Depends which vehicle are we talking about now, 2S38 could go up to 10.7 alongside the 9040’s, wouldn’t change their effectiveness, would help some 9.3’s breathe a bit easier.
I feel the 2S38 would have a very average KD even at 10.7 if you were looking at the stats of people who actually know its strengths and weaknesses. Same goes for the 9040’s moving them up still allows for them to function but without being able to seal club lower BR vehicles.
This is solved with decompression, not by moving select few vehicles you think are somehow too strong.
SO… I had my own thread talking about a subsect of this one and then anastasia felt like locking it for some reason so I guess we will continue the conversation from there to here I’m not opposed to historical accuracy in game I would prefer it AND this “Nerf” doesn’t even affect me as I don’t use the vehicles anymore because they are not historically accurate and let’s be honest neither are the opponents of the Tiger 2’s
however Gijin I don’t like hypocrisy if we’re going to Demand that one aspect of the game or ONE specific Tree is going to be “historically accurate” then let’s be honest most of the crew’s of these tanks in the field would have removed the speed limiter at their first opportunity when servicing the transmission and I know that because when I was deployed to Iraq at Camp victory I saw the mechanics in the motor pool “adjust” their word not mine the speed limiter on the M1A2 SEP v2 it has one on there too prevent it from potentially tearing itself apart…The key word being “potentially”
in addition to that you have a slew of other vehicles both air and ground that have more blatant and pressing things to be corrected so that they are historically accurate the T-34’s both 57/85 used a tractor engine that was not meant to propel armor forward historically speaking they should have engine problems in game and yes that means driving along and suddenly boom your engine goes out and you need to repair it because that’s “historically accurate” yes that’s the can of worms you idiots have opened
in addition to that there was no production version nor version of the M4 Sherman ever produced during World War II that had frontal armor significant enough to stop an 88 mm Slowly looks over at the M4A3E2 (76) W and yet we have this piece of “historically inaccurate” and I can hear the idiots now (oh just aim for the machine gun port)…WELL that’s historically inaccurate M4 Sherman’s faced off against Tiger 1’s and 2’s with 63 mm of front armor that is historically accurate so why does this one random tank get 101 mm of armor? News flash it shouldn’t it’s historically inaccurate
Gijin i could go on I could bring up the historical inaccuracies with the Messerschmitt BF-109 or the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 how they couldn’t chase a P47 above 13,000 ft how they couldn’t keep up with the P-47 Thunderbolt in a dive and the only production version of the 109 that could keep up with a P-47 after it received the paddle prop update past 13,000 ft was the Bf 109 G-2/trop running 100% synthetic fuel and manifold pressure risking self detonation my point Gijin is this if you’re going to be historically accurate towards one specific tree then you need to be historically accurate towards every tree lest you be called biased
https://www.youtube.com/@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles <----- Great place for info
That is decompressing though? Sure its not every vehicle but uts a slow start. Yes we need at least 15.0 ground but this is minor decompression.
No, if you don’t add additional BR steps you’re just moving compression somewhere else.
Just try and “decompress” stuff all the way down from WW2 tiers by moving up certain vehicles that are seemingly too strong. You’d probably end up with current 10.7s being pushed up to 11.3 or 11.7, which would be ridiculously compressed if max BR stays at 12.0, don’t you think ?
Vehicle: A-7E (US & Japan)
Gamemode: Air Realistic & Air Simulator
Change: ARB: 10.7 —> 10.3, ASB: 10.3 —> 10.0
Reason: The A-7E doesnt seem to provide any meaningful upgrade over the A-7D apart from a slightly more powerful engine. Whilst its bomb load and defensive suite are decent for the BR, most subsonic ground attack aircraft at this BR have Aim-9Ls (such as the Buc S2B) or are supersonic (Jaguar Gr1A). So lowering the A-7E down 0.3 would be a reasonable start for this aircraft.
Not really, what i suggested simply moved 2 strong vehicles up by a .4 increase, its not enough to make them unplayable as they basically wont change but it allows for weaker 9.3 vehicles to not have to deal with them. It is decompression, again i agree we should have serious full blown decompression from 1.0 and up but im a realist and thats simply not gonna happen, so im suggesting two vehicles that again wont change much if they go up.
:nerd emoji: “erm actshually, that’s fake news”
Vehicles can’t just move up without looking at their contemporaries.
If you move vehicle A from 10.3 to 10.7, one might question why vehicle B is just a single BR step higher, at 11.0, as they might deem vehicle B to be more powerful, so only having a single step of difference might not be fair. Same goes for vehicles below vehicle A.
Vehicle: Sea Harrier FA2
Gamemode: All
Change: Replace the 2x Aim-9L stock loadout with 2x Aim-9M
Reason: Most, if not all other aircraft at 13.0 start with IRCCM. An aircraft as underpowered as the Sea Harrier FA2 starting with 2x Aim-9Ls seems particularly unfair. Especially as you will ideally need the 2x Aim-120Bs that also come with the stock loadout and these are located in place of the gun pods. Meaning the Aim-9Ls are your only WVR weapon. Replacing the Aim-9Ls would be a major boost to the stock grind of the FA2
Vehicle: AV-8B+ (US & Italy)
Gamemode: All
Change: Replace the 2x Aim-9L stock loadout with 2x Aim-9M
Reason: Most, if not all other aircraft at 13.0 start with IRCCM. Whilst the AV-8B+ has the advantage of the fairly decent Harrier II airframe and fairly usable gun, this is still largely inadequate for 13.0 in WVR combat, and so as a subsonic aircraft, the AV-8B+ should get Aim-9Ms stock
Which is why i suggested the 9040C to move up as thats its closest contemporary. They are the most similar in nearly their respective role gameplay wise, both have similar mobility, both have similar survivability, one has far greater pen but slower fire rate, the 9040 only has a ready rack of 24 vs the 200 the 2S38 has, the 2S38 can lock aivraft the 9040’s cant, they both have HE-VT. compared to other IFV’s they match up the closest.
Looks at the Desert Warrior at 10.0.
Why is the 2S38 only a single BR higher?
Eh, I agree with FA2 getting 9M stock, but I remember stock grind with the AV-8B+ being a breeze.
Could be different now as it is going up and it will have big competition with the F-16s
If 2S38 and 9040C move up one could easily demand Freccia to move up to 11.0 for example, as it offers many benefits over those two. Same goes for vehicles under those, as one could demand a vehicle like BMP-3 or Begleit to move up as well.
It’s pretty much a never ending circle until you actually add more BR steps.
I wasnt intially thinking about the AV-8B+ but jsut for fairness sake.
Harrier II airframe can hold its own in a gunfight and has a very good A2G loadout for an easy stock grind. I imagine its quite a bit easier than the FA2
Probably for the same reason T-80U is only a single BR step lower than 2A7, compression.
And thats fine, some could argue for the Freccia to go up. Again its a fantasy idea to expect gaijin to properly decompress the game, moving both the 2S38 and 9040C up isnt going to hurt them.
The guy was out turning my Milan magically, a MILAN.
