Ratel-90 and ratel-20 should NOT move up in BR. they are good where they are. They’re horrible at acceleration, they’re massive targets, and they don’t depress well. ratel-90 should be 6.7 at most. ratel-20 should not be compared to the marder, as the marder is a mobile platform with 17 degrees of depression, making it a good rat tank. ratel-20 can’t even rat, it’s massive and slow, not to mention 20mms do not damage anyway.
1 Like
Mode: Ground Realistic Battles
Tank: Char 25t
Change: 8.0 > 7.3 (7.7)
In my view, the Char 25t possesses most of the necessary characteristics to remain at a battle rating of 8.0. Let’s compare it to other light tanks from different nations. For instance, the Object 906 also has a reload time of around 4.3 seconds, but it features powerful APHE shells with superior penetration, solid mobility, and—most importantly—a gun stabilizer.
Most light tanks at this BR level either have a stabilizer, early APFSDS rounds, or both. In this context, the Char 25t falls behind, particularly due to its lack of stabilizer and its weaker ammunition options.
Lowering its BR wouldn’t dramatically improve its performance. At 7.7 or 7.3, it would encounter heavier armored targets more frequently than at 8.0+, forcing it to rely heavily on its mobility and fast reload to stay competitive.
At lower BRs like 6.3–6.7, the Char 25t could indeed become a dominant force, but it would also be highly vulnerable to aircraft. Airstrikes are much more common and accessible at those levels, and planes tend to punish high-performing tanks quickly and efficiently.
I doubt many would agree with my perspective, but after playing over 300 battles in this vehicle, this is the picture I’ve come to. It’s worth remembering that this tank used to sit at BR 6.7—think about why it was moved up.
18 Likes
All you gotta do is spawn a fighter, it really stands no chance agaisnt a spitfire or any other fighter except the Bf 109. Removing the APHE belt should be a last resort, if it is really that OP it should just get sent to 5.7.
Amx-13s shouldn’t go up. Nobody said that they were OP. It’s the tank that only relies on reload speed but keep pushing it’s BR will make its last advantage irrelevant.
I will say 6.7 is maximum.
11 Likes
Vehicle: AMX M4
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 6.7 —> 6.7
Reason
The AMX M4 should stay at 6.7 because the shell will be terrible against anything bigger than 7.3
The gun has no APHE and while the penetration is good enough, that’s just the counterpart for not having explosive fillers.
The reload is 6.7 seconds long, which is really long for something with an autoloader so if it goes up it needs at least a faster reload rate
10 Likes
Wow, the AMX-13 sure is equivalent to the M551 (76). At this point, I’m not even surprised.
9 Likes
Mode: Ground RB
Vehicle: KV IB
Change: 4.0 → 4.3
Reason:
The armour on the KV IB makes it a menace to any 3.0 and most 3.3 vehicles and its gun is only bad on paper. Even against 5.3 vehicles it can still penetarte most if not all frontally and Heavy Tanks are not even spawned that much when bottom BR making consideration for when they are top BR in a match far more important for balancing than the other way around.
6 Likes
7.7 is pretty much the perfect BR for the Char 25t. Perfectly fits into France’s dreaded 7.7 lineup as well
1 Like
give the su25 and a10 an airspwan
1 Like
Noticing that the UH-1B(JPN) is receiving additional rockets without change to it 's BR, is it possible that the SA.313B Alouette II might have it 's rocket pod loadouts provided to it also ? These could be useful in situations where the SS.11 ATGM 's are less helpful, such as dealing with groups of soft targets in Heli PvE.
2 Likes
I don’t like to play artificially slowed Ratel, i want increase their speed and br.
Currently its unplayable slow with just 20-30km/h.
1 Like
You’re thinking BMP-2M the BMP-2MD is a heavier less armored BMP-2 with no atgm at the same BR as the BMP-2 which is lighter, more armored and has an atgm but no thermals.
1 Like
IMO its fine at 8.7
@Smin1080p_WT Any chance you could ask why the Q-5A and L are going up to 10.0 in ARB?
They have luckluster fighting performance, low thrust, barely supersonic, no missiles, only dumb bombs and rockets (for the A, the L has LGB’s but what good are they in ARB?), and they only 18CMs. None of that screams move it up.
To be honest they aren’t even that good at 9.7 but for the sake of having them not be under tiered 9.7 is fine for them.
5 Likes
Mode: Ground RB
Vehicle: Churchil VII
Change: 4.7 → 4.3
Reason:
The Churchil VII has strong armour only on paper as its front is littered with weakspots and the turret roof can be overmatched by almost every gun in the game (around 45mm needed to do that) giving every vehicle it faces the chance to kill it in 1 or 2 shots irregardless of range or angle.
The Gun is not up to the task of fighting even most 5.3 vehicles let alone 5.7 with even T-34s needing 2 or 3 shots to kill when well aimed.
As for the reason given above the armour is also not too much to handle for 3.3 vehicles as those already mostly share the guns with the Tech Tree 4.3 vehicles of their respective nation. So consideration for the full down BR have been made when proposing this
7 Likes
Mother of cope, thats a terrible take
2 Likes
8.0? That’s a little low for a vehicle with a stabilized 30mm with thermals. 8.3 would suit it more tbh
Mode: GRB
Olifant 8.3 → 8.7
Laser Rangefinder and M111 very strong for the 8.3
2 Likes
Not too many changes on the Air RB front, but the changes that were made are excellent.
The Wyvern going up is fantastic, removing the XP-50s airspawn is also fantastic.
The C-2b at 7.7 is also a great change, the plane will be a lot more usable now (it was very very niche before) whilst not really being a problem since it’s still not that difficult to defend against in the short term. The 163 and Ki-200 going down makes sense given the severity of their most recent nerf.
The Q-5s have flares and great energy but I think 10.0 wasn’t really necessary.
1 Like
Mode: Ground Realistic Battles
Vehicle: Type 81 (C)
BR Change: 11.3 → 11.7
Reasoning:
The Type 81 (C) currently fits perfectly into Japan’s 11.3 Ground lineup, however even at the current BR, it already lacks significant capabilites against various common aerial threats, moving it up to 11.7 simply cannot be justified.
It is a short-range IR-Lock dependant SAM, which unlike to other (current) 11.7 SPAA’s (ADATS, FlaRakRad or HQ17 for that sake, though that is 11.3) cannot engage helicopters outside of point-blank range due to their low IR-signature (especially at low movement-speed), it doesnt have a search-radar either, so it’s ability to engage targets as a whole is solely dependant on visual-contact, which is problematic as aircraft tend to not render at longer ranges and can either outrange it, our climb high enough to the point where it essentially has no chance at ever seeing/detecting and therefore engaging them.
Other SPAA’s, such as ADATS, FlaRakRad, Tor M1, HQ17 or 2S6 are far more capable in basically every aspect, the last 3 at the same (current) or even lower BR. (They have SACLOS SAM’s and search-radars, which greatly increases their ability to detect and engage aircraft, especially helicopters, which the Type 81(C) can barely engange)
Moving it up to 11.7 would not only render it almost useless the moment it isnt downtiered significantly, but also remove the only proper SPAA from Japan’s 11.3 lineup.
15 Likes