Don’t move the hellcats to 6.0. That’s a bad idea.
1 Like
You always say the M-51 is OP, but it’s basically just an M36B2 with 20mm extra penetration, less velocity, slower top speed, lower mobility, and worse gun handling. Why are you not complaining about the B2 when its better?
2 Likes
No not at all. It is very clear you don’t actually know those tanks struggle both in game and mechanic wise still from hull aim.
Simulator BRs that need addressing:
AJ-37: 10.7 - 9.7.
AJ-37 has no reason to go down, only 2 missiles is sub par, but ok. TWS and great speed at sea level makes it one of the best planes at 10.7. It has no place below 10.7.
AJ-37 should really go up to 11.0 if anything.
I agree with Mirage 3s going down and Mirage F1C being 11.3 though.
Attackers with good missiles like Buccaneer S2B and Su-25T shouldn’t go down.
Harrier GR7: 11.7 → 11.3
Worse has no radar so is significantly worse for air EC than AV8B+
2 Likes
gaijin, how often do we have to tell you this:
SHIFTING BR COMPRESSION TO ANOTHER BR RANGE ISNT FIXING IT!
i swear we have had this conversation in this community for the past 10 years every odd month.
putting most(but of course not all because why be consistent) 8.7’s jets to 8.3 will create a whole other issue where as 7.3-7.7’s will now regularly face jets that outperform them by a significant margin, while that change isnt addressing the 9.3 supersonics performance in a downtier nor is it addressing the issue of the 10.0-10.7 jets(especially the 30G all-aspect missile carriers) facing sub-sonics/near supersonics without flares.
the whole BR range for air RB past 8.3 needs to move up and extent, not shift the compression around hoping it fixes anything.
same for ground RB really, the early T-34’s will have a hard time facing 4.7 and 5.0’s and the M-18’s dont really deserve being moved up to 6.0 either.
BR compression isnt fixed by moving things around, its fixed by expanding and extending the overall BR ranges.
at this point, this feels like its done on purpose and over a long period of time, to not really change anything but get the complains down.
i got to say it now but gaijin, your project management of this game is horrible and awful, from things like balancing of vehicles, economy down to map design as well as developement of new game features, you need to re-evaluate all of it fundamentally.
8 Likes
4.0 might be a bit more realistic, however it is still powerful, just because its ability to follow up shots.
The reason i suggested the increase, is more the lack of a hull weakspot. While it have the same turret as the Sherman V in the Italian tech tree which sits at BR 3.7, it have the same hull as the M4A2 which is at 4.0, however missing the hull machinegun as a weakspot.
Yeah, not the best as an AA, but it is extremely powerful in the Anti-Tank role. The suggestion is really only based on its ability to being able to kill enemy ground targets.
1 Like
I’m assuming you got 30 gaijin coin for saying that?
Or you’re just ignorant.
Gaijin move the MIG-21S to BR 9.3 or buff it so it can be used at BR 9.7 it suffers very heavly at its BR at the moment, becorse of the lack of flears and good AAMs compared to the Aircraft it is faceing.
I ABSOLUTELY disagree with all m18’s being moved up to 6.0. This is exactly like how they moved up the tigers and panthers so that shermans and m18’s don’t constantly get smoked. By moving up the m’18s, this brings back up this same issue they had before, if not worse. Now when uptiered to 7.0 you face a lot of heavier tanks that you cannot penetrate frontally. For the example the object 268. This planned change will just kick further issues down the road to be messed up more again later. plus it will almost tear apart american 5.7. why does america suffer nearly the most in the entire game. having way overtiered vehiles, as well as having mis-modeled abrams models. this will be a huge mistake by GAYJIN
2 Likes
True-
Tbh I think (compared to the M4 base) its on roughly equal terms given:
-Lacks .50cal
-Much weaker turret
But has:
-Stronger hull
-Slightly better engine
Tbh I think its a fair tradeoff
The Gr7 is boarderline unplayable currently. it sucks. 9Ms were the worse mistake they made for it
Su-122-54 6-7->7.3/7.7 (RB):
T-54 (1951) [8.0] hull with very powerful gun which can be compared to 105mm L7 which is on Leo 1 [8.0] for example.
It could be even at 8.0, but 7.3/7.7 would be nice beginning.
it’s 8.0 mobility/armor + 8.0+ firepower.
There is literally no single logic reason to let this monster stay at 6.7. It lol pens everything, even 7.7 when full uptiered and thanks to big caliber Heat-fs has big HE filler which overpressure very often.
It has BR-471D which is-3 [7.3] and Is-6 [7.7] have and very strong APDS which spalls as crazy.
