Planned Battle Rating changes for April 2024

Official News, Development Blogs and Updates
164

Aircraft Battle Rating Discrepancy for Air Simulator Battles

Phantom F4J(UK) vs Phantom FGR2/FG1

Spoiler

Phantom F4J(UK) [Premium]
Nation: Britain
Current Battle Rating: 11.3
IR AAM: 4x Aim-9G
BVR AAM: 4x Skyflash DF
External Gunpod
Max A2G load: 2x base kills
Radar: AN/APG-59
RWR: AN/APR-32 (E, G, I bands, 50km, Type 6, SPI)
CM: 60
Top Speed: 1153kt
Turn rate: 26.0s
(note Britain’s Phantom F4J(UK) does not have HMD or Slats)

Phantom FGR2/FG1
Nation: Britain
Current Battle Rating: 10.7
IR AAM: 4x Aim-9G
BVR AAM: 4x Skyflash DF
External Gunpod
Max A2G load: 2x base kills
Radar: AN/APG-59
RWR: ARI 18228 (E-J Bands, 50km, Type 6, SPI)
CM: 90
Top Speed: 1222kt
Turn rate: 26.0s

These 3 aircraft are near identical, with the difference being the engines, RWR and CM count. Which are all in favour of the Phantom FGR2/FG1 resulting in it being the superior airframe. The RWR on the Phantom FGR2/FG1 is better and has better engines that result in a higher top speed and acceleration and has 30 more CMs. It makes no sense for these 3 aircraft to have different BRs. The Phantom F4J(UK) should come down to match the Phantom FGR2/FG1 which are ideally located at 10.7.

The only reason it appears to be 11.3 is because its Premium. No other reason exists for it to be at a higher BR

Mig-23ML vs Mig-23MLA

Spoiler

Mig-23ML [Premium]
Nation: USSR
Current Battle Rating: 11.0
IR AAM: 4-6x R-60M
BVR AAM: 0-2x R-24R
Radar: Sapphire-23ML/TP-23M
RWR: SPO-10
CM: 60
Top Speed: 1271kt
Turn rate: 33.0s

Mig-23MLA
Nation: Germany
Current Battle Rating: 11.3
IR AAM: 4-6x R-60M
BVR AAM: 0-2x R-24R
Radar: Sapphire-23MLA/TP-23M
RWR: SPO-10
CM: 60
Top Speed: 1271kt
Turn rate: 33.0s

These 2 aircraft are Identical and yet maintain different Battle-Ratings. They have same loadouts, same radar, same RWR. The only difference is the tech trees they are located in and the premium status. I dont know if the ML should go up or if the MLA needs to go down, though the Mig-23ML use to dominate the 10.0-11.0 brackets, so I suspect that it will need to go up in BR. but either way, these 2 airframes should be at the same BR.

Air Simulator Battle Rating Changes needed

Hunter FGA9 BR reduction from 9.7 to 9.3.

The Hunter FGA9 has no CMs, No radar and is sub-sonic like the Hunter F6, but only has 2x Aim-9Es instead of 4x SRAAM. Which impacts it serverly in A2A combat, there is a reason the FGA9 has an RB rating 0.3 lower than the F6 and I cant understand why this does not also apply to Air Sim as well.

Harrier Gr7 BR Reduction from 11.7 to 11.3

The Harrier Gr7 recently got a massive increase from 11.0 to 11.7 due to the addition of Aim-9Ms, but ultimately, this is highly unfair and has rendered the aircraft almost unplayable. It has no radar, at all. Meaning using any missile, Aim-9L or Aim-9M beyond rear aspect is extremely dangerous, severly impacting effectiveness. It was moved up due to the addition of Aim-9Ms, however, R-73s still exist at 11.3 on the Su-25T, Su-39 and Su-25BM. and Magic IIs exist on the Jaguar IS at 11.0. 11.3 is a more appropriate BR for an aircraft with no radar in SB and would actually give Britian a viable “fighter” for this BR range, as we currently only have the Tornado Gr1

Mig-23MLD BR increase from 11.3 to 11.7

The Mig-23MLD is one of the best 11.3s in the game currently, with few rivals within the 11.3 brackets. It outperforms everything with strong SARH and All-Aspect IR missiles, as well as a decent airframe. Similar such aircraft like the F3 when added received a 11.7 battle rating in Aim Sim and so should similar such aircraft like the Mig-23MLD

