I don’t understand how they do these are some of the worst changes I’ve seen in awhile
1 Like
T25 literally has worse acceleration than the M26.
I much prefer using the T20 at 6.3 than the T25 due to the stabilizer, reload and significantly better mobility.
1 Like
That’s a change they added to it not a bug
Gaijin hates France, there’s almost no point to continuing playing the nation.
5 Likes
M82 as it is implemented right now has comparable pen to Pzgr.39/42.
1 Like
All commentary is regarding Realistic Battles.
Planned Changes
Csaba
1.3 → 1.0
Good.
Flakpanzer 38
1.3 → 1.7
Good.
Stuart I, M3A1
1.7 → 2.0
Good.
PzSpw 204(f) (KwK)
1.7 → 2.0
No comment.
Pbil m/40
1.7 → 2.0
No comment.
Pvkv IV
3.3 → 3.0
No comment.
AMX 13 (FL-11)
4.0 → 4.3
Not sure if this change is necessary. The 75mm SA 49 is not a particularly excellent gun, and overall the tank is on par with the M24 Chaffee.
AMX 13 DCA 40
4.3 → 5.0
No comment.
Leopard 40/70
5.0 → 5.3
Good.
M41A3 (CN)
5.0 → 5.3
Good. Arguably it should go higher, as the APDS on the standard M41A1 is not a main selling point of the tank. The AP round is already very capable, comparable to the 17-pounder.
TPK 6.41
5.3 → 5.7
No comment.
AMX 10P
5.3 → 5.7
No comment.
T20
6.0 → 6.3
Not sure about this change either. The 76mm M1 doesn’t hold up well the higher it goes, even with the stabilizers.
AMX M4
6.7 → 7.0
No. The French Rank 5 is already struggling quite a lot, this is not a necessary change. Compared to a tank like the Panther II, it achieves parity in firepower but lacks armor protection to make it worthwhile.
Type 99 HSP
7.0 → 7.3
No comment.
T95
7.0 → 7.3
Sure.
AML 90, AML 90 (ISR) Eland 90 Mk. 7
7.3 → 7.7
No comment.
Char 25t
7.7 → 8.0
Not necessary. See below.
AMX 50 (TO 90/930)
7.7 → 8.0
No, it should be conceived as an “alternative” to something like the M48A1, which wield similar firepower but trades armor for mobility. The 90mm guns, regardless of ammunition type, do not hold up against 9.0 opponents, and many 8.7 ones too.
SOMUA SM
7.7 → 8.0
Not needed.
EBR 90 (1963)
7.7 → 8.0
No comment.
Falcon
8.0 → 8.3
No comment.
Strela-10M2
9.3 → 9.7
No comment.
Type 81(C)
10.0 → 11.0
No comment.
TCM AGS
10.3 → 11.0
No comment.
SB 2M-100
1.3 → 1.0
The aircraft is a high-speed bomber, but 1.0 might make it even more untouchable than it already is. It is much faster than almost all contemporary fighters.
J 9
2.0 → 2.3
No comment.
Pe-3-1
2.0 → 2.3
While better than the regular Pe-3 (Pe-3-2), the differences are fairly minor. It’s not a particularly good heavy fighter or ground attack aircraft.
Fw 200 C-1
2.3 → 2.0
No comment.
He 111 H-3
2.3 → 2.0
No comment.
Hs 129 B-3
2.3 → 2.0
No comment.
B-239E
2.3 → 2.7
Good.
Do 217 N-1
2.7 → 2.3
No comment.
I-29
2.7 → 3.0
No comment.
Il-4
3.0 → 2.7
The Il-4 is equal to or better than the DB-3B in every way, offering the same flight characteristics but improved defensive and suspended ordnance.
Pe-3bis
3.0 → 2.7
Good.
Me 410 A-1/U4
3.0 → 2.7
No comment.
A-20G-25
3.0 → 2.7
Sure, but now it sits an entire 1.0 below the Soviet A-20G-30, despite having the same flight performance, only less ordnance.
A-36
3.0 → 2.7
No. The A-36 has some quite decent flight performance as-is, and with gun pods and the attacker classification it becomes incredibly destructive when played as a heavy fighter.
Yak-9M
3.3 → 3.7
No comment.
Mustang Mk. Ia
3.3 → 3.7
No comment.
Me 410 A-1
3.7 → 3.3
No comment.
Me 410 B-1
4.0 → 3.7
No comment.
Firebrand TF. IV
4.0 → 3.7
Sure, it’s not a very meta fighter or strike-fighter.
P-51D-5, P-51D-10, P-51D-20, P-51D-20 (CN), J 26
4.3 → 4.0
Not sure how I feel about this.
B-26B
4.7 → 4.3
No comment.
Do 217 E-2
4.7 → 4.3
No comment.
Su-6 (M-71F)
4.7 → 4.3
No comment.
F4U-4
4.7 → 4.3
Doesn’t strike me as necessary, but oh well.
J2M5
4.7 → 5.0
No comment.
A6M5 Ko
4.7 → 5.0
No comment.
Yer-2 (ACh-30B) (both)
4.7 → 4.3
Good.
J2M2
4.7 → 5.0
No comment.
PB4Y-2 (all)
5.3 → 5.0
Good.
J6K1
6.3 → 6.7
Still not sure about this, the high altitude performance it has doesn’t really come into play during regular WT matches.
F9F-5
8.3 → 8.0
This bracket of jets needs decompression.
J 29D
8.7 → 8.3
Ditto.
