Well, this might be the only way to fight a response. But got to try anything.
Mode: All
Vehicle: M4A5
Change: 3.7 → 3.7
Fixing the name to Ram II or Ram II “B” (the latter would also need to be applied to the UK’s one)
Reason: War Thunder claims to be a realistic game and can help that by using the correct name for the vehicle that the operator nation used on it.
“M4A5” is the hypothetical name used by the US on its Ram IIs that never came true. The other possible fix is changing the operator nation to the US, but then it becomes fake in other ways(as the US never had any of the early Ram IIs, just a Ram I for testing and a late post-war).
The name has also done major harm in spreading misinformation about the Ram family.
There is now substantial evidence showing that Challenger 1s deployed during Operation Granby, including the Challenger DS, received the additional armour package. This was a historical modification introduced to improve protection against anti-tank weapons before combat operations.
The photograph showing the tank without the additional armour was most likely taken before the amour was fitted. The absence of a photograph of one individual vehicle does not outweigh the historical evidence showing these modifications were applied.
This is a simple historical correction, not a balance change. In fact, now is the ideal time to implement it because of the upcoming Battle Rating changes. There’s no reason to delay a low risk historical fix that is already supported by credible evidence, especially when comparable modifications already exist on vehicles such as the Challenger 2.
If you think about it, you’re almost getting ripped off. You’re paying for an expensive premium tank that isn’t being represented properly, despite the historical evidence that has been provided. They refuse to add what is essentially a very simple historical modification.
It’s like paying for fish and chips, only for them to take away the chips and never bring them back.
The statistics say otherwise. Tornado F3 Late is a fair match for the Su-30MK2 AMV over the course of an entire Air RB match, with the Tornado having an advantage in the early game and as the game develops the Su-30MK2 becomes more competitive until the late game where it is better, due to its FM. Also the AMRAAM is clearly superior to the R-77 due to having better time to target at long ranges and against manouvering enemies at medium distances.
It should be just some moving up with as few moving down as possible. Reducing BRs should always be avoided.
That’s one of, if not the biggest problem with Gaijins approach to balancing the game. They keep reducing the BRs of vehicles that, based on their specifications, should perform well at their BRs going down because people aren’t using them right.
Player performance can be used as an indicator for how good a vehicle is in the hands of the average player (or how easy it is to use), but that should never be used as a reason to move vehicles down in BR.
A big part of that is that Gaijin keeps doing what I am hinting at at the start of my reply. They need to stop adjusting BRs in both directions simultaneously and try to avoid reducing BRs.
Sure, there are some vehicles that just don’t work well, even if you keep increasing the BRs of other vehicles, but that’s not what Gaijin is doing. They are moving vehicles that are fine at their respective BRs down in BR because certain vehicles in their BR range are overperforming.
If only Gaijin actually showed signs of working on that. These planned BR changes show that they would rather compress BRs even further.
See, they are doing the right move with the T26E5 by moving it up and are sensible enough to at least not move the later Tiger IIs down along with the early ones
Player stats is the most stupid argument ever because you have people skipping the tree entirely and jumping into the Su30 without even knowing how to play low tier props, let alone top tier Fox3s combat.
The aircraft is superior to any other 13.3 and should have a BR increase.
And no, R-77 is better because it has significantly better short range performance and long range performance is basically worthless.
At this point, there is no reason to keep this vehicle at 8.7. It does not have a stabilizer, and its 30 mm AP rounds have a higher chance of ricocheting than 35 mm rounds while also having inferior penetration. There are many cases where an IFV that can be destroyed with 35 mm ammunition cannot be destroyed with 30 mm ammunition.
In addition, its radar performance is inferior to that of 8.3 SPAA vehicles.
Why is a vehicle that has no advantages over 8.3 SPAA still sitting at 8.7? There really is no good reason for it.
Its overwhelming firepower hardly needs any further explanation.
Its armor is also highly advantageous. It makes extensive use of sloping armor, and its turret has a complex internal module layout that causes ricochets far more often than its nominal armor values would suggest. As a result, it is not uncommon for it to even survive hits from APFSDS rounds.