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

Air Realistic Battle Rating Changes Needed

Hunter F1 from 9.0 to 8.7

All 9.0 Gunfighters have had a BR reduction down from 9.0 to 8.7 but the Hunter F1 has been forgotten, if the others require a BR reduction, so to does the Hunter F1 and should join them at 8.7

Hunter F6 and Harrier Gr1

Both of these aircraft are currently struggling at their current BR due to BR compression. They Lack CMs but almost exclusively face uptiers against All-Aspect missiles. Additionally the SRAAMs are underperforming hard, with a number of outstanding bug reports, a few more than a year old. In the absence of SRAAM fixes, which would certainly restore these aircraft to being 9.7 worthy, they desperately need a temprorary BR reduction to 9.3 or lower. Where they may stand a better change of survival.

The Harrirer Gr1 is notable here due to the lack of CMs, its direct couterpart, the Harrier Gr3 has CMs, RWR and better rear aspect IR missiles and is the same BR in ARB.

F-15 (all variants) increase from 12.3 to 12.7

There is really no justfication for the F-15 not join the others at 12.7. Its fast, well armed and can easily out-turn anything it encounteres in a downtier. Just because a BVR truck cannot compete with turn fighters like the Gripen or F-16 does not justfiy its current rating.

Stock Aircraft changes:

Jaguar Gr1 and Gr1A both start with no secondary weapons at all. Nothing. Please consider adding either 540lb bombs or Aim-9Ds or Aim-9Gs to these aircraft as stock weapons, gun fighting, in a stock strike aircraft, is not fun.

Tornado F3 additionally could do with the standard Skyflash (not DF or SuperTEMP) as stock as well.

Naval Realistic Battle Rating Changes Needed

HMS Renown decrease from 7.0 to 6.7

The Renown has notably less armour than HMS Hood and 1 less turret. This makes the Renown signifcantly more vulnerable and less able to fight back than the Hood. Compression in Naval is extremely high, but even the slight reduction to 6.7 would help greatly

HMS London decrease from 5.7 to 5.3

HMS London suffers greatly from a total lack of armour, a well placed destroyer Salvo can easily kill 30-50% of your crew. The turrets have no protection and can be easily disabled and the citadel makes up most of the ship. Meaning you spend most of your time unable to steer in a fight. The lack of offensive fire power and armour leaves it extremely vulnerable. If ships like Prinz Eugen are returning to 5.7, then HMS London needs a BR reduction alongside, as it is well below the Prinz Eugen in performance.

All 5.7 British Cruisers

They all need a review in their current placement, whilst HMS London is a notable example, they all have low armour, and limited fire power. With stronger ships like Admiral Hipper and Prinz Eugen returning to 5.7, then all British Cruisers at 5.7 need a review and consideration for 5.3.

Ground Realisitc Battle Rating Changes Needed

Challenger DS

The Challenger DS should recieve its currently missing L26 and armour upgrade package and move to 10.3. The Challenger was deployed to operation Granby exclusively with L26 shells and addtional armour. As the Challenger DS is this tank, then it should recieve these upgrades.

This would not harm the Challenger DS in anyway as most run the Challenger DS at 10.3 with items such as the Stormer, Lynx and other MBTs like the Challenger Mk3 and Vickers. In fact it would only increase the value of the Challenger DS, likely increasing sales as the 10.3 line-up Britain’s best high tier BR at the moment, with top tier boarderline unplayable.

Challenger 2 (all variants) and 3TD

After the nerfs in the last major update, the Challenger 2 is no longer suitable for top-tier GRB and until such time they get buffed or fixed. They have the worse armour and mobility and they no longer hold a reload rate advantage. They require a Battle Rating reduction if gaijin is unwilling to give buffs such as reload rate increase or improve other aspects of the tank.

Challenger 2, 2F, TES and OES to 11.0

Challenger 2 BN and 2E to 11.3

Challenger 3 TD is by far the worst Challenger at top tier, with worse armour and fire rate than the others, but due to DM53, cannot move. Instead it is in desperate need of a reload rate increase to 5 seconds to match the other Challenger 2s

This appears to be a popular opinion based upon this poll

Without such a buff, there is no reason to play the Challenger 3 TD over the 11.7 Challenger 2s due to its major weaknesses and so it too needs a BR reduction as a result.

S238 increase from 10.0 to 10.7
I actually think it needs to go to 11.0 but baby-steps

The S238 is by far one of the strongest IFVs in game, easily able to one shot most MBTs at its BR and can fight any aircraft with ease. Its the perfect support tank. It also has fairly decent armour and mobilty, able to tank some darts. Additionally, it totally outperforms current IFVs at 10.0 such as the 9040C.

