The Panzer IV H has upgraded frontal armour due to better placed and more add-on tracks, especially on the turret which is of course a weak spot. Plus the minor benefit of the commander MG for use against aircraft. It is absolutely deserving of 4.3. The G could be 4.0 but I don’t see that as being a necessary change, largely from a lineup perspective. Also, you seem to have forgotten that the M4A1 (76) is 5.0, so .7 above 4.3.
1 Like
according to gaijin, things like the Mig-15bis have the same performance as the F-84F, at least according to their suggested BR’s…imagine that xD
3 Likes
And the F9F-5. Yikes
2 Likes
Overall the changes are ok, I dont think any of the jets should be moved to 8.0 however they are too strong.
My one request is:
Cheiftain MK.3 8.7 → 8.3
The Cheiftain MK.3 is sigificantly worse than the MK.5, having much less horsepower and a worse top speed however they are at the same BR.
There is therefore no reason to play the MK.3 when the MK.5 is just better at the same BR, if it was moved to 8.3 it would actually have a place.
4 Likes
All Leclercs should either see their BR reduced to 11.0.
Alternatively they could receive a new round to keep up with top tier.
The myth of the Leclercs being a “jack of all trade” has to end. At least the second part of the idiom is true: the Leclercs are currently masters of none.
- Armor is incredibly lacking, with only the Ariete only having worse armour. Survivability is further decreased by the exploding fuel tanks and only 3 crew members, meaning any penetration results in death ;
- Mobility was proven to be actually worse than Leopard 2 despite the weight difference between the 2 because the turbine of the Leclerc’s engine isn’t modelled;|
- And of course, firepower is underwhelming. Ever since the UK got the Challenger 3, the Leclercs now have the worst penetration at top tier.
It would be okay if the Leclercs had something else to compensate for it, like very good armor, but it is sadly not the case. To this day I still don’t understand why the STRV-122s, the most armored MBTs in the game, have a better round than the Leclercs, which are among the worst armored MBT at top tier.
There are 2 solid choices for a new round :
DM53 :
Although Italy never bought DM53 shells for their Arietes, Gaijin decided to give DM53 to the Arietes to try to keep them somewhat relevant at top tier. This obvious balancing decision could definitely be applied to the Leclercs since both Ariete and Leclerc perform similarly.
Fired from the Leclerc’s GIAT CN120-26/52 L/52 cannon, this would result in a muzzle velocity of about 1730m/s and penetration of about 645mm, which is in line with the Leopard 2A6/7AV penetration of 652mm (DM53 round), the Type 10’s penetration of 615mm (Type 10 round) and the Abrams’ penetration of 629mm (M829A3 round).
SHARD :
Another option could be the newly qualified SHARD round.
This round is made by NEXTER, the same company that developed the Leclerc MBTs (it used to be named GIAT).
Courtesy of @Laurelix, when fired from the Leclerc’s GIAT CN120-26/52 L/52 cannon, this round should reach a muzzle velocity of 1720 m/s. Its 775mm long WHA penetrator should result in an estimated penetration of:
720mm @ 0m (0°)
421mm @ 0m (60°)
-
668mm @ 1000m (0°)
390mm @ 1000m (60°)
So, a 20% penetration increase over OFL 120 F1 at 1km.
Then make the OFL 120 F1 a level 1 modification on all Leclerc variants (replacing OFL 120 G1), but give these vehicles access to DM53 or SHARD as a level 4 modification.
Otherwise, just put the Leclerc to BR 11.0. They currently aren’t a credible choice in the face of other top tier MBTs, especially the most armored ones equipped with spall liners such as T-80BVM/T-90M, Leopard 2A7V or the STRV-122s.
13 Likes
All commentary is regarding Realistic Battles.
Planned Changes
L-62 Anti II
2.7 → 3.0
No comment.
Sd.Kfz. 234/2 (both)
3.3 → 3.7
Good.
ZSU-37
3.7 → 3.3
Good.
