overall im disappointed by the sheer lack of any BR changes, let alone major and sweeping changes like a half decent attempt at decompression.
1 Like
Literally nothing but GRB changes, why do I even hope
1 Like
Vehicle: MiG-21BISON
BR: 12.3 to 13.0
Other changes: access to two R-77-1s on inner pylons(2xR-77-1 and 2xR-73)
With the introduction of ARH capable premiums it would be reasonable to give the BISON as well. F-20A would be left for bug reporters to prove its AMRAAM capable so not gonna talk about that too much.
3 Likes
If anything. R-73 + R-27R is a more powerful combo than the R-60M and R-27ER for the Mig-29. Meaning if anything, its BR would be even better suited at 12.7 or maybe even higher. The loadout change should certainly be done, but a BR drop is unneeded (especially when you look at things like the F-16A at 12.3 without IRCCM missiles or the the Harrier Gr7 with IRCCM, Mig-29 with IRCCM would be far stronger than both)
It literally has the front plate of a tiger on its sides lol
Yeah. I’ve been waiting four months for new SB brackets. Maybe finally get 12.3 and 13.3 aircraft half playable, but alas… nothing once again
1 Like
Ground Realistic: Strv 103C
9.0 → 8.7
Considering the extremely limited ability of the vehicle not being stabilized, and being comparable to the already present SK-105A2 / JaPz.K A2 — being kinda more hard to kill but lacking a turret, thermal, and the light tank mechanic, while sharing the same firepower (fire rate and weak spot penetration potential) — it should probably even be lowered in BR. But I will not force it and simply accept it stays the same BR. However, I understand no one plays it, so it will increase in BR because no one cares about the Strv 103. plz like if you support this change
4 Likes
Vehicle: T95
BR: 7.0 to 6.7, RB | 7.3 to 7.0, AB
Other changes: Could instead move the T28 to 6.7 in RB and 7.0 in AB.
Reasoning: Just the T28 without the outer treads removed for transportation. Sure it might “provide extra armor” but you can just… aim slightly higher. It hardly impacts pen or anything. The mobility argument is basically pointless; they both are slow, and neutral steer at essentially the same speed (Which, afaik, it couldn’t actually neutral steer anyways). I mean really, it’s just the T28 but w i d e.
If you really wanted to be controversial about it, you could argue for moving the T95 to 6.3 in RB and 6.7 in AB to sit alongside the T28.
Vehicle #2 and #3: T32, T32E1
BR: 7.3 to 7.0 [T32], RB/AB/SB | 7.7 to 7.3 [T32E1] RB/AB/SB
The baseline T32 is essentially just a slightly differently armored and up-gunned T26E5. Still quite weak overall. As for both, the long 90 isn’t exactly great against what it tends to fight (T-55s, T-54s, pretty much anything with HEAT-FS, etc. Even sometimes struggles to front-pen Leopard 1s if there’s a slight angle, though US shells seem to struggle with angles anyways) The sides are extremely weak, being able to be gone through by just about anything, same for the rear. Only the front is actually armored (However not really mattering for the base T32, since it has the MG port). The mobility isn’t overly great, but that’s kind of to be expected. Both are generally quite sad heavy tanks for their BR.
Pen wouldn’t be that big of an issue anyways if APCR/HVAP wasn’t borderline useless (“Oh, your APCR/HVAP hit this crew member/ammo directly? Well, they’re only orange now.”).
Vehicle #4: Kugelblitz
BR: 7.0 to 6.7, RB/SB
Alternative: Bring back the Flakpanzer 341. Far more real than the Ostwind 2. At least this had an actual, steel hull, and wooden mockup turret.
The German SPAA tree has a decent BR gap (6.0 right to 7.0), which means if you want an SPAA, you have to either use an open top SPAA with double the guns (Zerstorer 45), which will essentially be strafed or MG’d to death in moments, or up your lineups BR to 7.0 at the price of halving your guns but getting a roof, which doesn’t seem like much, but given that most people will be using heavies at this point (Such as the German 6.7 lineup), this means having to fight far more vehicles with things that can wipe you out quickly, as 7.0 often sees 8.0. The Kugelblitz has sub-par mobility, using a Panzer IV hull, and thus also poor armor for the BR (As expected of SPAA vehicles anyways, but still). You won’t be doing much anti-tank regardless with the 30mms at 6.7 or 7.0 anyways, as by this point many things will either kill you too fast, or be too armored for you to defeat.
1 Like
Infact, ill be even more Honest, I think the FV4030 should be moved DOWN to 9.3, be given the Chieftains 8 second reload rate, and loose its APFSDS, And then the Challenger Mk2 Moved down to 10.0 so it doesn’t get sucked into the 11.3 hell hole.
1 Like
Would anyone be willing to Grind with me? 8.3 US
Add me if you can
Given L23 exists on the Chieftain mk10 at 9.0. 0 reason to lose it if its still at 9.3 with the same reload as the Cheiftain.
Could work I guess. Though with a slower reload rate, fixing the ready rack becomes even more critical.
(for the CR1, but should be the same)
Personally, I dont have much issue with the Mk2 and rather enjoy the BR and is far less toxic of an uptier than the 10.7 lineup can be (I also like the SHar FRS1e, jaguar GR1A and Stormer HVM)
It can die to many many 3.3s - 3.7s and beyond. It lacks a powerful enough gun to do anything more than 4.0
Check out this whole discussion.
It makes 0 sense the ARL is lower br, with better armor
Id argue the Mobility is a reason, The chieftain Mk10 has been able to keep its APFSDS at 9.0 due to how Turtle slow it is.
The 4030 is LEAGES more maneuverable, and it gets better sights, So letting it keep its APFSDS at 9.3 would be stupid OP.
L15A5 if properly modeled would have around 325-350mm of Penetration, and VERY good angled pen, Just like A3, so it would still work great.
Perhaps. certainly an option for it.
Though now its going to 10.0, could do with L23A1
12.3 with R-73s and R-27Rs is very undertiered.
I agree, and to go with this change XM8 and CCVL should both have their blow-out panel functionality fixed
2 Likes
A mig-29 with R-73s and R-27Rs is both too good for 12.7, but too bad for 13.0.
We need decompression to properly balance it, because R-73s would be very welcome on the Mig-29s.
2 Likes
Yeah, I was leaning towards 12.7 purely in relation to F-15A, Su-27, Gripen A and Mig-29G being 13.0. But its certainly not easy either way.
But definetly should get that loadout swap, stay put for now and get adjusted if needed later.
1 Like
Turm III 8.3 → 8.7
2 Likes