger II and other strong 6.7 tanks up to 7.0 than to move the weaker 6.7 tanks down. The game needs less compression, not more. Most 5.3 tanks have no business facing something like a Tiger II
2 Likes
M44 (all nations)
4.0 → 4.0 or 4.3
I was genuinely surprised to see this buffed of all things. The M44 is already extremely popular and a common sight in every battle where it can show up. It combines excellent firepower and excellent mobility into a very potent ambush vehicle. It has enough crew to survive poorly aimed shots without becoming crippled and a very wide gun arc as well. I personally cannot think of what justifies a buff to this already-strong vehicle.
3 Likes
Honestly, yes. Otherwise i won’t post it. But it does not change that what i said is true. Even the premium F/A‑18C (Early) got the same treatment – and it even has thermal imaging and fire‑and‑forget ordnance！
Vehicle: Type 74 (G)
Gamemode: Realistic
BR Change: 9.3 —> 9.0
Reason: All Leopard A1s are receiving a BR reduction. The Type 74 is very similar. Similar protection, the same gun, and a similar shell. In other respects, the Type 74 is even worse than its inspiration. Its speed is worse then on the Leopards, and its depression angle is significantly worse, both upward and downward (Japanese MBTs are very limited in this regard, more reminiscent of Soviet tanks). These are identical tanks, and the Type 74 should follow the Leopard’s reduction.
3 Likes
T20
No nerfs
This tank is suffering from the exact same problem as minor nations. It is too out-of-the-way and over-BR to attract most players but has a playstyle that attracts highly skilled players.
Fundamentally, it will always be a potent vehicle in the right hands no matter where it is placed. Good mobility and gun handling with APHE will always be potent in the right hands. It is rare that I ever see one and in the cases where I do, it’s almost always a skilled player abusing its ability to fire first over ridgelines hulldown. If you aren’t arbitrarily nerfing low BR event vehicles for balance, the T20 should not be nerfed either.
1 Like
As a more general comment, I don’t know if I like these reload buffs. Some, like most of the rank 1 tanks or the Pz.Slf.Ic, feel fine. Those very low BR tanks listed are all either fairly weak or have overly long reloads and could use some help there.
However, the more sweeping changes to stuff like the Pz IV and IS-1 I am less sure on. Part of the appeal of the WW2 tanks is the slower, more committal style of play. Slashing reload rates on tanks that are generally performing fine strikes me as unnecessary and potentially damaging. Maybe these changes are fine, but I am wary of them.
1 Like
The A-6E TRAM going to 11.0 makes no absolute sense. No FnF ordnance only laser guided, no ARMs, no internal gun, and its subsonic. Who the hell made this decision?
1 Like
AMX-50 (TO90/930)
8.0 → 7.7
This is just a slower and larger Char 25t without scouting but still at the same BR. While the frontal hull can still bounce cannon fire, the turret is the same as the Char 25t’s, so you can never truly rely on your armor ever. Dropping this to 7.7 would give you a reason to pick it over the Char 25t and it would fit in nicely with the existing 7.7 France lineup. Alternatively, it’s a Lorraine 40t at a higher BR with some useless hull armor and a APHE shell with anemic penetration and less depression. It’s a Lorraine sidegrade, not an upgrade. It’s a AMX-50 (TOA100) sidegrade, not an upgrade.
2 Likes
Pvkv IV
3.0 → 2.3 (GRB)
Mediocre mobility, mediocre gun, pathetic armor, horrible turret traverse speed. This tank will struggle regardless of what BR it is at, but at 2.3, it will be able to play as more of an actual glass cannon. Reload speed or ammo selection can be adjusted as necessary.
Vehicles like the M3 GMC and SU-76D exist at BR 2.3 or lower with even stronger guns than the Pvkv IV, so the Pvkv IV should be fine there too. Its paper-thin armor, small crew size, and horribly slow turret means that it’s an easy kill for any tank at all that gets its hands on it. The gun is really the only thing this tank can have going for it.