Ostwind
3.7 → 3.3
Not quite as necessary. The Ostwind is undoubtedly a better AA platform than the ZSU-37 due to its continuous feed and relatively high rate of fire.
BTR-152D
3.7 → 4.0
No comment.
T-34 (1941) (all)
3.7 → 4.0
No comment.
M42 Duster (all)
4.3 → 4.0
Good, finally.
ZSD63 (PG87)
4.7 → 5.0
No comment.
Leopard 40/70
5.3 → 5.7
Good.
M18 GMC (all)
5.7 → 6.0
No comment.
M64
5.7 → 6.0
I’m not quite as big a fan of this change, as the M64’s chassis is not as versatile as the M18’s. It has much worse acceleration, even if the top speed is the comparable, leading to a considerable decrease to its mobility. Especially now that the M18 had its engine power increased to 460 hp, the M64 lags farther behind.
BTR-ZD
5.7 → 6.0
No comment.
M18 (90mm M3)
6.3 → 6.7
No comment.
M551 (76)
6.7 → 7.0
It could probably go even higher. If it was given HEAT-FS, it would be solid at 7.3 or 7.7. Compared to a tank like the ZTS63, it is better in every way except the lack of an APFSDS shell.
Fox
7.0 → 7.7
Fair.
BMP-1/ZBD86 (all)
7.7 → 8.0
No comment.
Ikv 91
7.7 → 8.0
No comment.
AMX 30 DCA
8.3 → 8.7
No comment.
AMX 30 Roland
10.0 → 9.7
Not enough knowledge to comment.
PB4Y-2 (all)
5.0 → 4.7
Good.
MiG-15, MiG-15bis ISh, F-86A
8.3 → 8.0
MiG-15bis (all), F-86F-25/30/35 (all), CL-13A Mk. 4
8.7 → 8.3
MiG-17 (all), MiG-17PF (all), F-86F-2, CL-13A Mk. 5
9.0 → 8.7
CL-13B Mk. 6
9.3 → 9.0
No, No, No, No, No!!!
This is the exact opposite of what should be happening. Korean War-era jets have long been the victims of the awful BR compression found in air battles. The performance of these aircraft greatly exceeds those of the 7.0-8.0 bracket, meanwhile the missiles and high-performance supersonic jets from 9.0-9.7 easily outclass all of them. The aircraft in this range have gone up and down several times over the last few years, making it a case study in why Aircraft need more BR Decompression. Every 9.3+ aircraft needs to be shifted up by at least 0.3/0.4 to allow these jets more breathing room, rather than forcing the issue down onto first-generation jets at 7.0 and 7.3.
Q5B
9.0 → 9.3
The flight performance and flares can warrant this, but please, give it the proper ordnance loadouts Report Report
Mirage IIIC
10.3 → 10.0
No comment.
AMX
10.3 → 10.7
No comment.
AJS 37
11.0 → 10.7
No comment.
MiG-23M/MF (all), MiG-21bis (all)
- 2x R-60M
Good.
Su-22M3
- R-60MK
No comment.
F-1
AIM-9B → AIM-9E
Good.
Suggested Changes
Most 8.0+ tanks
Current BR +0.3/0.4
The changes introduced in October 2023 undid some of the progress towards BR Decompression that were introduced in the August 2023 BR changes. Several late-WWII vehicles, such as IS-2, are once again moving into the realm of early Cold War tanks with high-penetrating subcaliber and shaped charge munitions. While I applaud the work towards decompression, the current course of action simply revoked the benefits of BR decompression after only 2 short months, rather than created long-term change.
Most 9.3+ tanks
Current BR +0.6/0.7
Similar to above, the August 2023 changes also reverted the progress of the changes made in April 2023. In many instances, vehicles which were separated by the April update have now been put back together as of August. If the past two episodes of decompression are to actually have a lasting and meaningful impact, they must be separated again.
Most 9.0+ Helicopters
Current BR +0.3/0.4
This section of helicopters is particularly powerful due to the lack of long-range anti-aircraft capabilities of ground forces around that BR. Most SPAA around 9.0-9.7 are IR-guided MANPADS missies (PGZ04, Type 93, Strela) which lack range against helicopters, being only able to lock onto them at distances less than 2km. Meanwhile, most of these helicopters begin to have longer-range missiles that are mouse guided, making them essentially untouchable.
