Mode: Naval Arcade Battles
Ship: Fairmile D (617)
Change: 2.3 → 2.0
Reasoning: As a wooden vessel, it’s extremely vulnerable to instant destruction by fire when facing comparable opponents. Its 57mm ammunition makes it prone to catastrophic detonation. It’s getting worse to play as a result of the changed naval aiming system. I’d much rather use the Fairmile C (312) with its twin rapid-fire 40mm autocannons, which consistently delivers superior results for me.
Mode: Naval Arcade Battles
Ship: Fairmile D (697)
Change: 2.7 → 2.3
Reasoning: As a wooden vessel, it’s extremely vulnerable to instant destruction by fire when facing comparable opponents. Its 57mm ammunition makes it prone to catastrophic detonation. It’s getting worse to play as a result of the changed naval aiming system.
Mode: Naval Arcade Battles
Ship: Fairmile D (5001)
Change: 2.7 → 2.3
Reasoning: As a wooden vessel, it’s extremely vulnerable to instant destruction by fire when facing comparable opponents. Its 57mm ammunition makes it prone to catastrophic detonation. It’s getting worse to play as a result of the changed naval aiming system.
True… what we realy need is Decompression, THIS alone could solve so many issues (if used correctly)
Ground Realistic
Challenger 2 (Britain)
11.7–> 11.3
I see no reason as to why the first CR2 is a higher BR than the M1A1- Worse round, similar weakspots, less mobility
well that shows how cooked gaijins preceptive on the f16 is. if it given its Aim120s an aim9L-I it should be at most 1 br above the F-16A from USA.
It has superior mobility and reload
R2Y2
Air RB
8.0→7.3/7.7
Let’s be real, compare their speed/overall flight models, they are not 8.0 planes at all. The only reason they are all the way up there is because they got airspawns as “bombers” few years ago, which gave them a huge advantage over other jets. But that has long been removed! Now that those planes are even getting removed from the tech tree, could we please put them at a reasonable BR before they go to rest?
(RB) ICV (P) 9.7 > 9.0 (9.3)
-Everything about this vehicle is bad, the Type 16 base does not give good mobility, so often ICV is behind its team. Huge dimensions of the vehicle do not allow to hide it or find a normal shelter, and any hit in the hull makes the vehicle incapacitated, as the organs of removal are knocked out, and any hit in the turret leads to death blow up the ammo, that is, having seemingly good chances for survivability, ICV it does not have it from the word at all. And most importantly Bushmaster, the most terrible autocannon in the game, you can spend half a belt at point-blank range in the side of the MBT and still not do him any damage, and there is simply no other weapon, there is no normal damage, penetration is extremely random, low rate of fire, so also the spread is large, the technique with such a gun in no way can not be on 9.7
You can only include 1 vehicle per message even if they are very similar btw
I’m afraid I cannot agree with you. T-55’s armour can hardly block any APFSDS or ATGM at 9.0 or higher BR, while M735 and M111 from lower BR can also penetrate, even with modified UFP.
The T-55s also lacks thermal device and advanced APFSDS rounds, and the damage effects of 3BM8 and 3BM25 are just awful. T-55’s mobility is also falling behind.
Isn’t P3 literally a 9L but faster?
Increase BR to 9.7 for Air RB only ?
Ground realistic
ADATS (M113) Britain
Lacks the 25mm gun found on the ADATS in the USA tree. Very slightly better hull armour but has worse mobility
I’ve done a post for each above, but just wanted to do a single post just outlying the rather stupid BRs of the Hunters at the moment in SB for the devs to seriously look at/consider.
Please read this CMs
At 9.7:
Hunter F.58 with 2x Aim-9Ps and CMs
Hunter F6 with 4x SRAAM (would be fine if they fixed SRAAMs)
Hunter FGA9 with 2x Aim-9E
At 9.3:
J-34 with 2x 9Bs - This is just a Hunter F4 which only really gets more internal fuel over the Hunter F1 from what I can find
At 9.0:
Hunter F6 (France) with 2x Aim-9Bs - Unlike the J-34, the Hunter F6 gets a more powerful engine and the improved wing design, meaning it is superior to the J-34 in pretty much every respect. It also gets drop tanks which neither the J-34 or any of the British Hunters get.
Hunter F1 with no AAMs - Similar performance to the Hunter F4 (J34) but hasnt got any AAMs at all. This could do with being at a lower BR compared to even the J-34, but being the same BR as the Hutner F6 is just insane.
Is it fair to make T-55 tanks equal to TAM or XM-803? Do you remember their mobility and gun handling? I even dont want to remember about chinese ZTZ88 tanks on same BR which are better than soviet and sweden at most of parameters. Developer dont care they just see unplayable 7.7 8.0 tanks on stupid BRs placed there by same developer and they see it cant beat T-55 (surprise). Maybe developer can think more than 1 minute about Leopard 1 BR or BMP-1 or M48 on their ridiculous balancing.
Unplayable balancing unplayable server performance unplayable locations unplayable sound.
You forgot the BR change you want
More compression in GRB…yay!
And look who dodges the bullet again, 2S38!
So, what? It’s still weak even if you give it M833. So don’t bring the overused(mobility and reload).
Where Swiss Hunter?