I think if a change has to happen, limit it to 34kmh, horsepower stays. It’s just a really heavy tank that can’t afford to lose 100hp. And yes, I would say that, on top of 100 issues regarding volumetric and many others (unecessary UI changes that you can’t even discuss, have a thread on etc), this is something that could’ve waited
1 Like
Char-25T: Move it from 8.0 to 7.7, or give it HEAT-FS shell that has been proposed. Its raw performance doesn’t make it fit at 8.0.
13 Likes
Vehicle: Hunter F6 (Britain)
Gamemode: Air Realistic & Air Sim
BR Change: 9.7 -----> 9.3
Reason: The Hunter F6 has no advantage over the French equivalent that is currently at 9.3 except for the SRAAMs which are in an extremely poor state. Though unlike the Harrier Gr1, actually has a usable airframe. It is also weaker than the Hunter F58 which shares the same BR but has CMs and better AAMs
Preferred solution. Overhaul SRAAM (2km range and fix the buggy TVC at short range)
8 Likes
Mode: Air Realistic Battles
Aircraft: F6F-5N, F6F-5N (France)
Change: 4.3 → 4.0
Reasoning: While equipped with two 20 mm cannons, the F6F-5N retains the same powerplant as the standard F6F-5 (BR 3.3). The additional weight of the cannons and the drag from the radar pod result in worse flight performance and energy retention.
8 Likes
Vehicle: Hunter F.58
Gamemode: Air Sim
BR Change: 9.7 ----> 10.0
Reason: This Hunter is much stronger than any other Hunter in game currently. with the best AAMs, RWR and 60 CMs. This puts it above its equals at 9.7 such as the Hunter FGA9 or F6 with no CMs and weaker AAMs. It already moved up to 10.0 in RB and should do the same in SB
I’ve done a post for each above, but just wanted to do a single post just outlying the rather stupid BRs of the Hunters at the moment in SB for the devs to seriously look at/consider.
1 Like
If prior BR change proposals are any indicator of what is to come, then Gaijin is going to ignore about 98.7% of all these proposals. They have effectively made up their mind and the feedback doesn’t matter. The 2S38 not going up despite being requested with every BR change post is all the proof you need.
1 Like
Please read this CMs
At 9.7:
Hunter F.58 with 2x Aim-9Ps and CMs
Hunter F6 with 4x SRAAM (would be fine if they fixed SRAAMs)
Hunter FGA9 with 2x Aim-9E
Hunter F58A (1971) with 2x Aim-9E
All 4 have the best engine
At 9.3:
J-34 with 2x 9Bs - This is just a Hunter F4 which only really gets more internal fuel over the Hunter F1 from what I can find
At 9.0:
Hunter F6 (France) with 2x Aim-9Bs - Unlike the J-34, the Hunter F6 gets a more powerful engine and the improved wing design, meaning it is superior to the J-34 in pretty much every respect. It also gets drop tanks which neither the J-34 or any of the British Hunters get.
Hunter F1 with no AAMs - Similar performance to the Hunter F4 (J34) but hasn’t got any AAMs at all. This could do with being at a lower BR compared to even the J-34, but being the same BR as the Hunter F6 is just insane.
Overall, the Hunter F58 needs to go up in BR. As does the Hunter F6 (France) with the J34 coming down in BR
1 Like
Leclerc MSC: Keep it at 10.7, the reduction in armor necessitated that it was kept at its current battle-rating where it performs fine.
7 Likes
Vehicle: HF-24 Marut
Gamemode: Air Realistic
BR Change: None
Change: Removal of Air-spawn / Move to Rank VI
Reason: It is a fighter aircraft with 4x 30mm ADENs and a high sub-sonic speed, comparable aircraft such as the Hunter F1 do not get air-spawn nor do significantly weaker aircraft such as the Buccaneer S.1 which has 0 A2A capabilities and is substantially slower than the Marut. There is 0 justification for the Marut to have air-spawn other than to make it better than all other options, if it’s air-spawn is to remain, then other aircraft, such as the Hunters should receive air-spawn.