Most 9.3+ Aircraft
Current BR +0.3/0.4
As outlined in my complaints about the MiG-15/MiG-17/F-86 changes, this area of Aircraft BRs is particularly atrocious when it comes to BR compression. This range has been a long-standing problem, with the listed aircraft moving up and down several times in the last few years as they swing between vastly overperforming and vastly underperforming. The supersonic missile-equipped jets that are found at 9.3+ need to be moved farther away from these Korea-era jets in order to create a healthier environment for them to compete in.
T95E1
8.3 → 8.0
This vehicle is symptom of BR compression. Compared to contemporaries at 8.3, it is worse in just about every way. Against the M60A1 AOS, it is at a disadvantage in every regard except that its APFSDS has more flat penetration than the M60’s APDS. The lack of a stabilizer especially makes it very difficult to play, even with decent traverse rates and frontal protection.
T28
6.3 → 6.7
This vehicle should not be facing 5.3 tanks, which it is practically invulnerable to. Even though it has weaker side armor compared to the T95, frontally it is still a 7.0 vehicle. Especially with the T95 now moving up, the T28 should not be an entire BR lower.
Pz. IV F2
3.3 → 3.7
The firepower is overkill for its BR. While its armor is suboptimal, the mobility and fire controls remain fairly strong for its tier. There is no need for 2.3 tanks to face a long 75 on a stable platform.
Pz. IV G
3.3 → 4.0
Like above, but the improved armor—especially with add-on tracks—makes it reasonably competitive at 4.0.
Pz. IV H
3.7 → 4.3
Ditto, but even stronger. The armor is approaching the effectiveness of a KV tank, although not with the same consistency.
Pz. IV J, Pz.Bfw. IV J, Pz. IV (Italy)
3.7 → 4.0
Ditto with Pz. IV G.
VK 30.02 (M)
5.0 → 5.3
Although certainly weaker than a normal Panther, its firepower makes it very dangerous, and against many 4.0 and 4.3 tanks it is still far too powerful. Most 75mm and 76mm guns from 4.0-4.7 cannot reliably fight it, while its armor and firepower can easily wipe the floor.
Panther D
5.3 → 5.7
With other Panthers moving up to 6.0, this tank should as well. It is more mobile than all of them, at the cost of turret traverse.
Sd.Kfz. 222 (all)
SPAA → Light Tank
In-game, the functionality is identical to the Sd.Kfz. 234/1, but it gets rewarded with a cheaper spawn cost simply due to its classification. There is an established precedent that tanks are classified in-game based on how they are played, not based on arbitrary or historical nomenclature.
Marder III
2.3 → 2.7
The level of firepower it possesses is unreasonable for 2.3, compared to a contemporary like the ZiS-30 it is superior in all but reload rate and some degree in mobility. It is comparable to the Marder III H and could arguably be the same BR.
T-34-85 (D-5T)
5.3 → 5.7
Due to the remodel, the turret armor is actually stronger frontally compared to the standard T-34-85. The firepower performance is the same, and the only real disadvantage is the lack of a 5th crew member.
T-44
6.7 → 6.3
It is not competitive at 6.7, its firepower is far too weak compared to contemporary medium tanks. The turret is also a massive weakspot and is more comparable to the Panther F than other 6.7+ mediums.
T-55A, TO-55
8.3 → 8.7
Compared to other 8.3 tanks, it has both the advantages of 2-plane gun stabilization and an APFSDS round. Against the T-62, while it may have less penetration, it also comes with a faster reload. Even then, the firepower is fairly comparable to the T-62, as is the mobility and fire-control system.
T-55AM-1, T-55AMD-1
8.7 → 9.0
In performance these vehicles are very similar to the ZTZ88B and A and should be considered a contemporary of the Leopard 1 A1 or Type 69-IIG, not to mention the gun-launched missile capability. Many vehicles at 8.0 and even some 8.3 vehicles struggle significantly to fight it. It also is another example of why the previous decompression changes need to be considered again.
