su 25t :
it should to be honest get the same love su 39 gets idk if its just some hate for russian tech tree variant for some reason or what su 25t could carry everything as su 39 since su 39 is just an export variant of su 25t plus mercury pod is useless and it should get its thermal pod that is already modeled in game files but somehow is still not in game
Not sure if mentioned already, but didnt see anything about this one in the spreadsheet.
Mode: Ground RB
Vehicle: Mirage F1 (all variants)
Suggested BR change: 11.3>10.7
Reason: Powerful IR AAM but extremely lackluster SARH, poor RWR suite on the F1C and F1C-2000, no guided air to ground weapons.
Its contemporaries (MiG-23MLD and Navy/UK Phantoms) have already been moved down. The F1’s would be at the same BR as the much superior early Mirage 2000s after these changes. Moving it down would also give a strong CAP aircraft to the French 11.0 lineup (which is lacking in both capable fighters and SPAA relative to other nations).
Vehicle: F-2A ADTW
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 12.3 —> 12.0
There is zero reason why this should be a higher BR than the Gripen A in ground reallistic battles.
the Churchill nerf is horrible I would rather you remove the he filler than up its br and make its armour even less useful
2 Likes
Vehicle: Rooikat MTTD
Gamemode: GAB, GRB, GSB
Suggestion:
- Reload 6.7s > 6.0s
Reason: The MTTD has a standard NATO 105 reload rate of 6.7s, despite having a sophisticated turret bustle autoloader. The vehicle has low survivability, and potential defensive systems like smoke, APS, or LWS have not been added to the MTTD due to their prototype or cosmetic nature.
While primary sources for the MTTD are presumably still unavailable, the autoloader should be matched to the recently-increased T-80 reload rate of 6.0s for balance.
6 Likes
So, why does the balance statistically make no sense? Minor leopards have 1.25+ K/d, which is approximately comparable to the Japanese counterparts type74 (E,F,G) and French amx32(105). The AMX30 Super stands out, but I’m betting it’s the first one used in combat. So in this case, shouldn’t the Type 74 E and F be lowered to 8.7, G to 9.0 and also lower both Frenchmen to 9.0? Leopard, Type 74 and AMX are machines of extremely similar characteristics and lowering the combat rating of one of them purely because they mostly don’t know how to play it is nonsense
2 Likes
and?
sure it doesnt fill any gap, but why do you need every SPAA to be extremely OP?
i think it should go up to 8.3 and all gepard shits to 9.0 atleast.
im speaking as a itpsv & za 35 abuser.
those kind of vehicles are way too strong against ground vehicles.
For the love of god…
Make the Tu-95M a 8.0 in Simulator air please.
Obj. 248 6.7 → 6.3 all modes
2 Likes
Vehicle: A6M6c
BR: 5.7→5.0
Reason: Its a heavy and slow plane. At its current BR of 5.3 its already facing tough time, there’s no point of moving its BR to 5.7. If anything its BR should go down to 5.0 where it would be more balanced.
2 Likes
The F1s have a boatload of chaff (at least 216) and flares (up to 192), most of which are large caliber as well
For comparison, the Phantoms have 90 CMs total and the MiG-23 has 60 total, the only one coming remotely close is the Mirage 2000C S5 with 112 chaff and up to 50 flares
While the RWR is pretty bad, the CM count is more than enough to make up for that
11.0 could be okay for it, but 10.7 is a stretch
wrong
the Su-39 is a Su-25TM and not a Su-25T, they are not the same
They should nerf the APHE of those SPAAs instead of moving them up in BR
There aren’t any other (good) SPAAs that could do their job at their respective BRs
Vehicle: VT5
Modification: BTA2
Reason: DTW2-105 isnt good enough for its BR. Under 500mm penetrating round at 11.7 BR is almost unusable, players have to specifically aim at the weak spots.
but they arent going to do that thanks to the community voting against it.
they could just remove the he filler from the apit rounds tho.
(Translator. I’m sorry, my English is very bad.)
Type 90 (all versions) GRB 11.7 ->11.3
The vehicle is essentially a slightly modified leopard2a4 - the loss of guidance speed in both planes and survivability due to fewer areas protected by composite armor (hello autocannons) and a crew of 3 people is compensated by a new projectile (which can also be issued by Leo 2a4) and accelerated reloading up to 4 seconds. In all other respects, the vehicles are almost identical, so I consider the difference in 1.0 combat rating unjustified.
Thanks for reading.
3 Likes
type 90 “all” grb 11.7->12.0
they are just better tkx(p) at lower br.
better armor against autocannon, bigger ready rack and faster.
they are better than any other mbt at 11.7.
API-T always has some HE filler, otherwise it cannot be incendiary
They obviously could nerf the potency of that HE filler, but they can’t get rid of it
The results of the APHE poll doesn’t prevent them from nerfing the penetration value of the shells or to reduce the HEI to API/APHE/SAP ratio. Get rid of the 50/50 and 75/25 belts and limit the SPAAs to always use the 3 HEI/1 AP belt configuration.
Correction: The API used in most modern 25/30/35mm anti air guns is actually a type of SAP ammunition, which contains explosives to increase their effectiveness against planes
Regular API doesn’t necessarily contain explosive fillers, but I am not sure if regular API shells for these anti air guns even exist
1 Like
TKX(P) has 3rd generation thermal; Type 90 only 1st gen.
2 Likes
The year is 2030. The A6M5 zero is now 8.0 and going up to 8.3 as MiG-15bis and F-86F-35 players cannot stop turnfighting with it. The F-14 tomcat eagerly awaits dueling the A6M5 in 2036 to re-create the movie The Final Countdown. The Japanese would rather kamikaze the AI ships on the map than try to fight players, yet still shoot down four jets who tried to turnfight them on the way to the AI targets.
On a real note, can we please stop and think critically about your changes? The A6M zero is slow and can be countered. Stop babying the playerbase by increasing the BR of anything that’s remotely difficult for people with little experience to fight - namely, turnfighters like the zero, vampire etc - and let players figure out how to fight them naturally. Different aircraft naturally have different skill floors and ceilings. I thought Gaijin’s balancing team would get the message after the community backlash when a small group of players were able to push the CL-13A Mk4 to 9.0 simply by squadding up and doing well in it, since it was so rarely played (for being a worse counterpart to the sabre at a higher BR and in a minor tree even before the proposal for 9.0)
5 Likes