It has TWO 14,5mm HMGs (Coax & roof) which has 49/46 pen (0/500m) which are annihilating every light vehicles, side armor of most vehicles and especially aircrafts.
Another great thing is a modification - Rangefinder which is VERY usefull at sniping.
Reload is also very good as for 122mm gun (comparing to other vehicles with 122mm gun).
To sum up, there is no single reason to let it be at 6.7. It’s like Tiger 2H was 5.3.
7.3/7.7 would be a good start for this monster. maybe 8.0 in the future.
1 Like
Its fine. They just need to finish it. It has a placeholder RWR currently. Should have target ID, with that, its doddle to fly. Just need to use the terrain to avoid the enemy team. I really dont want to open the door for things to go down and ruin the lower brackets where possible. Im enjoying the Hunter F6 even in 9.0-10.0 brackets because of no All-aspects
Buc S1 [9.0] and Buc S2 [9.3] though could both do with a BR drop. Really no justification for them to be where they are currently.
Blockquote
Harrier Gr1 BR Reduction from 9.7 to 9.3
This is entirely based upon the current BR of the Harrier GR3. An Identical airframe, with better IR missiles, CMs and RWR which currently exists at 9.3. There is little justification for the GR1 to have the higher BR at this time, especially with SRAAMs in their current state. Once they are fixed, it can potentially return to 9.7, but SRAAM wouldnt be unreasonable at 9.3
9.3 would not be suitable for either harrier. GR3 should be moved back to 9.7, the missiles are good and almost no planes can even catch a harrier at 9.3 and almost no fighter even has flares at 9.3.
For the GR1 with SRAAMS, I’ve not had any significant issues with SRAAMs besides failing at very low speed, however I think this not too significant, but it would be good to this fixed.
It would be best to increase BR of strong 9.7s like:
J-35A
Milan
F-105
F-104A (maybe)
The J-35A and Milan are so much faster than most planes while being also very maneuverable for their speed at sea level. Planes like F-100, Lightning, J32, MiG-21 and many others are almost completely out classed.
Planes like the F-105 are simply impossible to even catch in most 9.7s, even at BR 10.0 the F-105 will be difficult to catch but more balanced.
2 Likes
I agree. The round should have much better pen and post pen. But they did prototype a HSTVL with a 90mm that did a lot better against T80s so that could be a good upgrade. Plus honestly the HSTVL had proxy rounds in real life and it would be great if it got that in game
SRAAMs seem to have most significant issues when fired within about 500m. They generally miss with highly chaotic flight paths and judging distances in SB is rather hard. I have a bug report for this:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/vRwgzgE3f9qG
SRAAM also could get some quite major buffs thanks to data found in the national archives by Flame:
and
but yeah, the rest could certainly do with a BR increase, only recently getting back into that BR range, so not dealt with a huge amount yet, but F-104s are always annoying
4 Likes
(RB) J-7D. 11.0 > 10.7 - The Soviet and German MiG’s has a larger ammo gun, a noticeably more powerful engine, and 6 all-aspect missiles (instead of the Chinese’s J-7D 4 rear-angle ones). Essentially, the J-7D is a MiG-21MF (10.3) with slightly faster missiles, but it is worse. Therefore, it would be logical for this aircraft to occupy an intermediate ballpark between the MiG-21MF (10.3) and MiG-21bis (11.0)
4 Likes
Fox going up so much in one raise is just ridiculous, I don’t like playing around BR8, drones, cancer balance etc, so probably won’t play it much now, thanks. I notice this almost only happens to minor nations (going up so much).
Make the Puma rank 3, there are many rank III 3.7 tanks but Germany suffers with no light tanks there and no mediums at rank 3, except 5.0 BR+ or premiums with no traverse. So you force noobs to play around BR6 in long range gun/armour design, then make it CQC COD 10IQ maps, then people wonder why German teams do bad and players burn out fast…
AMX-13 FL11 > 4.0 again. 4.3 it has no lineup, stupid move, I barely play it now. You can uptier M4 to 4.0 fine, but 4.3 it more often suffers.
Please fix the reload on BM-31 and other rocket trucks.
And please fix the damn 251/22 suspension/handling bug that’s been around since it was in the battlepass…
5 Likes
It would be so nice if they could fix the hstvl instead of just ignoring it. All that you mentioned about it should be changed and the spalling is cause gajin try’s to balance all small sabot into one categorie when that’s not how it should work. I mean the Chinese M41 with a dart basically fires the hstvl round so it should be way more effective then it is. Which bothers me a lot given that I love the M41 series
1 Like
M-18s going to 6.0 makes no sense, can be destroyed by almost any plane. Most people rush in too fast and die. It’s very hard to have a kill streak with it also Super Hellcat shouldn’t go up too.