1 Like
Vehicle: Sea Harrier FRS1 (SQV)
Gamemode: Air Sim
BR Change: 11.3 ----> 11.0
Reason: The Sea Harrier FRS1 currently holds a Battle Rating in Air Sim that is 0.3 higher than it is in RB and a BR 0.7 higher than equivalent 4x Aim-9L carriers such as the A-10A Late. The Sea Harrier’s main competition at 11.3 is the Mig-23ML/MLD which are superior in every single respect to the Sea Harrier.
In the future, this BR may be appropriate for the Sea Harrier FRS1 but in its current highly unfinished state, it lacks much of IRL capabilities and so needs a lower BR.
It should be noted the Sea Harriers currently do not have basic capabilities that are highly essential for Air Sim. Such as a gunsight modeled.
2 Likes
Vehicle: Sea Harrier FRS1 & Sea Harrier FRS1e
Gamemode: All
Change: Reclassify the aircraft from “Strike Aircraft” to “Naval Fighter”
Reason: The Sea Harrier FRS1 is the navalised version of the Harrier I airframe intended for shadower interception and fleet defence. Whilst it was capable of carrying A2G weapons and did use them. It was not its primary role within the Royal Navy and the ability to carry bombs does not dictate other fighters being classed as Strike Aircraft.
This change has been mitigated in need due to the changes to SP planned, but it should still occur
1 Like
Vehicle: Sea-Vixen F.A.W Mk.2
Gamemode: Air Realistic
BR Change: 9.0 ----> 8.7
Reason: It has no guns and extremely easy to defeat rear-aspect only IR Missiles. Anything with flares renders it unplayable (not that you need flares to defeat the Red Tops, turning slightly is enough). Increasing its BR increases the number of aircraft with flares it can encounter and therefore it is rendered unplayable. Equally, compared to aircraft such as the F3H-2, it stands no chance. The F3H-2 is faster, has guns and comparable missiles. You are completely outclassed and if you get uptiered, you might as well J-out on the runway, because there is little you can do against Mig-21s, Hunters or F-4Cs
Alternative solution: Give Red Tops their missing All-aspect lock ability and add the Sea-Vixen’s Missing Napalm (2 year old bug report for those)
3 Likes
Vehicle: Tornado Gr1 (Britain)
Gamemode: Air Realistic and Air Sim
BR Change: 11.7 ----> 11.3
Reason: It is the weakest of all 6 Tornado IDS aircraft at that BR range with the much weaker MK101 engine, this severely impact the Tornado Gr1’s overall performance. This is partially mitigated by the fact it can carry Mk13 bombs instead of Mk83s, which do allow for slightly more damage per bomb run, but this is a minimal increase in output and only partially mitigates the weaker engines. Additional differences such as PGMs have no impact on performance within Air gamemodes and are rarely, if ever, used.
Compared to the 3x Tornado IDS already at 11.3 (Tornado A200, Tornado MFG and Tornado WTD61) there is no justification at all for this Tornado IDS to be at any higher of a BR and should be lowered to match their rating.
Mk101 engines are ahistorical and should be replaced with the Mk103 engines that all other Tornado IDS have. There is no justification for this nerf. Only area where this change could affect balance is in ground modes with the Tornado Gr1 have a notable advantage over its contemporaries (Tornado A200A and Tornado ASSTA1) then increase its Ground Realistic Battle Rating to 11.7. In no other aircraft is “balanced” achieved through engine nerfs
6 Likes
Mode: Air Realistic Battles
Vehicle: Hunter F.6 (UK)
BR Change: 9.7 → 9.3
Once upon a time, this vehicle terrorised lobbies with its extremely agile SRAAM missiles. However, the SRAAMs are a shell of what they once were, and are now little more than a gimmick against an opponent who knows about their capabilities. The SRAAM cannot hit a target flying away from it at Mach 1.0 at SL past 800m. It is more useful than an AIM-9B, but this is simply because they are fairly rare and many opponents do not expect them. The Hunter F.6 (UK) should not be a higher BR than the Hunter FGA.9, which has AIM-9Es and a superior flight model, whilst not itself being particularly excellent for its tier.