11 Likes
165

Italy only have 10.3 AND 11.3/11.7 Ground formation.
If AMX 10.7，there is no ground vehicle to play with.
Because 11.3/11.7 you can just to use Tornado IDS 1995.
No one goes back to using a subsonic attacker in 11.3

9 Likes
166

I spend the majority of my time playing Rank V and VI planes across all nations, so I feel compelled to weigh in on the proposed changes.

I seriously urge the developers to NOT implement the changes to the 8.3-9.0 Sabres and MiG-15/17s.

Dropping these planes to 8.0-8.3 will make starter jets nearly unplayable. All of the Sabres and MiG-15/17s are well positioned as they already are relative to the planes below them.

The problem is that most planes from 9.3 and up are undertiered.

Dropping the matchmaker spread to only 0.7 BR would solve the issue. Yes, queue times could be affected, but it would still be worth piloting to see it that actually happens. I made a spreadsheet looking at every possible Air RB matchup from 6.3 to 10.3, and this proposal would resolve >90% of majorly imbalanced matchups in that range without requiring changes to any individual aircraft BRs. The reduced BR spread could even be implemented only for BRs 6.7 and above, since Ranks I-IV are–for the most part–well balanced with a 1.0 BR spread.

Alternatively, moving most planes from 9.3-12.7 up (9.7-13.0) would be a much better solution as well. There are certain planes (Hunters, Sagittario 2, Ariete, etc.) that should stay put, but if much of Rank VI and above moved up 0.3 BR, this would be a much more elegant solution to the problem of imbalance around 8.3-9.3.

3 Likes
167

not to forget the PR206 which is also not affected by BR change - now the M17 M802 and Albatros have to face them in nearly every match…

1 Like
168

the M551(76) mobility is only marginally worse and 2 degrees of gun depression is virtually nothing, then you have the full speed stabiliser which is huge (look at the Centurion Mk.2 being 0.7 higher than the Mk.1 despite being effectively the same in everything else)

1 Like
169

still no move for the F-15?
I wonder when will you stop looking blindly at stats and actually played the game. F-15 has no business bullying 11.3s. F-15 is more than capable to be at 12.7

8 Likes
170

AMX would be fine at 10.7 for Air RB. When separate BRs for air and ground are implemented this summer, this could be fixed to accompany the 10.3 ground lineup.

2 Likes
171

17pndr has exceptional penetration, on par with KwK42 and 90mm M3. Yet Fireflies are currently 1.0 lower than M4A3 (76)??? Centurions 1 and 2 are balanced at their higher BRs, and Archer is such a glass cannon it doesn’t matter much. SA50 is even more powerful, being closer in penetration to the KwK43 than 76mm M1! The ARL-44 has excellent armour, good mobility, and a decently fast-firing gun that can comfortably UFP Panthers.

You mentioned all 17pdr and 77mm OQF vehicles should get raised and yet only addressed a problem that you have with the Sherman Firefly?

That’s not even the worse part, the worse part is the fact that you say that the 77mm OQF carrier (which is just a worse 17pdr by the game’s standard) needed to get raised despite the fact that apart from the APDS (which was nerfed and is only on the Comet), that gun performs horribly compared to the 76mm M1, 75mm KwK42 AND 90mm M3 that you also mentioned there and compared to.

1 Like
172

Pretty much why I have no issues with AMX going to 10.7.
It’ll go back to 10.3 for ground in June more than likely.

173

Agreed. The MiG-15s and F-86s should STAY PUT at 8.3-9.0. Move Rank VI and above up by 0.3 instead!

174

Couldn’t agree more. Decrease matchmaker spread to 0.7 or bump most jets at 9.3-12.7 to 9.7-13.0.

MiG-15/17s and F-86s are well positioned relative to planes below them.

1 Like
175

Exactly my point… why isn’t it going up? It suffers at the hands of all aspect IR missiles, why should everyone else go down in BR and not the Hunter? I mean I’d rather everything that’s ruining that BR go up instead, but if we’re gonna move everything down… why not the Hunter?

Oh I forgot that one. Then again, I generally only appear in matches above 4.0. Because British DDs.

176

Or just make its ammo configuration actually accurate. That being seperate 3 round drum + ready rack of APFSDS for that drum + arbitrary ammo storage.

A lot of vehicles would benefit from a readyrack/ammoconfig/loadingconfig rework

4 Likes
177

Yes.

