Planned Battle Rating Changes for February 2025

[Apollo_1641]

Seconded, my suggestion for this last time around also gained a lot of traction but it was passed over because of “statistics”.

Come on Gaijin, look at the vehicle itself and it’s specifications for once. It’s not a 6.7 vehicle, never was.

[AllNationEnjoyer]

@BlitzKrieger1

Despite the inevitable complaints, this set of changes are pretty reasonable

No.

@BlitzKrieger1

of course with some exceptions. Of course, decompression and moving strong vehicles UP is always desirable compared to moving weak vehicles DOWN, but what we have received is acceptable for the most part.

NINETY (90+) PLUS PERCENT OF THE AIR CHANGES ARE REVERSIONS OF PRIOR DECOMPRESSION

@BlitzKrieger1

However, when you move a plane down in BR, make sure that every aspect of that vehicle is appropriate for the lower BR, not just the whole package

AGREE

@BlitzKrieger1

Vehicles with poor flight performance and advanced missiles might look like they need to be moved down in BR since the plane as a whole package is not very good, but the missiles themselves are far too strong, and so every interaction involving that plane at its lower BR is unfair. In the process of balancing the plane, you have had to introduce a completely unbalanced missile.

FULLY AGREE

@BlitzKrieger1

HOWEVER, I do think that at 13.0, it could receive some stronger IR missiles, as could the F-14B

If realistic go for it, in referance to the IRIAF.

@BlitzKrieger1

The Su-22 family

@BlitzKrieger1

MiG-27s

These are attackers and should be treated as such regarding their air to air capability

@BlitzKrieger1

The F-4C, J35D and Su-17M2 all desperately needed to go down in BR since these vehicles were at 10.3+ without countermeasures. Consider appliyng the same logic to all vehicles without countermeasures in this BR range.

So compress the game? No.

@BlitzKrieger1

The J35A is quite rare and is difficult to fly, so it wont be pervasive at 9.3,

It will be after they 1. RESELL IT (they will) and 2. AFTER people realize its 9.3? There are a LOT of owners that just aren’t flying it because it’s mediocre right now. 9.3 makes it INSANELY overpowered. That is how much 0.3br matters currently BECAUSE the game is so compressed and this change is a further compression change.

@BlitzKrieger1

And finally, the F-16A. This is arguably one of the best flight models in the game, however it only has IR missiles, and ones without IRCCM at that. Because of this, it isnt particularly pervasive and thus I dont think it will become a problem at 12.3

Ok? You fight the literal F-16 in your F-4E or any other 11.3 and let me know how it goes! Also consider how much better this is than even jets at 12.0…

[hog4ndy]

Re.2005
Mode: Air Realistic
6.0 > 5.7

The prior BR increase for this aircraft has placed it in an uncompetitive state. It is significantly slower than many other aircraft in its BR range and often struggles to make it to the action in time. There are multiple other aircraft (Yak-3U, A7M2) that are equally well armed and outperfrom this aircraft at lower BRs.

[AllNationEnjoyer]

@hilapff

I can’t see the Hunter F.58 in the list. He’s the real menace around 9.7 ARB and its flares + good missiles can grand him a 10.0 if compared to a F8E FN or a M3C without flares.

It is fine at 9.7, the hunter is heavily limited by its flight model.

[BlitzKrieger1]

Which seems more unfair to you: The F-14A IRIAF with the strongest long range arh missiles in the game and a decent flightmodel with some of the best sustained turnrates in the game, facing 14.0s, or Vehicles with no launch warning, four sector RWR and limited countermeasres at 11.7 having to face Fakour-90s

[AllNationEnjoyer]

@ItzMikeyzWRLD-psn

Well the R-27s are actually the fake ones. The R-73s on the IRIAF worked, the R-27 didn’t.

I’ve seen no evidence personally that either worked.

@ItzMikeyzWRLD-psn

I would totally be in favor of removing the R-27R in favor of the R-73E.

If proven to be realistic this could be the solution to allowing it to be 13.0 and balanced.

