Those missiles will only kill people who are tabbed out or utterly clueless
IRIAF is nothing but an awareness check
It’ll keep going up until people learn to pay attention (They won’t)
4 Likes
Add the O-I which Atleast had parts produced for jt then. Atleast then Japan has AN example of heavy armour
1 Like
The humble notch is still yet to be learned
Can you not artificially nerf T20 to bring the BR down? It is literally perfectly fine at 6.3.
4 Likes
Or multipathing
Vehicle: Re.2005
Mode: GRB
Change: BR 6.3 → BR 6.0
Setting ARB aside for the moment, in GRB both Re.2005 ended up being moved to 6.7 (due to lack of 6.3 ground lineup) where they routinely see and are horribly outclassed by the 6.7-7.7 range jets (as well as A2D-1 and sometimes Spitfire Mk24) that just use speed disparity to freely ignore or attack the 2005 however it suits them. At the same time, reduction in number of open-top vehicles made MG 151 guns and 100 kg bombs a lot less effective vs ground, so it’s also thoroughly unremarkable as CAS.
And in the meanwhile 6.0 lineup now only has G.55 in the fighter slot, which similarly struggles with F8F-1, Yak-9UT, Spitfire LF Mk9 and other meta late props.
3 Likes
Requested change: G-91YS - 9.3 > 9.0
Reasoning: The G91YS is identical to the G91Y in terms of flight performance except for the fact that it swaps out the 2X AA.20 Nords for 2x Aim-9B’s (I want people to take note of the fact that AA.20s are objectively also a better and more versatile missile than the Aim-9B).
This shouldn’t warrent it being a BR higher and playing it into all aspect, or high powered missile carriers using stuff such as the R-60M and Aim-9L/J/P combind with far superior flight performance is extremely unfun and has virtually no counterplay.
Please move this plane down to 9.0 so it is the same BR as the G91Y since this functionally the same plane with a different and slightly worse missile kit.
16 Likes
Naval vessels have different requirements to tanks to be introduced. Requiring simply to be laid down.
We have no current plans to reintroduce the Flankpanzer 341.
3 Likes
i don’t even think the missile is all aspect
A heavy SPG perhaps not but you can add the O-I to give Japan some TT heavy armour.
Ground RB
Valentine I
2.7 → 2.3
IT never should have gone up in BR in teh first place, it gets a peashooter, extremely poor mobility, and armour that is not effective against most threats it fights
3 Likes
Vehicle: Re.2005 (VDM)
Mode: GRB
Change: BR 6.3 → BR 6.0
Setting ARB aside for the moment, in GRB both Re.2005 ended up being moved to 6.7 (due to lack of 6.3 ground lineup) where they routinely see and are horribly outclassed by the 6.7-7.7 range jets (as well as A2D-1 and sometimes Spitfire Mk24) that just use speed disparity to freely ignore or attack the 2005 however it suits them. At the same time, reduction in number of open-top vehicles made MG 151 guns and 100 kg bombs a lot less effective vs ground, so it’s also thoroughly unremarkable as CAS.
And in the meanwhile 6.0 lineup now only has G.55 in the fighter slot, which similarly struggles with F8F-1, Yak-9UT, Spitfire LF Mk9 and other meta late props.
6 Likes
Worst BR changes I’ve seen in a while
5 Likes
Vehicle: Mirage 4000
Mode: ARB
Change: BR 13.0 → BR 12.7
Compared to F-16A Block 15, the missiles are about par - Mirage gets 2 SARH missiles on top of 6 IRs, however Magic 2s IRCCM makes them more limited in effective aspect and range than 9Ms. Mirage gains TWS and great countermeasure count, but the guns and flight model are worse than on F-16.
Compared to F-15A, the missiles are worse across the board - 9Ms are even better here as they synergize with SARH ones, being most effective vs notching enemies, plus Mirage can only take 2 SARH 6 IR or 4 SARH 2 IR loadouts, rather than 4-4. Mirage’s guns are again worse (although it matters less here), but it gains better CQC flight performance and TWS.
As a sidegrade to two 12.7 jets, Mirage 4000 should also be 12.7.
5 Likes
Britain mains being better than USA mains doesnt mean we should be punished with inferior aircraft to the average of the BR.
yes the engines are better on the F-4K but we are still missing two fox-1 missiles compared to the F-4J of the USN. Our F-4J which is the exact same model is also two sparrows/slyflash down on the USN F-4J.
This is not a fair balance decision
6 Likes
It’s going to be funny going up against all those Leopards with those BR8.0 and BR8.3 tanks that have no stabilizer, no arrow, and no thermal imager.
I really don’t understand what they base their BR ratings on.
2 Likes
Vehicle: F-16A OCU (TH)
Game Mode: Air Realistic/Ground Realistic
BR Change
Air BR: 13.7 → 12.7
Ground BR: 12.7 → 12.0
By removing the fictional AIM-120 and HMD and restoring it to the original F-16A OCU, the OCU will fill the BR range currently covered by the F-16AJ, thereby allowing the AJ to be retired.
3 Likes
the 30mm super destroyer aphe cannons are plenty good for 9.3.
VAB Mephisto (GRB) : 8.7->9.0 + Add Hot 3
5 Likes
A6M3
- Air Realistic Battles: 4.3 → 4.0
Reasoning: This Zero variant has clipped wings, which sacrificed some maneuverability for some gain in top speed. However, it’s more considered a sidegrade over its Zero counterparts at 3.7 & 4.3. It doesn’t need any increase in its BR as it has a low ammo count (200 rds) for its okay-ish cannons. Revert this proposed BR change.
11 Likes