most of the props still outturn you and can dive on you for free because they climb better and have better rip speed. your speed doesnt matter that much because everything else is trash or meh about it.
How is it trash when it has great acceleration and climb for a jet this early, and just cause prop planes outturn you doesn’t mean it still isn’t good at turning at the same time.
T20
A battle increase will feel more organic and make the experience less frustrating. Every time you change the vehicle a you change his play style.
If it’s overperforming, make it face stronger opponents at 6.7. It will be fine there.
I might not problem decrease battle rating for Air AB and Air RB to 7.0
Gloster Meteor F Mk.3, max speed and acceleration slower another fighter aircraft BR 7.3
they outclimb you 2. give it better rip speed at least if it goes up in br
The only other meta is non-MCM jousting at close-medium range, which euro does win purely due to the FM.
I do not count long-range BVR as a meta since you will only kill brainlets and isn’t an effective tactic at all
There are more than enough monkeys around.
ALL the months prior it was fluctuating between top-2 and top-5 planes of ranks 8-9 K/B wise.
Stats are high. BR goes up. Simple as.
Your opinion on the matter means little as gaijin balances things pureply by player stats/economics, not by how good X or Y is. So if people are dying to IRIAF en masse, then it is valid canidate for going up. And they sure as hell do.
soo where is su 27 and su 33 br increase? they are clearly better than f 15 a or gripen a
Oh I just noticed su34 moved up in arcade. Sorry, didnt mean to hits those su30mk2/mkk noobs that hard.
Su30mk2/mkk br raise when btw?
F4U-1C
- Air Realistic Battles: 4.7 → 4.3
- Give F4U-1C its missing bombs (Bug Report)
Reasoning: As it stands, the F4U-1C is the worst-performing F4U-1 variant in terms of flight performance compared to the F4U-1A , F4U-1A (USMC), and F4U-1D Corsairs. Reminder: all F4U-1 series, including the F4U-1C, use the identical engine, so the F4U-1C has objectively inferior flight performance and is easily outclassed by other aircraft at 4.7 BR, particularly due to its very poor climb rate. Simply put, its flight characteristics are closer to those of a 3.0 aircraft.
The 4.7 BR placement appears to be a harsh response to its fairly powerful 4 x 20 mm armament with a high ammunition count, which is understandable from a game design perspective in Air RB. However, I believe moving it down to 4.3 would be a fairer adjustment rather than placing it at 3.0 alongside the F4U-1A and F4U-1D.
10 Likes
italian flavour 1a5 goes down in br so they know italy exist but the of40 doesnt ig
what is going in their heads men
1 Like
The Mig-17 already sits at 8.7 as do the Lim-5P and 17PF (which are vastly superior), the 17AS going to 8.7 will not change anything except to make the plane worth playing. 2x R-3S are not a valid reason to be a br higher.
Mystere IVa should not be 8.7 as well, its a 8.3 plane.
1 Like
P-47M-1-RE, P-47M-1-RE (Poland)
- Air Realistic Battles: Keep at 5.7 as it is
- Give P-47M-1-RE its 100/150 octane fuel, further improving the flight performance (Bug Report).
Reasoning: As it stands, the P-47M-1-RE Thunderbolt does not offer a meaningful difference in flight or engine performance compared to the P-47D-28 Thunderbolt at 5.0, since the P-47M-1-RE’s engine was nerfed. Although the P-47M-1-RE is lighter, it produces less horsepower and has a lower top speed at low altitude compared to the P-47D-28.
I believe the P-47M-1-RE could be improved in its current state of engine performance so that it better justifies its 5.7 BR placement.
It has been reported that the P-47M-1-RE historically operated with 100/150 octane fuel. In-game, however, the P-47D-28 already uses 100/150 octane, while the P-47M-1-RE is modeled with 100/130 octane and could potentially be upgraded to 100/150.
If equipped with 100/150 octane fuel, the P-47M-1-RE’s engine power and top speed would improve further, surpassing the P-47D-28 even when it also uses 100/150 octane. This would create a clearer performance distinction and help justify its 5.7 BR placement.
The related bug report was accepted but later closed as “Not a Bug,” citing that the performance change from 100/150 octane fuel could impact the aircraft’s battle rating.
11 Likes
USA
Imp.Chaparral
Ground Realistic
9.0 → 10.0
Aim-9Ds facing shouldn’t be facing flareless 8.0s. Just for reference, the F8U-2 was considered OP at 10.0 for the same Aim-9Ds. It’s pretty much just point-n-click free kills currently.
(note)
In accordance with early SAMs going up, the following planes would also have to be raised:
A-4E (Early), Ayit, Hunter F.58, Yak-130, A-4E Early (M), and A-4E.
XP-55
- Air Realistic Battles: 4.3 → 4.0
- Removal of 2 x 20 mm cannons and replacement with two .50-cal machine guns (Bug Report).
Reasoning: Historically, the XP-55 Ascender was never armed with two 20 mm cannons and two .50-cal machine guns. The report I created cites a source stating that the XP-55 was equipped only with four .50-cal machine guns during construction. Along with another report already correcting its engine performance, this warrants a reduction of one BR step by replacing the 20 mm cannons with .50-cal machine guns.
7 Likes
F9F-2
- Air Realistic Battles: 8.0 → 7.7
Reasoning: As it stands, the F9F-2 Panther does not offer any meaningful advantage over the F9F-5 Panther, which shares the same 8.0 BR. The F9F-5 is objectively better, while the F9F-2 has performance closer to the F2H-2 Banshee at 7.3, albeit slightly lighter and faster.
There is little to no reason to choose the F9F-2 when the F9F-5 occupies the same BR and offers superior flight characteristics. Moving the F9F-2 to 7.7 would be a more logical placement and would serve as a smoother progression between the F2H-2 (7.3) and F9F-5 (8.0), creating a more linear Banshee–Panther progression at 7.3, 7.7, 8.0, and 8.3.
11 Likes
Gaijin is planning to lower the BRs of a whole fleet of jets and you want them to increase the BR of an already kinda bad SAM?
4 Likes
F101C
Air realistic
9.3->9.0
It’s effectively an American mig19 but noticeably worse at turning, 0 missiles, and although niche quite a big target. It does have a good amount of ammo but due to it’s worse turn I think it’s worth trying at 9.0.
Israel
Imp.Chaparral
Ground Realistic
9.3 → 10.3
Same as U.S. Chappy but with Stinger seeker. IRCCM does not belong facing flareless post-war jets.
(note)
In accordance with early SAMs going up, the following planes would also have to be raised:
A-4E (Early), Ayit, Hunter F.58, Yak-130, A-4E Early (M), and A-4E.
1 Like
F-84F Family
- F-84F (USA)
- F-84F (Germany)
- F-84F (Italy)
- F-84F (France)
- F-84F (Israel)
- F-84F IAF
- Air Realistic Battles: 8.3 → 8.0
- Give an airspawn to the F-84F Thunderstreak in non-US tech trees.
Reasoning: The F-84F Thunderstreak at 8.3 is not comparable to other 8.3 aircraft such as the F-86F Sabre and MiG-15bis, as it has worse maneuverability, acceleration, and energy retention.
Since aircraft like the B-52H Stratofortress and Tu-95 at Rank VI are exceptions that receive airspawns while other attackers and bombers do not, the same exception should be applied to F-84Fs in non-US tech trees. This would bring a fairer situation, as the F-84F in the US tree sits at a lower rank and is currently the only variant in the family with access to an airspawn.
As it stands, it is inconsistent that only one F-84F variant benefits from this mechanic while others at a higher rank do not.
14 Likes