The ammunition stored along the sides of the driver’s compartment also has a relatively low chance of causing a catastrophic detonation. Unless you specifically snipe the horizontally positioned warheads, it is difficult to score a one-shot ammunition detonation kill.
It is difficult to deny that this vehicle has clearly become overpowered within its current BR range.
R-77 is actually superior to AMRAAM due to short-medium range performance
In short: the missile that pulls better, is better
Especially at that br range.
The problems with the R-77’s range are cancelled out by the R-27ER anyways, which every R-77 carrier (bar MiG-29K) carries
It is only at top tier (strictly 14.3 and 14.7) where the longer range of the AIM-120 can be more useful due to the platforms carrying it
Vehicle: Jaguar IS
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 11.0 —> 10.7
Reason: It has only three guided weapons—not even fire-and-forget ones. In terms of capabilities, it is noticeably inferior to the Su-25BM and even the Hawk 200 (which received a Battle Rating reduction), so its Battle Rating should be at least the same as theirs.
Vehicle: Yak3U
Mode: Air RB
Change: 5.7 → 6.0
Its just beyond me how this plane is still sitting where it is while its one of the strongest props in the entire game with the only downside being the ammo count. While stuff like the A6 is going up yet again it is long overdue for this plane to also go up in BR while dominating for years already
No reason to tie your hands and be forced to operate in one direction only.
It’s not a problem, it is the obvious correct approach.
No vehicle in the game plays itself.
Vehicles are not moral agents that intrinsically “deserve” anything.
Vehicles are not customers whose experience you want to curate and whose retention you want to ensure.
Having accepted these truisms it is therefore only logical to balance vehicles based on their live statistics.
They obviously are, since the top BR has changed multiple times over the last few years. I agree that it is slow, but that’s a consequence of the game being an F2P MMO.
Not sure. Imho too drastic. I would have lowered its RoF a bit instead, if they really think it’s too strong rn. Especially with some of its weaker competitors moving down.
That was never a danger. Like I said if anything the stats of these vehicles made Gaijin consider putting them at 7.0 before they implemented the engine nerfs.
Request:
Cancel M48 reload buff.
Reason:
Why do M48s need a reload buff? They are already fairly well armoured and all round good vehicles as well as having a noticeably better reload than it’s siblings the M46 and M47 which current stand at 7.5s (aced).
T26E5 shouldn’t be at 7.0. It is indeed an effective tank but not an outstanding one: it has distinctive weak spots and APHE pens less than average 6.7 APHE pen.
I genuinely dont know what to make of these changes. At least for the low- mid levels in air arcade
Some of these just appear random or counter intuitve.
This i think is just the dumbest BR change of air arcade, not that it impacts me
LaGG 3-11 to 2.7
Why?
There are just straight up better LaGGs on the same battle rating. The LaGG 3-26 and LaGG 3-35 are just better.
The LaGG 3-4 is also super rare but has 2 more MGs over the the other LaGGs and its flight performance is potentially even better than the LaGG 3-11 aswell.
The LaGG 3-8 is just straight up worse than the 3-11 and it doesnt get ordance options, but the perfomance differences are hard to justify seperating them with a BR difference.
So why is the 3-11 going up, its straight up worse the 2 others that are staying on that BR, Its almost certinaly worse arguablly worse than the super rare gaijan employee LaGG and the difference between it and the first researchable one are insignificant.
Surely the BR increase is caused purely by a random statistical fluctuation rather than any genuine performance increase.
PBM-1 Mariner 2.0-2.3
i dont fly this, but this sounds unecessary, i dont see these go well and have never thought… Damm those mariners need a br increase
BF109C to 2.3
This will be same BR as the 109E-1… its almost 90kms an hour slower at max speed, it has worse climb and worse turn rate, again i dont play this plane but i shoot it down alot. This seems strange
Fw189 C to 2.3
Again im not to sure why this is happening, it seems a bit strange. I dont own it or play it but having played around the 3.0 -3.3 level alot lately i can say this never seems to stand a chance. Its very large and slow i dont know if iv actually seen this score an air to air kill yet in a match
The temptest V vickers P to 3.0 from 3.3
This seems rather silly to me, it can already perform more than admirablly at 3.3 The guns are just a bit awkward but otherwise its amazzing.
