What?
Are you insane?
3 Likes
And the TKX is an 11.7 max vehicle that was only up tired to justify the Type 81(c) going up to appease the CAS cry babies.
You do realize the Type 90 is an L2A4 that trades armour for fire power right?
1 Like
“Yes I got 3000 lb bombs on my f111a, vietnam time, america, f yeah!” - last words before getting disintegrated by iris t
Thanks for the psychology lesson! But how does this change the fact that making a direct hit in this case is almost impossible and this is an abnormal situation in general? So, even if you paint the plane’s canopy glass black, the target still exists and can be hit, right? The probability is just low.
Not to mention the constant buffeting of the airframe that makes the aiming pip micro-jiggle, combined with an insane parallax effect. If you try to attack horizontally following your logic, the parallax just gets worse. But hey, it’s totally easy, right? Even a level 10 newbie could master it.
When red SPAA is good at anti-air, it’s ‘bias’. When the Gepard or any other blue SPAA is good at anti-air, it’s just doing its job. I’m not talking about how It shreds “super armored” tanks, but ok.
Yeah, 8.3, but that doesn’t change things
If we’re talking about historical accuracy, digital ballistic computers didn’t even exist in Soviet aviation until the 1970s (starting with the Su-17 and MiG-27). So it physically couldn’t have had a proper CCIP back in the 50s anyway. You don’t even need to look for a manual. And let’s be honest, even American planes didn’t have digital ballistic computers back then, either they just used old gyro sights and pilot notes. Nobody had computers like that in the 50s.
Sea Harrier can take 4 AMRAAMs, which gives it an advantage at long range and during the early game pressure stage of a match, but yes, the FA 2 is a pretty bad plane, but due to the sheer power of the AMRAAM it needs to stay at 13.0, it’s hard to justify its placement even when compared to the Tornado F.3 Late so I believe your ask was in bad faith.
/s? but fr like the Sea Harrier is like the worst 13.0, if a plane goes down from a higher br, can you really expect it to be equal to the worst plane at that br? See, he’s arguing in bad faith
I totally agree.
The AH-1Z should also be moved to 11.7. The AH-64D Apache has a radar and the two helicopters have very similar capabilities overall. I don’t understand why the Apache is being lowered to 11.7, while the AH-1Z is left at 12.0.
Having only two AIM-9Ms is not enough to justify such a large BR difference. The current BRs feel inconsistent and don’t accurately reflect the vehicles’ overall performance.
2 Likes
Soukou-Tei No.4 Tier II > Tier I : a 1.3 BR boat should not be tier II, and it’s an especially weak one.
Moreover, the Type 5 at BR 1.7 is Tier I.
1 Like
Which is why they should have just changed it. Even radically. Right now what you get is that the fictional vehicles get to stay in the game, and because the Prod is so strong, it will remain popular and infest the bracket, but only experienced players will have access to it. This will make the vehicle even stronger while reducing competitive parity between the haves and the have nots.
I am sick of this methodology to handle older vehicles whose implementation they screwed up. It’s literally blowing dust under the rug and calling it a clean floor.
1 Like
Ground Realistic Battle
This for sure just an br change that punish skill players to unexperienced player.
IS2(all version) 6.3 - 6.3 just make all the IS2 the same BR not at 6.0 is not needed
Tiger 2 (Nr. 1-50) 6.7 - 6.7 we been through this already when the tiger 2p was at a lower br, all the skilled player spammed it so its br got changed to a higher br because they stump all matches. They stop playing it so no keep it there. It was put there for a reason dont forget
T26E5 6.7 - 6.7 are you serious no just no keep this at 6.7 and if you put the tiger 2 or is2 down 6.3 than put the M26 and Super Pershing at 6.3 get my old lineup back
Super Hellcat 6.3 - 6.3 its just like a m18 just for the late ww2 heavy armor. Where are you trying to take this vehicle to fight cold war vehicle? let it stay to ww2 please it dont make since to up br it
Leave this Area Alone and Make a br gap from WW2 to Cold War
(WW2 Era End 6.7 or 7.0 / Cold War Start at Reserves 8.0 or 8.3)
1 Like
Tiger II at 6.3? What the hell are you guys thinking!?
The Jumbos are already weak enough at their current BR, and now they’ll have to face Tiger IIs and IS-2s even more often? Do you really want to completely destroy what little “false balance” the game still has?
