Selfish and nerds rejoice…
Best part is they are not removed from game they are just unobtainable and we still.have to play against them every other game. Its small brain decisions again. Il never even play japan either but its the principle.
It should be put to an in game vote and when the masses vote keep then all gaijin needs to do is say no more in the future
It’s crazy when we had the modern tank event they were BR 14.0
that just make it worse. the fact that you even started debate about the pobit being the same as the f16v with these stats just make it worse.
i didnt bring up stats or player skills. letting you know. nor as if i care. meta tryhard is not for me.
there at least 2000 kgf difference. and with that blk20 fm, who loses speed like crazy. will be hard to re-gain all the energy / speed lost.
I just said the same thing to him. Lol. You beat me by a day.
Because to put it bluntly, you don’t seem to understand that the differences between the F-16V and F-16C PoBIT are almost negligible compared to how weak both planes are compared to the rest of it’s competition at 14.3.
Or perhaps the F-16 blk40, F-16C blk50, and F-16I should all be at differing BRs because of relatively minor changes in the kit/engine/weight? Maybe the Mirage 2000-5EI should be at a higher BR than the Mirage 2000-5F because it’s 50kg lighter and has a better flare pattern? Or maybe the J-11 should be 12.7 since it’s 500kg heavier than the Su-27S?
And extremely little difference in actual acceleration, because the PoBIT is significantly heavier than the F-16V.
yeah dude, we all know that top tier suffer for compression and gaijin need to do decompression.
nothing new. matter of fact. putting at a lower br just make things worst.
your going a bit too far.
even with the wieght. the pobit still has 1000kgf more than the F16v blk20.
not mentioning the FM. where the V can go from mach 1.16 to 0.92 in a single notch turn.
AMR. 35 ZT3
Reload time (aced) 3s → 2s
This uses the same gun as the AMD. 35 and currently has the same reload speed, but it is not listed as receiving this buff. The Sd.Kfz. 221 is the only other tank ingame with a single shot gun smaller than 30mm and it too is getting its reload buffed to 2s even though it does not have a dedicated loader. It seems like an oversight to not buff the reload on the AMR. 35 ZT3 if it’s being buffed on the AMD. 35 and Sd.Kfz. 221.
FJ-4B VMF-232: 9.0 → 9.0 (Ground RB)
Subsonic
No countermeasures
No guided bombs
No CCIP
Average flight performance.
You think it deserves 9.3 just because it’s got manually guided missiles? No.
Vehicle: TTD
Gamemode: GAB, GRB, GSB
Suggestion:
Reason: The TTD is equipped with a 16-round protected turret bustle ammunition compartment and 6-round ready rack. The similarity of the turret bustle system to tanks such as Abrams and Leopard is evident, so the reload rate should be equal or faster as the TTD uses smaller 105 mm ammunition.
While only carrying a 105 when contemporary vehicles use 120 or 125 mm main armaments, the TTD’s survivability is high due to a comprehensive armour array. Adding a spall liner (as seen in Reumech’s promotional material for the TTD) would further increase its survivability.
The engine deck armour is 5 mm, but does appear to feature solid steel louvres below the mesh. An increase to 10 mm (as seen on contemporary tanks) would provide a small improvement to strafing protection.
The TTD’s internal model is very basic, with unprotected ammunition stowage, no turret basket, no power system, no gun cradle or “trunnions”, no elevation drive, and awkwardly-positioned crew models. Most of these issues could be easily corrected using logical reasoning even in the absence of reference images, allowing for improved in-game portrayal.
See also;
TTD (6.7s)
Leopard 2A4 (6.0s)
M1A2 Abrams (5.0s)
TTD
Leopard 2A4
Challenger 2
New BR change idea:
Game mode: Air realistic battles
Vehicules: Su30MKK and Su30 MK2AMV from 13.3 to 13.7
Reason: they are very op at their br and I think that moving them up in br shouldn’t change anything for the ppl who play them. I mean at 13.3 you have 10 missiles (8 fox 3) while some vehicles in 13.0 like the Jas39A don’t even have decent fox1s. Another example, in 13.7 you have the f16C which has 6 missiles.
The TTD would need to be 10.7 if it got all of that, and i’m for it, its very strong at 10.0 as is
The lack of internal detail contributes quite a lot to its survivability, but yeah it could easily go back to 10.3
I think, and agree that mostly the remodel of the Ho-Ri to the ho-Ri II will give a completely different playstyle of the tank itself.
As well as historically speaking, the in-game version called Ho-Ri Production is the design with the mid-engine layout researched and engineered as the ‘Ho-Ri I’. 2 where thought, 1 with the same hull as the Ho-Ri II and the Chi-Ri prototype, the other with a slopped hull. This variant is in-game, and with the famous wooden mockup.
The second version that was engineered and after a bit more finished was the Ho-Ri II that you name as the real one.
Both versions have been designed and thought between mid 1943 to May-August 1945.
In term of gameplay, it ould be radically different; so much that it needs to be a full other tank.
The Ho-Ri II have an armor of about 125mm on the front of the superstructure and 75mm on the hull front, and 25mm on both sides.
This would make it (following the 3.05mx3.10m) a full 9m² square front plate that can be pen by every canon of 5.0 anywhere, making it bad against most APHE.
But it would be better at long range, since it features a rangefinder, and for a better defense against infantery and light tank, there will be a 37mm in the hull.
sentence
Vehicle: T26E5
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 6.7 —> 6.7 (No change)
Reason: while Arguably VERY good at 6.7 In the right hands there is no reason for it to go to 7.0 and have to fight 8.0 tanks in full uptiers. Plus the tank is pretty sluggish, and definetly way to sluggish for 7.0-8.0, and also not necesarrily having enough pen for 8.0 tanks, youd be running almost every time you see one. Also the Jumbo Pershing and the Tiger 2H are similar in capabilities, so if one goes up then both should go up.
They’re not buffing the reload of “the 90mm” as a weapon, but the reload speed of multiple TDs for reasons that I think should be obvious.
Moving the IS-2 (1944) to 6.3 is absolutely unreasonable; it would have a completely overwhelming advantage at that BR. On the other hand, the British Excelsior should be moved straight up to 4.7 in Arcade Battles.
Vehicle: VT-5 11.7→10.7(or 11.0 better)（Ground Realistic）
Compared with the M10 “Booker”, the VT-5 lacks an automatic tracking system and has poorer penetration and protection capabilities. Though its loading efficiency is superior to that of the M-10 without the golden crew.
Given the systematic discrimination and prejudice that Gaijin has towards Chinese vehicles (such as unfixed bugs that have been accepted for a long time and the selective handling of data), if for various reasons you decides not to restore the performance of the equipments, then at the very least, give those vehicles a reasonable BR.
Is this overwhelming advantage in the room with us right now?
