Uptiering the Type 81C again because the IvanBoos are crying bloody murder about their Frogfoots getting slapped out of the sky.
Absolute clownery, Gaijin. Knock it off.
Cute flag.
1 Like
I think the same about the t55 that will be on 9.0. 279 is much better than the t55 in every way - mobility/gun/armor. So it’s probably logical that 279 should also go up
A-10C
Mode Ground realistic battles.
12.0->11.7 or 11.3 like soviet counterpart su-25Tand su-39
Slow strike aircraft , where main soviet counterpart what has vikhrs , better speed , ir jammers,targeting pod .
A10 has 6 mavericks and SU’s has 2 tv missiles , 2 laser missiles and 16 vikhrs on top loadout.
In this current state a10C also has to deal constantly against fox 3 slingers on ground games what su’s doesnt have to meet so often in 11.3 lineup.
(GRB) AH-60 (Israel) 12.0 > 12.0 — Should be kept on its BR. Heavy helicopter without adequate weapons against aircraft. Cannot be higher than Ka-52.
3 Likes
they are moving these ir slingers up. But least that has 16 spikes. Think about german EC, 8 pars with 7km range and no gun…
(GRB) Kfir C.10 12.7 > 12.0 — third generation aircraft with 4 arhs and 2 laser bombs. Not even close to rafales, eurofighters and su-30. No IR missiles (at this br the python-3 is not a missile, because most enemy pilots don’t even need to do anything with it due to the presence of maw on their aircraft, which defeats missile by itself).
3 Likes
Only if they separated the engines and made it so if you had at least one functional you could still traverse. But even then if the transmission at the front is taken out you’re not going anywhere.
Well nobody else has a 4s reload on a practically endless supply of 50rds, so this seems more than fair to me. You also get an LRF before most other nations do.
the 103 bearly work as intended in to way it can be considered betther then the SK-105A2 / JaPz.K A2 by the same principles
(GRB) Kurnass 2000 11.3 > 11.3 — keep its BR. On 11.7 there is a Harrier with high-explosive Mavericks and a quality container. On 12.0 there is already a Harrier with 9M and 120.
For example Su-39 has better anti-air capabilities due to the R-73 (the best IR missile in the game against missiles without irccm in the K2K), a much larger number of high-precision missiles, a radar with ACQ modes (with an upward view, which allows you to throw the R-73 in a rate fight) and TWS. This jet doesnt get its BR increased and its not even playing against S1… but you have to play against them on a phantom rofl.
If you increase BR of Kurnass, you should do it with Su-25T/39 as well. Otherwise it seems unfair.
1 Like
5 aircraft from rank V change BR (Air RB)
- F9F-2 : 8.0 → 7.7
- Me 262 A-1a : 7.0 → 6.7
- Meteor F Mk 4 G.41F : 7.7 → 7.3
- J21RA : 6.7 → 6.3
- Tu-4 : 8.0 → 7.7
Those have a longer reload, are less mobile, are way taller and easier to notice, and less protected. It’s a tradeoff.
I wasn’t referring to arcade at all?
(GRB) Namer 30 10.7 > 10.3 — What do we have here:
- “light tank” that loses in speed to absolutely everything on its BR
- does not have adequate armament
- is not comparable in firepower to similar class vehicles in the form of 2s38 and hstv-l - it barely penetrates the main battle tank in the side…
- …but it cant flank due to its speed
- the closest analogue in the form of puma has mobility and does not remain without ammo when getting hit in its turret
- has a broken damage model, which makes namer lose its spikes (in protective cover) and tracks (lol) after being hit in 30mm ammo box
Report on the last point:
Spoiler
As an additional option, I suggest adding another 6-8 spikes to his hull so that he could at least play as an ATGM carrier of dubious effectiveness.
1 Like
So, both are 8.7 boats for now. Same reload, don’t lie — practically the same firepower. That extra 10 mm doesn’t really matter for them. No thermals (gen 2 btw), no drones, no spotting, no turret — one stays at 8.7, the other doesn’t , less mobile then a strv 103 ???
The goddamn longwing meteor does NOT need to be 7.3. The Sea Meteor is strong enough at 7.3 as it is, the G.41F will just be a faster version of that.
2 Likes
(GRB) Merkava Mk.2D 9.7 > 9.3 — not comparable with the leo 2’s, m1 kvt’s and t80ud’s. Should’nt play against them at all.
Lmao what? That doesn’t make any sense. One has a dart, the other doesn’t?
(GRB) Namer Tsrikhon 11.3 > 10.3 — Basicly the same thing with RCWS-30:
- “light tank” that loses in speed to absolutely everything on its BR
- does not have adequate armament
- is not comparable in firepower to similar class vehicles in the form of 2s38 and hstv-l - it barely penetrates the main battle tank in the side…
- …but it cant flank due to its speed
- the closest analogue in the form of puma has mobility and does not remain without ammo when getting hit in its turret
- active protection broken
Report got accepted without any fixes for months:
Spoiler
As an additional option, I suggest adding another 6-8 spikes to his hull so that he could at least play as an ATGM carrier of dubious effectiveness.
1 Like
(GRB) Merkava Mk.3B/C/D/Ra’am Sagol 11.3 > 10.7 — for the current configuration. Its enemies are early Leopard 2, not tops. Comparing it to Fuji is just ridiculous.
Alternatively, give it 5s of reload time and send it to 11.0.
2 Likes
(GRB) Merkava Mk.4B/LIC/M 12.0 > 11.3 — worse than M1A1 AIM. Not a competitor to the tops. First of all, 4M was raised to 12.0, because “well, have to get top of the line mbt with maximum BR”, then 4B and 4LIC were sent there with the words “well, we conducted an investigation and came to the conclusion that the Merkava feels better on 11.3, i.e. its deserved BR, than on 12.0, so we are raising BR of other versions”.
Active protection has not been working for several months already.
Why do I think merks cant compete with 2a7, t90 and others:
- does not have survivability
- getting one tapped in to silhouette
- mediocre mobility
- bad horisontal
1 Like