Chi-Ri
5.7 → 5.0 (GRB)
Sure, it has an autoloader, but it doesn’t actually reload much faster than any other tank. It is still stuck with the same uncapped ammo from the same gun as the Chi-Nu II and struggles massively in uptiers. It has little hope of performing at all when it is the size of a barn, has merely average mobility, poor armor, and a relatively weak gun. There just really isn’t anything going for this tank currently. The Chi-Ri exists for its high RoF, high damage gun. If that doesn’t work, this tank doesn’t work.
While I feel this is more of a sidegrade to the Chi-To than anything, dropping this to 5.0 would still be a massive help. In a full uptier, its gun would still be something that other tanks need to worry about. In a full downtier, its large size and weak armor would still leave it vulnerable to crafty enemies. Even its RoF wouldn’t be too oppressive as it is only half a second faster than the Sherman’s 75mm.
1 Like
my god bro im crying
anything with eyes can see 6km
but for u thats bvr so like cray cray
Like a teacher saying ‘DONT YOU DARE USE THIS COLOUR PEN YA WEE SHIT’
Chi-Nu II
4.3 → 4.0 (GRB)
Basically just a late model Pz IV with even less armor and uncapped APHE, but you get a lot more explosive filler.
The gun is quite potent with its high pen and large HE filler, but the shells are uncapped and can be fickle as a result. You have no armor to work with at all and your mobility is quite mediocre, leaving this to run as a pure sniper or support tank.
The Pz IV H does not have as much explosive filler, but its armor can give it lucky bounces and allow it to bully some weaker tanks and its capped shell is much more dependable. The Pz IV also does not store any ammo in the turret, aiding its survivability. The sideskirts on the Pz IV are also quite good against many of the howitzer tanks and HEAT you will face at this BR. If this update goes through, the Pz IV H will also have a distinct edge in fire rate too, reloading a full 1.5 seconds faster aced.
Overall, these two tanks are fairly equal to eachother and should sit at the same battle rating. Putting this at 4.0 also allows it to fit nicely in a lineup with the chaffee, M44, and M42.
3 Likes
AMX-13-M24
Rank 2 → Rank 3
With both the AMX-13 (FL11) and M24 Chaffee at rank III, it is bizarre that a fusion of the best parts of the two is placed at rank II.
3 Likes
AMX-13 (FL11)
4.3 → 4.0
A sidegrade to the Chaffee, so it should be the same BR. It has better acceleration and a smaller profile, but the lack of stabilizer, poor reverse speed, inferior gun depression, and no roof .50 cal hold it back a lot as well. It is great at flanking and relocating, but it cannot knife fight like a chaffee can. It is forced to play as a pure light tank while the chaffee can somewhat fill the role of a medium tank in certain cases.
3 Likes
i have point you dont… you dont even gave me a point.
E.B.R. (1951)
5.3 → 4.7 (GRB)
This vehicle would be a menace if it were too low of BR thanks to its excellent forward and reverse speed combined with APHE, but it is currently too high for such an anemic gun on such a weak and unstable platform. Its gun is still poor by 4.7 standards, but will be more usable when flanking and ambushing.
3 Likes
Air Arcade
Sakeen
3.3>3.7…NO!
The plane does not have a good reputation in the community. It does not exel at anything, even when spaded, and is a chore to grind. Performance is mediocre and will feel even more so when forced up against Spitfire VB Trop, La5FN, P-51C etc which it will be meeting every time if moved up.
The standard armament of 2x 13mm and 2x 7.92mm is poor at its level, and whilst adding the 20mm gunpods gives much needed punch they also add weight and degrade the performance further.
You could use it as CAS but you’ll need those heavy gunpods and the single 250kg bomb (or 4x small) whilst others get built in cannons and/or more bombs.
If it’s going up due to stats as opposed to capability I suggest it’s because you need experience to even unlock the Israeli tree, and you are then forced to play the Sakeen regardless. It’s certainly not because it’s good and players flock to it by choice.
1 Like