2 Likes
178

Agreed. CL-13 Mk.6 and F-40 can go to 9.0, but all other Sabres & MiG-15/17s should stay at 8.3-9.0!

1 Like
179

Sherman VC has 11.45 to 12.04 horsepower/ton depending on if you take the add on armor or not.
M4A3 (76) has 15.20 to 15.50 in the same conditions.
M4A3 (76) takes 11 seconds to reach 40 km/h in a straight line on a good road, which is faster than the T-34-85.

Their top speeds are similar, but the M4A3 (76) beats the Firefly out of the park in acceleration, which generally matters far more than pure top speed.

Sherman VC has a ready rack, M4A3 does not, hence I said “overall reload”. Once the Firefly fires just 5 rounds, you get a nearly 9 second reload (1.5 reload multiplier for the Firefly). Edit: and that’s 8.8 seconds aced.

Never said it did. It’s the combination of improvements that makes it that difference.

Again, the combined improvements add to the BR difference, it’s not just the one thing.

And just because the Russians have bad gun depression does not mean it isn’t a disadvantage. It still very much is and noticeably limits the capabilities of said Russian tanks and the Fireflies.

All of which the 76 mm can also deal with.

This is not relevant. Besides it’s not like the Fireflies are invincible in a downtier because they all use either early small hatch hulls or composite hulls which have noticeable weakspots that even a 3.3 medium tank can kill them through.

1 Like
180

Naval & Attacker/Bomber Arcade suggestions…

Bristol Brigand - 3.7>3.3 - the removal of the combat flaps made the brick even more of a brick. It’s also a bomber than comes out the box with no bombs which makes absolutely no sense and the initial grind insufferable.

HMS Mohawk - 4.7>4.3 - It’s lineup got lowered to 4.3 a while ago leaving Mohawk behind. It should sit alongside its class mate HMS Eskimo which swaps the 4th main turret for secondaries.At 4.7 it just can’t compete with the Battles and Daring alternatives let alone the US DDs.

The majority of the Italian Bluewater DDs (ie not the post war ones with US guns) - compared to their competitors most have slower firing guns and lost out when the Fragmentation changes arrived as their fewer but hard hitting shells counted for less.

Russian 4.3 - remains easily the strongest lineup with SKRs, 206s, Bez & Smelyi, Pe-8
Even the secondary vehicles like the Soob, MPKs, Pe-2(l) could make a good lineup on their own. Half of me wants them to remain where they are but tbh it’s difficult to avoid the fact they the SKR-7/Pe-8 combo in particular needs to get split with either one or both going up.

Z46/47 - decent hulls, decent guns, good secondaries but still dubious at 4.7 with nose fused HE and HE-TF only, as well as only 720 rounds total (vs US Gearing class at 720 rounds per turret including SAP and and VT!). Definitely case for lowering them, or alternatively at least use the ‘for balancing’ argument and give them base fused HE for a small penetration buff. Yes it’s non-historical but wouldn’t be the first time.

Japanese coastal - another tweak to the K’s, but the rest of the small PT and river boats are totally outclassed and need a major revision.

Fairey Firebrand - return Tier II>III - moving it down made it pointless to play and derives the British of a semi-decent torpedo bomber for tasks/challenges. The Mosquito and Firefly at 3.7 remained TIII so why was it changed in the first place?

Italian SM-91 3.7>3.3, multiple cannons but poor performance makes grinding for the mediocre load of 4x100kgs frustrating. It’s simply not very good at any particular role and would be better placed at the lower BR to give it a chance.

SM-92 4.0>3.7 - much like the 91 it’s a painful route to get bombs which is when it finally manages to be occasionally useful as these are at least a max of 2x 500kg… Still not great though as overall performance is so-so probably due to being weighed down by the useless 2nd crew member and meme worthy rear MG. If they aren’t going to move then please hurry up with the Hungarian Me210Ca so I can hanger both the 92 and 91 permanently.

3 Likes
181

AMX-30 Roland is not identical to the other two, it is limited to 35 degrees of elevation. You can very easily deny an AMX-30 Roland any shots on you with a small amount of climbing.

3 Likes
182

Gaijin really out here telling me that the MiG-15Bis and F-86F-30/35s are equal to performance to the F9F-8, F84F and Swift F.1
Lol, lmao

9 Likes
183

F-15 are still 12.3 lmao.

I guess we should thanks american main for driving the stats of one of the best top tier aircraft to the ground, preventing it to reach 12.7.

7 Likes