Yes
No, not only is that a terrible idea because of heavy reliance on luck, it’s also not even feasible on most maps
To do proper artillery fire you need much larger maps, as the minimum range for that is huge
Only one (The worst version) KT and IS-2 mod 44 are going to 6.3.
The fact is the KT received few nefs like movility and ammo in the turret meanwhile the IS-2 mod. 44 received a huge armor boost before his BR change and now he go back to 6.3 retaining that buff.
But the allies fanboys are to busy only complaining about germany buffs “cuz typical allies mains germany hate”
Vehicle: MiG-29N
Gamemode: Air Realistic
BR Change: 13.3 —> 13.0
Reason: This is the weakest aircraft technically at its BR – it lacks adequate electronics, its maneuverability is far from optimal for its BR, and its missiles (we’re talking about the ARH-missiles) aren’t the best either. Its competitors at 13.0 either have better maneuverability, better electronics, or more missiles/better quality of them. I believe that lowering its BR won’t make it an OP-aircraft, especially given the significant compression at those BRs.
1 Like
The MiG-29G and MiG-29 (9-13) are at 13.0 without R-77s, why would the 29N with R-77s be at the same BR?
1 Like
except it would.
Think about the 13.0 aircraft with Fox-3 missiles
The MiG-29N is fast, relatively agile (sure its not great but nor is it awful) with enough countermeasures (barely)
And you want the N at the same BR as the 29 9-13 and 29G which are identical to you but you have 6 R-77s instead of 2 R-27s and 4 R-73s
2 Likes
Where ch-ri back to 5.0 😠😠😠😠😠😠
1 Like
You literally copy-paste what I said bro
1 Like
Vehicle: JA37C
Gamemode: Air Realistic
BR Change: 11.3 —> 11.0
The plane sees too much enemies that are way stronger in uptiers and the only reliable missiles it has are the SARH. It would be better at 11.0
No
MiG-29N is fine at 13.3
2 Likes
4.3 was already a bit of a dealbreaker for the Egret, but if they’re moving a whole bunch of other (much more capable) british destroyers down, 4.3 straight up doesnt make sense
Spoiler
not that naval BRs make much sense in general, but you get the point
or giving them an option to squid ink
Cromwell V:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/sptnWXHGCBVj
A30 Challenger:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ht3dFD4LqwPV
Churchill Croc:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/80UyFC4dYej6
Churchill VII:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/F0tZWJAEO5db
Crusader Series (III, AA1, AA2) :
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/yoGfSO4P1iMk
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/sNgUXCcqvLor
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/1cIqc5re7ZDf
Comet:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ruuU4KUvhCcc
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/dnw5LOcGLkNJ
A30 Avenger:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/qINIaQ8ASFiD
Sherman Firefly:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/eHpXRytSwG6E
Archer:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/FNrQYxmsKHo7
Black Prince:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/O4SeWe66qfe3
1 Like
Ask for too much, you get nothing. You should know as well as I do that British WW2 smoke dischargers will not be implemented any time soon.
Which you’d tweak the performance for smaller maps. And also not make it heavily luck depended hence the need for actual mechanics bro.
Lots of games figured out how to do this so no idea why you gotta be stuck inside the existing box of thought.
KV-1B … KV-1E… KV-1 m1942…KV-1 Zis 5 STILL AT THEIR BR… NOT at 5.0 that worth to be… and deserve to be…
churchills definately should be at 5.0… from 4.7…
everything not soviet… or russian gets up… amazing
1 Like
You literally asked for scatter, which is luck based.
Tell that to Gaijin. Realistically you’d need maps to be much larger than 4km x 4km for SPHs to even be able to do actual artillery fire.
I have a number of posts for other vehicles such as:
J-15T
AMX A-1A
Most of the Non-British Tornados (though alongside the British one too)
Abrams
Yaks
Jaguar A/E
BMPs and BMDs
F4F ICE
J34
F-84Fs
Soyuz
Just the vehicles I play are British, because those are the vehicles I actually have an interest in.
There are a number that I think are actually fine at their current BRs in contrast to what many actually say about them. For example Buc S2, Jaguar GR1, Tornado GR1, Tornado F3 Late, Ajax, Chieftain mk10/900 etc.
Many reckon those should all be lower, I think they are mostly fine where they are.
Some like the Tornado F3 probably should be 12.3, but they really need to fix BOL and/or add Phimat first.
Challenger 1s are all very good for their BR, just a few annoying bugs.
Most of the naval tree I dont have issue with, only one I dont like where it is is HMS Tiger because it got nerfed to hell recently but is at a high BR for a very light cruiser. Its where other things are that I have issue with in naval, like Soyuz being 8.7 and not 9.0.
If you’re comparing a main battle tank to a light tank and you don’t understand why that’s stupid, I have nothing to talk about with you.
vehicle: XM1 (GM + Chrysler)
change: 9.3 → 9.7
reason: they were designed to replace the MBT-70 (9.3) and they have better armor, shell, reload, mobility and also get thermals
2 Likes
Vehicle: Venom FB.4
Gamemode: Air Battles
Suggestion:
- BR 8.7 > 8.3
Reason: This thing is seeing the Yak-130, Mig-21, etc, and other missile-armed aircraft it has no business competing with. Keep it 8.7 for Ground Battles, by all means.
4 Likes
is there a SHAR FA2 post in here anywhere?