IRCCM doesn’t change anything to you ?
Let’s say a 14.3br was added, then ok fair point, otherwise I stand by that.
The Su-25BM exists.
The Mirage F1 exists.
Im aware, but that same logic can be applied to the 103 which obviously has two seperate powerpants connected to the drive train and hydraulic pumps. They can make it as slow as they want but it has to have at least some movement to make it a viable vehicle at that BR. When you compare it to other MBTs it lacks in every field except firepower and survivability and what good do you have from all the firepower and survivability if you cant return fire and youre just forced to sit there and pray the enemy has a skill issue.
Fair enough.
Well your first point is the reason why ESS works so well.
Even with access to thermals, people don’t really use them since most vehicles only have gen 1 thermals and crappy field of view / zoom.
Not only that, Russian / Chinese MBTs don’t get access to them – which means you can make them easy pickings (as well as the fact that they don’t have good reverse gears).
That’s the thing, I think it would be too good for 8.7.
Most vehicles use DM23 / crappier darts.
AMX-30B2 Brenus is at 8.7, and it still somehow manages to cope (even without the stabilizer).
9.0 seems more reasonable, though I think there needs to be more decompression around 9.3 anyways, which would give more breathing room for things like the Leopard 1A5, T-72s, Strv 105s, Magach 6Bs / M60 TTS, MBT-70, and AMX-32 (105mm).
The AMX-32 (120), along with the others I listed,
could all probably go to 9.7 without any issues.
2 Likes
Large chunk of them still doesn’t.
IIRC, only chinese / italian / russian MBTs mostly don’t.
That’s still far from almost all.
T62 is 8.7-8.3
I’d say ~70% or so, maybe 80%.
Though I could go through each tech tree at 9.3 and see for sure.
T-72As, T-64A and KPZ/MBT already take up a large chunk of vehicles you see at 9.3 that lack thermals.
Acting like thermals aren’t a really good thing to have at 9.3 is asinine.
Yeah no, the 1B/E’s are fine where they are since any flavor of uptier renders them completely useless.
All it takes is a 75mm Sherman to look at you and you die, no joke.
Vehicle: T-62
Gamemode: GRB
BR Change: 8.7 → 8.3
We currently have base T-55A on 8.3, and upgraded and improved T-55s are going to 9.0.
It would be logical for base T-62 to go to 8.3 while we have upgraded and improved T-62M at 9.0
3 Likes
I agree that thermals is great to have, but I agree with HunLepto that most of the vehicles at 9.3 don’t really have a use for them other than to see through ESS, or in some rare instances find enemy tanks from very far away (which is still quite difficult because of the generation thermals and pointless because of the crappy FOV).
I’d say half of them with thermals don’t even have access to ESS of their own too.
EC-665 UHT should stay on 12.0.
Reason
It’s not as good compared to french variant.
It got 1km less range compared to spikes and no gun to self defence.
And having HOT 3’s as another atgm variant vs hellfires on french
1 Like
He’s just trying to handwave a clear advantage in order to make his case stick.
We can all play that game and use “x doesn’t matter, y is useless because I say so” argument.
I think it’s best that majority of players don’t get stomped at 3.0 by the few KV-1E/B spammers than majority of the players at 5.0 stomping the few KV-1E/B spammers.
Besides, 4.3 doesn’t seem too harsh.
Its hull armour is roughly 200mm when angled at 45 degrees, which is enough to stop even the Panther’s gun.
The turret is much weaker, yes, though it still has similar effect as the MAUS, where it can angle its turret and become practically impenetrable (other than through the cheek armour).
1 Like
Thing is, not using a situational tool you have in a situation where it could excel at is just a skill issue rather than an objective point.
Honestly, fair point, I actually didn’t even think of this tactic. Could be a reasoning to just remove its ESS tho if it would make it broken.
The thing is, every other vehicle has atleast something else to utilize. Leopards have great speed with high agility at the cost of armor, American tanks have a good balance of stats around the border, Soviet tanks have very good armor at the cost of mobility, etc. Problem is, what does the AMX-32 (105) has at its current BR that would make a reasonable choice to use it? There’s nothing it excels at and when compared to others, sometimes does worse even in comparison to things that are supposed to be shortcomings of other vehicles. I’d also be fine with it going to 9.0, but the problem is, there’s literally not a single French 9.0 vehicle at all, not even a premium, so you would have to uptier your whole 8.7 line-up just for 1 vehicle.
Again, I’d be happy even with just the solution of lowering its reload speed, because even the devblog mentioned that instead of being objectively worse to the AMX-32 (120), it’s supposed to be a sidegrade instead that trades firepower for faster reload. The thing is, this vehicle is in desparate need of any kind of buff, because at its current state, you’re handicapping yourself by playing it, especially when its upgunned brother is better in straight up every single way.
Put all R2Y2 in Air Realistic at 7.0 where they truly belong.
2 Likes
While I agree with most of the changes you propose, I don’t think lowering the BR of hunters is a viable solution:
-When it came out at 9.0 it was very good (at least the BeLeRus one), at 8.7 it would be overpowered, your equivalent would be the Lim-5P/MiG-17PF and sabres.
-I would rather see other planes move up than it moving down (just like Gaijin did with the F-86 and MiG-15 at 8.0, which only created more BR compression ).
While it could be seen as a skill issue on the enemies’ part, you can mask the ESS with smoke grenades or pre-deploy it as a person comes around a corner (may just think it’s just smoke grenade plume too).
There’s plenty of ways to use it that may not be as easy to catch by even some experienced players.
Make what broken?
ESS isn’t really that broken as long as the enemy player is aware of it.
This is just based on the enemies’ awareness and how well you can conceal its presence until it’s too late for them.
I’d say it’s fair game.
The 9.0/9.3 Leopards are not that mobile, and is one of the reasons why I think they’d be fine at 9.3 while the other vehicles (I had mentioned before) would get moved up to 9.7.
OF-40 MTCA is faster (23hp/ton instead of just 19.5), and has better turret rotation speed (40 degrees per sec instead of 24 degrees per sec)… at the cost of thermals.
I think the OF-40 MTCA would be fine at 9.7, and the Leopard 1A5 at 9.3.
Compared to the Leopard 1A5, it may be worse off in mobility (though I might have to check with some friends), but it gets better reverse speed (not that useful but can get you out of bad situations quicker), a 20mm (to take down lightly armoured vehicles more easily than a 12.7mm, as well as taking out barrels and taking out tracks more quickly), and ESS trick (to actually utilize the thermals).
I think that’s a fairly reasonable trade-off.
I don’t think it would be necessary if the AMX-32 goes up to 9.7, and a lot of other ‘overperforming’ 9.3s get moved up to 9.7 too.
1 Like
Mode: Air Realistic Battles
Vehicle: JH7A (CHN)
Change: 12.3 → 11.7
Reasoning: FM wise it’s close to F5E, only bigger and faster (not fast for your BR tho). Still, you are an attacker without IRCCM missiles. Dedicated fighters at 12.0 easily outperform you even get bases before you could, I see no issue place this attacker at 11.7. Note there’s already an F5E at 11.3 gets 4 all aspect missiles (2 Python3 included).
4 Likes