simply moving most jets up isn’t very viable since it’ll make most jets useless in GRB until they add the split br they’ve been talking about
AB t-28 1.7 > 2.0
How is it possible that you increase the t-80 in 2.3 without increasing the t-28 in 2.0 this tank sealclub has long day play your own games
Solutions: Decompress for grounds too, especially after all of the early mbt like leo 1 and m60s got moved up to 8.0, where they fight tank that are simply much much better at .3 or .7 br away
What.
T-28s are easy to kill, paper-thin armor, gun thats alright, but thats it.
Not to mention it gets shrapnel stock…
problem is if you decompress ground too much you’ll end up with some of the minor nations only having 1-2 tanks at some brs making those tanks basically useless meaning those brs would need more tanks added to compensate for that
I’m not really asking for that, I’m asking for the absolutely undertier vehicle that got left at 8.7 and 9.0 to be separate and by raising the cap to 13.0 there should be space for it, some example are: TAM, T-55 AM1, M60 Rise,… Basically seperating early mbt with stuff from later on with LRF, Stab, ERAs,… This is just to give player who just got their first mbts the chances to learn about mbts mechanics and playstyle without being rekt by stuff that outclass their tank by a margins.
Honestly agree, 2s38 is so overhyped - its a good vehicle but equates pretty well in practical effectiveness to the other dual purpose light tanks at the same battle rating. Just since its a premium its seen so much more that it inflates the perceived effectiveness of the vehicle as you will die to it more often then the other ones.
1 Like
It will survive just fine at 7.7 BR.
I bring it to 7.7 as a first spawn for many maps and do very well. The majority of matches I have played in the Fox were 7.7+, and the three nukes I got were also at 7.7 BR.
1 Like
I am surprised that most comments is people discussing individual vehicles and not giving a clear no to that mass aviation br decrease instead.
There is plenty of 2.7 Swedish vehicles, what are you talking about?
It was nice to have 2.7 at 3rd rank, but L-62 is clearly over performing, it just one shots everything I look at with it which is ridiculous in combination with a reload it has. Not to mention that SPAA should be used mainly as AA and not tank killing machine.
HSTV-L at 11.0 seems more reasonable for how bad it plays against NATO MBTs (now that Russian / Chinese MBTs are easier to kill due to the ammunition rack detonation being more reliable now).
And ain’t no way the 2S38 is that much worse than the HSTV-L in terms of anti-tank performance such that it warrants being an entire 1.0 BR lower. (Let’s ignore the fact that the 2S38 can also perform as anti-air too, unlike HSTV-L.)
Whilst it’s good that via your personal experience the vehicle can function at 7.7, bringing it to that BR means it can face the bmp-2, an subjective hard counter to the FOX in many ways if we only focus on what each brings to the table.
Also are you basing your personal ability to do well at 7.7 around the fact that you already had the SABOT rounds or are you insinuating that you got a 7.0 vehicle and uptiered it to face the 7.7 ∓1.0 br enemies and were capable of grinding it out even with that kind of disadvantage over how it is currently?
Cause for people who aren’t you and don’t currently have the fox, they are going to have to grind out that vehicle with it now going up by 0.7. Or is that not a problem from your perspective owing to the fact that you’ve already become quite capable in it via your own words. (Kinda sounds like what has happened with the french TT with already quite tepid vehicles being made worse via overtiering.)
I don’t personally disagree with it going up A br bracket in fact I actually want it to, but to make it go up by two in a single balance patch is quite the leap for such a squishy tank.
Just genuinely want to hear your reasoning.
It is not superior to the 3.7 M4 sherman because it does not get a stabilizer, nor does it get APHE (which is much better and more reliable than HEAT despite HEAT having ~30 more pen). The Reload on the M4 is much faster than the M4A3 (105) as well as having a much much better horizontal drive speed, though the M4A3 (105) mobility and armour is superior. The M4A3 (105) can go to 3.3, but it’s definitely starting to get outclassed at 3.7. Reminder that the armour on the M4A3 (105) can pretty easily be penned by the Panzer IVs, making its only real upside is its better penetration (for the lack of post-pen damage, and reload).
HSTVL is double the accel speed, and 30KPH faster. That alone is a 0.7 BR difference seeing BT5 and BT-7M as one example. The 26%ish more pen adds another 0.3.
HSTVL is also slightly smaller, better gun handling, and vastly superior FOV in its optics.
Anti-air doesn’t make the 2S38 better at the BR it’s currently at, since its equivalents in SPAA capability are lower in BR, with one superior to its SPAA capability at its BR.
1 Like
And it still dont matter cause there is nothing the 2S38 does so much better than its counterparts which would warrant a move up in Br. So you are welcome to look at my stats as much as you want.
Again, many threads and reddit post have been made about this already and not once did the whiners manage to state a proper argument that stood the test.Not even you.
Iam very visibly not alone with my sentiment.
And P.S buddy. I think my K/D is fine, I am content with it, its nice and organic and has not much to do with you all not being able to bring up even a single point in the 2S38’s characteristics, performance over its counterparts at and belllow its BR, that warrants a br increase.
Except the 2S38 have better thermals, IRST Tracking, HEVT, almost triple the HSTV-L ROF which null any advantage the HSTV-L have with it tiny amounts of extra pen, lots more ammo and an unmanned turret.
Let not mention the facts that the HSTV-L apdsfs spalling still suck, XM884 HE-VT and higher pen than M-774 apdsfs Delta 6 rounds still isn’t here while there are multiple documents stating that the gun supports it, the hull layout that is literally filled with ammo. 2S38 is a 10.3 - 10.7 vehicle at 10.0
Also comparing the 2S38 with SPAA at the same br doesn’t really work since it is literally a better OTOMATIC with no apdsfs limit.
5 Likes
Any ETA When we can exspect the updated BR changes?
Thermals matter most in forests and that’s about it.
IR tracking doesn’t impact its BR as 2S38 is 10.0, not 9.0.
ROF doesn’t mean much when its first stage is the same amount as HSTVL’s ammo capacity.
Weird of you to imply that 2S38 only has a tiny bit more pen than the Strf 9040C.
It’s a worse OTOMATIC. And APFSDS limit isn’t arbitrary.
You even admit that 2S38’s “APFSDS spalling” is trash.
But you did agree with me that 2S38 should be 10.3, so not sure why you made stuff up about it.
1 Like
A vehicle with similar armament in Italy is on 11.3
The Otomatic is much worse than the 2S38 It has only 12 APFSDS and is large and sluggish when travelling.
The only advantage is a radar.
However, this cannot be the reason for such a BR difference when the 2S38 is far better in all other respects.
So if the Otomatic is at 11.3, the 2S38 should be at least at 10.7 if not 11.0 as it is a much better armoured destroyer with the same AA capabilities
They will likely release updated proposition based on feedback, before they implement it.