It used to be funny that the only real concern when playing a Jumbo was running into an experienced Tiger I player. Now the “fun” will be driving a Tiger II and completely crushing lower-BR vehicles because your turret can shrug off around 60% of incoming shots from a safe distance of over 1 km.
Are you actually balancing the game, or are you just putting new kings on long-forgotten, dusty thrones because of all the new vehicles introduced in the recent major updates?
Give me a break.
4 Likes
According to the stats avaliable to me, the Italian dynamic duo at 13.0 has the best win rate, the M-346FA has a higher win rate than the Rafale M F3-R. However their br is justified due to their low speed and few, if any advantages over the planes at 13.3 that occupy similar roles.
(Air realistic battles) F-104S/F-104S TAF 11.3 > 11.0
These aircraft have zero maneuverability, terrible radar, and utterly useless RWR. Six missiles of average effectiveness, combined with jet speed (which isn’t even the fastest for this BR), do not justify its inflated BR.
3 Likes
Vehicle: M44 (Great Britain)
Gamemode: GAB, GRB, GSB
Suggestion:
- BR; 4.0 > 3.7
- Vehicle name; M44 > Cardinal
Reason:
See also;
7 Likes
After the extremely disappointing announced BR Changes for August where, once again, there’s ZERO decompression, I figured it was a good time to post an improved version of my own decompression suggestion.
Some notes to clarify for players:
-DM53 was removed from the Arietes because the shell was only introduced as an emergency measure back when they were somehow the same BR as the Strv 122s in an attempt to make them more capable for Top BR. Since they would now be 2.0 BRs below Top Tier, there is no need for such an artificial and unhistorical yet negligible buff.
-DM53 was removed from the Strv 122s because it is as unnecessary as it is unhistorical.
-DM63 was added to the newest Leopards as a historical change that, gameplay wise, has only a small impact in increasing their survivability (DM63 is identical to DM53, except it doesn’t detonate when hit).
-SHARD has a penetration of 640mm at 0º and 0m from Leclerc’s gun, according to Lanz-Odermatt formula.
-3BM59 IS BETTER THAN 3BM60, by 10mm at point-blank, which isn’t a lot, but it’s something. The OFL F1/F2 case is NOT comparable, as the speed difference between 59/60 is MUCH lower (10 m/s) than it is between F1/F2 (50 m/s).
-M1A2 SEPv3, as the highest and top BR Abrams tank, received M829A4 as to have something to truly stand out compared to all other Abrams variants, since Gaijin actively refuses to give it the actually sensible hull armor improvement that was meant to achieve this.
-The suggested BRs take into account current vehicle modelling, not authentic one. A fixed Merkava Mk.4 or Type 10, for example, would be 13.7-14.0, not 13.0, etc.
3 Likes
Both items are very easily fixed. Give it a considerable nerf to its reload speed without sending it up in BR.
This will reduce the vehicle’s potential as a nuke farmer. I have lost count of how many experienced players I’ve seen who just play the T20 with no lineup, because their objective is to farm nukes and if they die once, they have no interest in respawning.
With a reload nerf the vehicle becomes more “normal” and eventually can perhaps even see a lower BR, with a more normal player base now buying it and giving you more accurate information about its strengths. Since Gaijin uses reload speed as a soft balancing factor, this is the obvious solution to the T20 problem. Make it less of a rat and the rest will fix itself.
They are giving reload buffs to vehicles they don’t know how else to help, since constantly sending them down in BR is not always a reasonable option. Most of the vehicles that have been getting reload buffs are tank destroyers (big shocker there, especially as maps get smaller and smaller they are completely outside the meta). The late Pz IVs are tank destroyers in all but name and it’s hardly shocking to see them get the same treatment as the M36 and (last time out) the M10s. The IS-1 is alright but it’s hardly tearing through lobbies and it is only 0.3 BR under much more competitive vehicles, so whatever, give it a bit of help.
Might as well cut to the chase and make the Zeros 8.0 already
1 Like
That would be completely insane. The Sla is borderline 7.0 as it is. No, they’re only sending down the pre-series Tiger II with the 100mm turret weakspot. That’s fine esp. with the IS-2s moving down, although they also need to lower the M26 alongside them imho.
3 Likes
Hello! What is that? Did Italy acquire DM63 recently?
I see them all the time.
They will try to nerf it without sending it up in BR first, which is imho the correct solution. It’s not pure bred American mains that gravitate to the T20, it’s experienced players who understand that the combination of great mobility, low profile, great targeting speed, fast reload and APHE is one almost tailor made to get nukes.
1 Like