IS-1
5.3 → 5.7
It has strong protection, both frontally and from the side, compared to other heavy tanks of a similar BR. Especially if the IS-2 family are moving up, the IS-1 can also be comfortable at 5.7.
KV-220
5.7 → 6.0
With recent moves to other heavy tanks (Tiger I, IS-2), this vehicle could also be moved to 6.0 without issue. Although slightly weaker in firepower, the high mobility and extremely good protection of the KV-220 make it a strong candidate for moving up.
KV-1E, KV-1B
4.0 → 4.3
The armor protection on this vehicle makes it incredibly abusive at 4.0. With the KV-1 ZIS-5 having moved up to 4.7, this should also move up. It has no business facing 3.0 and even some 3.3 tanks, which have essentially no chance of fighting it.
Crusader AA Mk. II
4.0 → 3.0
The firepower is equal to the AEC AA Mk. II, with the only advantage in ammunition count. Their BRs could be different, but they should not be so far apart.
Ka-Chi
2.0 → 2.3
The Ka-Chi has very strong frontal armor, much stronger than the Chi-Ha Kai even. The large size makes it rather cumbersome to use, but it also means that, with its large crew count, makes it very survivable, especially against low-rank opponents.
M113A1 (TOW) (CN)
Rank V → Rank VI
It should be placed at Rank VI, similar to the Italian and Israeli versions, and put in a folder with the CM25.
M60A3 TTS (CN)
9.0 → 8.7 OR add M774
It is worse than the American counterpart in every way, dependent on the lackluster M735 and without ERA.
QN-506
10.0 → 9.7
Compared to other vehicles with Fire-and-Forget missiles, the QN-506 is sorely lacking in one major feature: mobility. In many situations, the missiles are unable to properly lock on, rendering them useless. Vehicles like the Freccia and KF41, while not exactly great, can compensate for this with good mobility to complement their autocannon, but the QN506 simply cannot.
MiG-21 SPS-K
9.7 → 10.0
This vehicle is equipped with both R-60s and flares, it should not be facing 8.7 aircraft and is already notably superior to existing 9.7 and 9.3 aircraft. I understand it has a hard time in uptiers, but this is just more evidence of decompression being necessary.
A-20G-30 (USSR)
3.7 → 3.3/3.0
It has more ordnance capability compared to the American version, but the flight model and defensive/offensive armament is identical.
Q5L
9.7 → 9.3
While having access to laser-guided bombs is nice, the complete lack of any countermeasures or air-to-air missiles, as well as the fact that it has subpar flight characteristics compared to fighters, makes this aircraft incredibly difficult to use in Air-only battles. Compared to the previous Q5 models, the only benefit it has is the LGBs.
Z19
Rank VI → Rank VII
Its battle rating and capabilities are consistent with Rank VII helicopters.
SB 2M-103U (CN) & DB-3A (CN)
Switch positions in the tech tree
Even if they share the same BR in arcade, the SB is a lower BR in Realistic battles.
B-26C (France)
4.7 → 4.3
Consistency with US version. They are functionally identical.
Pe-3-1
2.3 → 2.0
While better than the regular Pe-3 (Pe-3-2), the differences are fairly minor. It’s not a particularly good heavy fighter or ground attack aircraft.
A-36
2.7 → 3.0
The A-36 has some quite decent flight performance as-is, and with gun pods and the attacker classification it becomes incredibly destructive when played as a heavy fighter. It should not be allowed to club 1.7 aircraft.
Sagittario 2
9.3 → 9.0
Despite its strong flight performance, the Sagittario needs to face opponents that do not have advanced missiles, highlighting the need for more air decompression.
CM11
12 rpm → 9 rpm
In January 2024, all tanks of the M48 family, both 90mm and 105mm, had their reloads standardized to 9 rpm. However, the CM11 inexplicably has a faster reload, with its stock reload being faster than the aced reload of any other M48-style turret. This might necessitate the BR dropping to 9.0, but I would prefer if the BRs above it were instead raised. It has no business being the same BR as the T-72A or ZTZ96, both of which outclass it in every regard except for the lack of thermal sights.