8 Likes
Vehicle: Tornado IDS (1995) (Italy)
Gamemode: Air Realistic and Air Sim
BR Change: 11.7 ----> 11.3
Reason: It has identical performance to the earlier Tornado IDS aircraft (Tornado A200, Tornado MFG and Tornado WTD61) in every single respect and therefore has no justification for being a higher BR within air gamemodes
6 Likes
Vehicle: Tornado ASSTA1 (Germany)
Gamemode: Air Realistic and Air Sim
BR Change: 11.7 ----> 11.3
Reason: It has identical performance to the earlier Tornado IDS aircraft (Tornado A200, Tornado MFG and Tornado WTD61) in every single respect and therefore has no justification for being a higher BR within air gamemodes
6 Likes
Vehicles that need to go up in BR panzerhaubitze 2000 7.7 lrf, good mobility and reload whilst one taping 6.7s?? Really? Needs to be 8.0 all day long, bmd4 it’s mobility, auto cannon, atgm, reload, and scouting ability makes it far more suitable for higher BR where other vehicles have similar mobility and can react on par with it. The bmp3 can follow tbh, 2s38… Nuff said, vidar 8.3 similar to the pnzer 2000 but with great thermals, The PT-16/14 going up in BR is fire provided it gets a better round and it’s composite armour in the turret which was bug reported over a year ago now. Also the Hunter needs to go up in ground, that thing out ranges most of the AA’s available.
Vehicle: Tornado GR4
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 12.3 —> 11.7
Mitigation: Increase the SP cost of Brimstones notably on the Tornado GR4
Reason: The Tornado GR4 doesn’t currently present a massive upgrade over other Tornado IDS at it 11.3 and its hard to justify it being 12.3. Lets break it down.
It has the identical flight performance to the other 6x Mk103 Tornado IDS, 3 of which are actually 10.0 in GRB and the other 3 are considered fairly weak 11.3s. It does have superior A2A performance with Aim-9M but this would fine at 11.7 given the performance of CAP at 11.7 such as the Mig-29 and is still far weaker than aircraft like the F4F ICE or Su-27/Su-33 at 12.0. It also has more CMs, but those are rarely a deciding factor and shouldn’t have a radical impact on BR placement. it does also gain MAWS but so do many other aircraft such as the A-10C and the A200C is also due to recieve MAWS and Im not expecting MAWS alone to move it from 11.3 to 12.3.
This leaves A2G performance, the GR4 has the same Targeting pod and if anything weaker GBU options to that found on the A200C (MLU) Tornado currently at 11.3, so those shouldn’t have an impact. The PGM-500/2000s whilst being the IR version and so an upgrade over the TV version found on the GR1 aren’t radically better either and at most justify a 0.3 BR increase, so in this case, to 11.7.
That leaves the Brimstones, which are in a massively nerfed state currently with no fire-and-forget capabilities. They also have extremely limited range when used on the Tornado, and so you are often within range of even the weakest SPAA when using them and they require you to remain well within range of those SPAA for them to be used. Their greatest usage on the GR4 is to simply decoy the Pantsir whilst your PGM-2000s do the actual killing. Much like GBU-39s do on other aircraft. But they have a potential to provide sustained CAS, but so does the Su-39 with 16x Vikhrs vs the A-10C with 6x AGM-65Ds and the Su-39 is actually at the lower BR. So this shouldn’t be much of an issue either.
But that having been said, its the only reason I can think for the GR4 to be anything other than 11.7 in GRB. So if they are such an issue, increase their SP cost by notable amount. This total eliminates them being a major issue and balances them well.
As a final point of note. Lowering the GR4 to 11.7 allows it to be used in an 11.7 line-up. In its current 12.3 placement, it will be directly competing against the 13.0 multi-roles 99% of the time and as a result, has little to no value over other more capable aircraft such as the Harrier Gr7 and Typhoon FGR4.
3 Likes
@Stona_WT Can you get the balance team to sort out the Sovetsky Soyuz, it is outperforming everything. Stats gleamed from stat shark here:
5 Likes
Vehicle: Su-22M3/M4
Gamemode: Air Simulator Battles
BR Change: 11.0 ----> 11.3
**Reason:**It has very good handling and decent top speed and can be armed with 6x All-aspect IR missiles. When the average is 2 or maybe 4 all-aspect IR missiles on sub-sonic aircraft like the Sea Harrier or A-10 at this BR or supersonic aircraft like the Tornado IDS armed with only 2x Aim-9Ls at 11.3. It is insane to me that the Su-22M3 can operate with 6x All-aspect IR missiles at such a low BR. It’s low CM count might be why it is at this BR in Air Realistic, but in Air Sim, its just too OP.