[AllNationEnjoyer]

@boeinge8

Kurnass 2000 12.3 → 11.7 because why the heck ist a Phantom with Just 6 phyton 3 at the same br as the F16a after the Changes while beeing worse in every aspect and the missiles are not even good because the Lack of Radar missiles and the high br makes getting Kills Impossible

12.0, not 11.7

[hilapff]

GAB wirbelwind → wasn’t 4.0 its old BR? Why getting it to 4.7 to get it back down? What happened? Other than the AP nerf that made it a less potent anti tank, its efficiency against aircraft didn’t change much, and the removal of marker for aircraft straffing ground should help its survivability. For less kills in battle?

[sartt]

these people will whine about the f14 until its br 15

[Morvran]

Vehicle: B-26C (France)
Gamemode: Air Arcade and Air Realistic
BR Change: 4.7 —> 4.3
Reason: It is identical to the B-26B found on the US tech tree which is currently at 4.3 in both Air Arcade and Air Realistic

[AllNationEnjoyer]

@Hudler

congrats crybabies

way to enter a thread, especially since you’re the one crying about the br change that gaijin chose to do (community feedback hasnt even been accounted for yet)

[ItzMikeyzWRLD-psn]

If you’re going to critique the placement of the F-14, it’s severely dishonest to only state its upsides and inflate them up over the downsides. I don’t feel like explaining why you’re horrifically wrong. Do your own research.

[Morvran]

It should not be the same BR as the Hunter F6 which has no CMs or RWR. Its kinda insane they are at the same BR and the SRAAMs are simply not good enough at the moment to justify it. When so much has CMs, or is supersonic at or below its BR. Its pretty poor. Hunter F58 would be fine at 10.0, better than a lot of others would be at 9.7.

[Apollo_1641]

Ground Realistic Battles, XM8. 9.7 > 10.0/10.3.

No US lineup exists at 9.7, this light tank would be better served at a higher BR like 10.0 or 10.3 where it could in turn receive missing features like blow-out panels and stronger ammunition like M833 or M900 (which it used historically)

[hog4ndy]

I totally feel you. The Sabre & MiG changes were horrible. I just don’t see Gaijin undoing this when they justified it using “data.”

IMO, we should have:
8.3 - F-86A-5, MiG-15, CL-13 Mk.4
8.7 - F-86F-25, F-86F-2, MiG-15bis, MiG-15bis-ISH, CL-13 Mk.5
9.0 - MiG-17, MiG-17PF, CL-13 Mk.6, F-86F-40, Shenyang F-5, MiG-17AS, Lim-5P

[Miragen]

The Ariete also has one of the highest top speeds, T/W ratios, acceleration curves, etc of any subsonic!

So it’s the best knife fighter in a gun fight, the top speed is lower than that of a Sabre at 8.0.

[AllNationEnjoyer]

@Morvran_

It should not be the same BR as the Hunter F6 which has no CMs or RWR.

Current F6 should be 9.3 as it is (regarding current compression) That would fix your issue alone. The F58 is fine in current compression metrics, the F6 is not.

@Morvran_

Hunter F58 would be fine at 10.0

If by that you mean, one of the worst 10.0s, sure? It is not anywhere near as good as you ppl think.

[One_Nut_Wondah]

Air Realistic, J35XS. 10.7 > 10.0. Lack of all aspect missles, lack of radar warning, offset cannon and low fire rate proves unreliable. plane bleeds all its speed within one turn if you even think about turn fighting. all around even if this gets moved to 10.3 to get upteired to 11.3 will prove to be nothing but a suffer fest.

[Exe_Smells]

please downtier the r2y2 to 7.7 now that you’re thinking of removing it.

[BlitzKrieger1]

@AllNationEnjoyer

So compress the game? No

In a way, yes, but in this case it isnt a problem since these vehicles are completely overtiered

@AllNationEnjoyer

9.3 makes it INSANELY overpowered

It will be strong, sure, but it wont be insanely overpowered. It has essentialy no capacity to maintain energy whatsoever. Yes, it is very strong in other aspects, but its still worse than a MiG-19, lets be honest.

@AllNationEnjoyer

lso consider how much better this is than even jets at 12.0…

This is my point. I dont agree with the change, im just saying that there IS some justfication for it, which i acknowledge