T-80UD
10.0 → 10.7
It is way too powerful at 10.0, it is essentially a T-80U with slightly weaker front armor and less mobility.
Object 292
10.0 → 10.3
The firepower is excellent and it still retains decent mobility and armor protection of the T-80B.
J7D, J7E, J8B, J8F
- PL-5C
At 11.0, China is basically the only nation without an all-aspect IR missile. While the PL-5B is by all means an excellent missile, the flight performance of the J7D in particular makes it challenging at those BRs to make to actually be effective with them.
QN-506
10.0 → 9.3
The total lack of mobility makes this vehicle basically worthless, as all of its firepower is severely hampered by its inability to either flank or quickly reposition. The QN502 missiles are extremely unreliable at killing enemy ground vehicles in most situations on most maps, and are best used as an anti-helicopter weapon, while the QN201 missiles are utterly useless despite their stated penetration.
12 Likes
Increase the rank of A-5C from rank 6 to rank 7, its BR is 10 which doesn’t fit rank 6 standards, its more in line with rank 7 jets, ofcourse you can increase the price to $65 like how you did for the F-5C
Furthermore, again this seems like a compression of BR, instead increase the BR cap and decompress BR.
Furthermore for tanks, all tanks that are 3.7 should be put up to rank 3, M4, Pz4, T34, M24s etc etc.
1 Like
AJ-37 and T-2 are identical to me for sim.
Both are IFF PD platforms with AIM-9Js. And going mach 1.8 at altitude doesn’t matter that much in sim.
Granted, maybe T-2 and F-105D should move from 9.7 to 10.0.
i’m sorry, but why are we lowering the BR of the meta fighter-jets (the MiG-15s) of their BR?
The MiG-15bis is the best fighter at 8.7, with basically no contest, and the same goes for the bis-ISH and non-bis at 8.3. I have a kd of exactly 3 in the J-2, a plane i spaded very recently, only about a month ago.
As for the MiG-17s, i can honestly see them being 8.7, they were the same BR as the 15bis for the longest time, and honestly they were fine. the MiG-17PF/Lim-5P should not be moved down, they are already good planes at 9.0, also, for the love of god, move down the poor Shengyang F-5, It’s literally just a PF with a 37mm and two awful missiles, it doesn’t deserve 9.3.
8 Likes
That is a minority opinion, I think. The T-55A is far more mobile, much lower profile, and lacks the massive cupola weakspot of the AOS. The only actual advantages the AOS might have are its rangefinder and the 60 degree pen of M728; however, at any higher angle, 3BM25 has better penetration, which can matter a great deal against the tanks it faces.
M735 is not remotely an equivalent to DM23, with over 40mm less penetration at 0 and 30 degrees, and almost 30mm less at 60 degrees. It is a significantly less capable round in all metrics, although getting better ricochet angles has improved it somewhat. Even 3BM25 outperforms it at all ranges except at extreme angles.
1 Like
How is wyvern still 4 3?what are you smoking
1 Like
So the AMX-30 DCA will be at a higher BR than the Gepard despite having worse armor penetration and lacking a stabilizer? This is stupid. “But it was more effective, blah blah blah.” Balancing based off of player performance is backwards, because it creates loops of poor players being dissuaded from playing a certain vehicle, leaving only the good players, which artificially boosts the vehicle’s scoreboard stats. The BR will then rise and the process repeats. If the AMX-30 DCA is going to 8.7, then I say Gepard to 9.0!
9 Likes
indeed.
all of those are clearly “equal” to the mig-15bis’s performance…heck i cant even pretend writing that as a joke.
gaijin you either have absolutely no clue about the performance of vehicles in your own game or you have completely lost it now.
