Yeah… They are trying to decompress by lowering the BR of ships rather than raising them.
Which is Gaijin’s definition of Decompression…
But I fear half the issue is that they dont want to massively decompress naval without doing the same to air. That way you dont have something like a Buc S2 bombing top tier battleships.
Yeah, could really do with being 9.3, then at least it would make a half decent CAP option.
The F-20A is not AMRAAM capable. I believe mockups of the missile was mounted on the wing when neither Tigershark nor AMRAAM had been fully developed at the time. It was planned for the Tigershark to use AMRAAMs if it went into production, but the Tigershark project was cancelled before it gained the ability to fire AMRAAMs. Iirc the Aim-120 went into service after the Tigershark’s cancellation.
Mode: air realistic battles
Aircraft: F-4J, FGR.1 and FGR.2
Br change: 12.0 → 11.7
Reasoning:
Can we PLEASE move down the British Phantoms and the F-4J? 12.0 is a very rough bracket for those aircraft. 11.7 would be a HUGE quality of life improvement.
As it is, they’re all dead content. The British ones especially. They’re effectively worse than the F-4E, due to the lack of 7Fs, an internal gun, and lack of slats.
Also, all of these start with two 9Ds stock and no radar missiles. Trying to stock grind that at 12.0 is near impossible.
F-20 wasnt a test candidate for AMRAAM while it was being developed, primarily because the F-20 was more of a private venture rather than an official US government project and was seeking the export market but the lack of any prospective buyers due to its costs killed it before AMRAAM’s were finished
separate BRs for planes in air/ground already exist, no reason for naval not to get a similar treatment
alternatively, just remove the option of bringing your own planes to naval battles altogether, that way they dont have to bother coming up with separate BRs for lord knows how many planes
Or the newest bug where one blade of grass between you and an enemy ship causes your gunners to shoot the water 500 meters in front of your boat. This makes it really attractive to new players who blaze out into the open anyway. “Cover? Why do I need cover? I’m in a destroyer!”
I think limiting aircraft choices would suck, especially as you’d be forced into specific loadouts for them too.
But split BRs whilst great for naval, would require effort… and this is naval… so…
amd being invulnerable to atgms and slow shells because of its aps and its composite armor front plate tanking 400mm heat and 350mm apds with ease is very toxic.
im glad its finally going up. t-55a/t-62/o-435/o-140 arent really that bad, they are good vehicles, but not toxic.
honestly wouldnt mind planes get removed from naval entirely
im here to shoot ships, not get nuked from orbit or get random notifications that i killed a plane i didnt see
id rather have them return ARB maps with ship-shaped targets (or put the ships back into the maps they removed them from for no reason whatsoever)
*giving planes the same BR for naval as they get for ground shouldnt be too much effort
Mode: Realistic Battles
Vehicle: Khalid
BR Change: 9.3 > 9.0
Reasoning: Khalid is not a very strong tank, it has a long reload (even among classmates with 120mm), weak armor, and average maximum speed. Yes, it has a strong engine, but with its mass, it still remains extremely sluggish, slow and stiff on turns. At the same time, it has another drawback - its gun does not descend in the entire rear hemisphere, which makes gameplay even more difficult.
Mode: Realistic and simulator Battles
Vehicle: F-4J(UK) Phantom II
BR Change: 12.0 > 11.7
Reasoning: This version of the Phantom is extremely weak for its combat rating. It is simply unthinkable to have rear-angle missiles on the 12.0 (especially when we have an analogue in the same branch, the Tornado F.3, which has both all-angle missiles and longer-range radar missiles, and the MiG-23ML, which has a lower combat rating and also has all-angle missiles). The aircraft has terrible performance characteristics, which make it inferior to literally everyone it encounters.
Mode: Realistic and simulator Battles
Vehicle: Harrier GR.1
BR Change: 9.7 > 9.3 or give him countermeasures
Reasoning: This aircraft has nothing to dodge a maneuverable missile, almost every time a missile is fired at it, it is shot down, because maneuverability alone is not enough to get away from a missile. This aircraft has terrible missiles, which, with a very short flight, cannot catch up with anyone further than 600-700 m, if the plane does not move away from you in speed, because the Harrier itself is a subsonic aircraft and therefore cannot catch up with the enemy or give the missile additional speed.
Mode: Realistic and simulator Air Battles
Vehicle: Harrier GR.7
BR Change: 12.3 > 11.7
Reasoning: too slow for this combat rating aircraft, with very little armament, it carries only 4 missiles, and all its opponents have 8 or more (the Su-33 that it often encounters generally carries 12 missiles)
I also ask you to reconsider and cancel the increase in the combat rating for the AMX M4 and AMX-13(75), these tanks do not have the characteristics to be considered 7.0 vehicles
could we get the me410s with the better gun at that br too?
We cried, now you cry (T55 players), good job gaijin
I can’t imagine it going lower than 12.0 in RB unless it loses it’s 9Ms. At 11.7, you’ll have it being better than the A-10C at the same BR.
AMX-40 change doesn’t make any sense on it’s own. Much like the hell that is playing the Leopard 2A4 NL, all you’re doing is dragging the rest of the 9.7 line-up into a BR where they are much less competitive. You either need to produce a viable line-up for 10.0 (and 10.7 for that matter) or leave the AMX-40 alone.
Despite how fun this would be. It would destroy everything. Equivalent airframes like the Harrier T.10 and AV-8B(NA) with 9Ls and less CMs are 11.3 and even 9M slingers like the A-10C are much weaker than it.
Maybe just maybe 12.0, but would rather see buffs like BOL overhaul for it. That would make it an incredibly strong aircraft and thats without even mentioning that its FM is underperforming loads and is WAAAAAY too hot.
I’ve won enough fights in SB in the Gr7 against aircraft like the Mig-29 and F-16 to know that it can handle its own quite well. Including nearly winning a 1v3 vs Mig-29s, I got 2 but the third snuck up on me and this was before we had the MAWS and that would have saved me
Mode: Air Realistic Battles
Aircraft: Mig 23 ml/a/d
Change: 11.7 → 11.3
Reasoning:
ive played this plane through pretty much the entire USSR tech tree, most would disagree with this change, but atm the mig 23 at the BR of 11.7 isn’t good, it consistently get’s uptiered especially with the recent addition of the f/a 18c early, probable only 20% or less of your games are downtiered and with the rwr only having 4 directions, the radar being mediocre at best it struggles.
It consistently faces, mig 29’s, f16’s, f/a 18c early, f4s, mirage f1c’s, which all pretty much out class the mig 23
at it’s current br, if i was to go play the mig 29, 9 times out of 10 i would get the exact same matchmaker, which really shouldn’t b the case
Haha, no chance. Mig-23MLD probably should be 12.0 and Mig-23ML and MLA are some of the strongest 11.7s in game. Only way they go down in BR is if they loose R-60Ms and maybe also loose R-24T/Rs
most of the planes ingame face planes that out class them. i think its called “uptier”.
Mode: Ground Realistic Battle
Aircraft: Type 87 rcv
Change: 9.0 → 8.3
Reasoning: The Type 87 rcv lacks of a stabilizer, lws/lr and thermal imaging device. It is really unfair to have an vehicle from Italy which obtains all of these at a br of 9.3 and a better reverse speed.