2 Likes
The AMX 30 dca doesn’t even have a stabilizer and it goes to 8.7 where tanks have had one already at 7.7… It looks like Gaijin wants to stop us from playing French tanks…
5 Likes
You think BMPs have any business at 8.0? I can agree that 6.7 fighting BMPs sucks, but at this point you might as well delete them from the game if you place them at 8.0 when they already run a negative k/d at 7.7.
Then thank god that no one here that has that perspective is a game developer/designer, as no rational player would touch a vehicle that has been purposefully relegated to be a placeholder in a hyper-compressed bracket.
1 Like
This is what happens when attempting to balance a game with a spreadsheet versus tackling parity through practical gameplay experience.
It’s symptomatic of a much larger issue which unfortunately continues to get lost in all the noise created with topics like this: the core/fundamental game design of ARB hasn’t changed in over a decade and the constant algorithmic/statistical based tinkering with vehicle BRs ultimately does nothing to move the needle on improving the game we all love.
2 Likes
To be clear, I want every vehicle to be as balanced as it can be. I would love if every vehicle could be good at its BR without being OP.
What I’m saying is that if push comes to shove, if the choice is a vehicle completely dominating everything below it or being bad, I will choose it being bad because 1 vehicle being bad leaves the other vehicles around it intact. A vehicle being broken OP dooms everything under it.
4 Likes
Mig-15Bis ISH is on the menu Boys…
Okay, gonna try to explain what I said previously(might not be everything):
F6F-5N to 4.0
There are a few planes that really requires 80%+ radiator output to maintain the overheating just a little bit. The complete neglegence of energy aspects kinda makes it undesirable at 4.3. Arguably due to being an okay fighter as well as a decent CAS platform, while before the split BR took place, for the time being.
Seafire LF Mk.III to 4.3, Seafire F Mk.XVII to 5.0, Seafire FR 47 to 5.3:
These fighters, while have excellent high-speed mobility and are considered to be some good BnZ fighters, lacks the ability to exploit energy advantages because they are not very good at climbing. Also subpar turnfightings
Reverting 8.0-9.0 changes:
Legacy top tier is rather unplayable, and it is indeed due to compressions, but decompressing the BR at the cost of 7.0-8.0 kinda doesnt help, instead of decompressing 9.0-10.0.
Reverting Q-5A changes:
Alternatively, give it PL-2.
Reverting AMX A-11B changes:
Alternatively, take the A-6E with it, or give it AS-30L.
Su-22M3 SyAF/HuAF to 10.3, without R-60M:
The Su-22M3 is effectively, a 10.3 CAS and a 10.3 fighter put together, unlike most soviet designs which cant do both at the same time, hence why it might be placed at 10.7. It is not bad, but still being one of the worst 10.7 aircrafts, due to namely the lack of effective standoff attack methods, with flares and RWR. R-60Ms will only make them even harder to balance.
Buc S.2B to 10.0, without AIM-9L:
Before split BR, planes like this would still be a pain in the ass to balance. And before the said changes takes place, maybe it could be placed at a lower BR compared to GR.1A to compensate for the lack of thermal pods, and temporarily removing AIM-9Ls.
M3C to 10.0, while Shahak given AIM-9G:
Idk if the latter change is possible historically, anyway, the lack of RWR and flares makes them unfitting to be placed at the same BR of the M3E.
J-7D to 10.7:
Effectively a MiG-21MF with PL-5B. The J-7E has modernized RWR and incredible energy management for a MiG-21 airframe, both the J-7D lacks. Despite how much better they are compared to the R-60, PL-5Bs are hardly two increments worthy.
J-8F to 11.3:
Comparing to the K2K, the J-8F has better FM and HMD, yet not having any guided A2G options and much worse dumb bomb payloads. These should not result in a difference in BR.
F-16A ADF USAF/AMI to 12.3 with AIM-9M:
This is more of a diversification of gameplay, both the nations mentioned has 12.0 fighters, albeit not in the same role.
Netz to 12.0:
PT3s are not much of a privilege nowadays. Similar to the J-8F, the PT3s should not result in a higher BR. Not to mention that the netz lacks sparrows.
5 Likes