Sagittario 2
9.0 → 9.3
Despite its strong flight performance, the Sagittario needs to face opponents that do not have advanced missiles, highlighting the need for more air decompression.
Top Tier Air
Max BR → 12.7
A good change, but more needs to be done.
Yubari
4.3 → 4.7
No comment.
Blagorodnyy, Spokoinyy, Neustrashimy
5.0 → 5.3
Justified.
Kurama
6.0 → 5.7
No comment.
Suggested Changes
Most 8.0+ tanks
Current BR +0.3/0.4
The changes introduced in October 2023 undid some of the progress towards BR Decompression that were introduced in the August 2023 BR changes. Several late-WWII vehicles, such as IS-2, are once again moving into the realm of early Cold War tanks with high-penetrating subcaliber and shaped charge munitions. While I applaud the work towards decompression, the current course of action simply revoked the benefits of BR decompression after only 2 short months, rather than created long-term change.
Most 9.3+ tanks
Current BR +0.6/0.7
Similar to above, the August 2023 changes also reverted the progress of the changes made in April 2023. In many instances, vehicles which were separated by the April update have now been put back together as of August. If the past two episodes of decompression are to actually have a lasting and meaningful impact, they must be separated again.
Most 9.0+ Helicopters
Current BR +0.3/0.4
This section of helicopters is particularly powerful due to the lack of long-range anti-aircraft capabilities of ground forces around that BR. Most SPAA around 9.0-9.7 are IR-guided MANPADS missies (PGZ04, Type 93, Strela) which lack range against helicopters, being only able to lock onto them at distances less than 2km. Meanwhile, most of these helicopters begin to have longer-range missiles that are mouse guided, making them essentially untouchable.
T95E1
8.3 → 8.0
This vehicle is symptom of BR compression. Compared to contemporaries at 8.3, it is worse in just about every way. Against the M60A1 AOS, it is at a disadvantage in every regard except that its APFSDS has more flat penetration than the M60’s APDS. The lack of a stabilizer especially makes it very difficult to play, even with decent traverse rates and frontal protection.
M42 Duster (all)
4.3 → 4.0
It offers no tangible advantage compared to the M19A1, especially in the anti-aircraft role.
T28
6.3 → 6.7
This vehicle should not be facing 5.3 tanks, which it is practically invulnerable to. Even though it has weaker side armor compared to the T95, frontally it is still a 7.0 vehicle. Especially with the T95 now moving up, the T28 should not be an entire BR lower.
Pz. IV F2
3.3 → 3.7
The firepower is overkill for its BR. While its armor is suboptimal, the mobility and fire controls remain fairly strong for its tier. There is no need for 2.3 tanks to face a long 75 on a stable platform.
Pz. IV G
3.3 → 4.0
Like above, but the improved armor—especially with add-on tracks—makes it reasonably competitive at 4.0.
Pz. IV H
3.7 → 4.3
Ditto, but even stronger. The armor is approaching the effectiveness of a KV tank, although not with the same consistency.
Pz. IV J, Pz.Bfw. IV J, Pz. IV (Italy)
3.7 → 4.0
Ditto with Pz. IV G.
VK 30.02 (M)
5.0 → 5.3
Although certainly weaker than a normal Panther, its firepower makes it very dangerous, and against many 4.0 and 4.3 tanks it is still far too powerful. Most 75mm and 76mm guns from 4.0-4.7 cannot reliably fight it, while its armor and firepower can easily wipe the floor.
Panther D
5.3 → 5.7
With other Panthers moving up to 6.0, this tank should as well. It is more mobile than all of them, at the cost of turret traverse.
Sd.Kfz. 222 (all)
SPAA → Light Tank
In-game, the functionality is identical to the Sd.Kfz. 234/1, but it gets rewarded with a cheaper spawn cost simply due to its classification. There is an established precedent that tanks are classified in-game based on how they are played, not based on arbitrary or historical nomenclature.
Marder III
2.3 → 2.7
The level of firepower it possesses is unreasonable for 2.3, compared to a contemporary like the ZiS-30 it is superior in all but reload rate and some degree in mobility. It is comparable to the Marder III H and could arguably be the same BR.
Jagdpanther, Bfw. Jagdpanther
6.0 → 6.3
It has very powerful front armor and is impervious to basically all 5.0 and 5.3 tanks, except those with 122mm guns. It is a stronger vehicle than the SU-100. It shouldn’t be facing 5.0 tanks like up-armed Shermans or Chi-Ri II.
T-34-85 (D-5T)
5.3 → 5.7
Due to the remodel, the turret armor is actually stronger frontally compared to the standard T-34-85. The firepower performance is the same, and the only real disadvantage is the lack of a 5th crew member.
T-44
6.7 → 6.3
It is not competitive at 6.7, its firepower is far too weak compared to contemporary medium tanks. The turret is also a massive weakspot and is more comparable to the Panther F than other 6.7+ mediums.
T-55A, TO-55
8.3 → 8.7
Compared to other 8.3 tanks, it has both the advantages of 2-plane gun stabilization and an APFSDS round. Against the T-62, while it may have less penetration, it also comes with a faster reload. Even then, the firepower is fairly comparable to the T-62, as is the mobility and fire-control system.
T-55AM-1, T-55AMD-1
8.7 → 9.0
In performance these vehicles are very similar to the ZTZ88B and A and should be considered a contemporary of the Leopard 1 A1 or Type 69-IIG, not to mention the gun-launched missile capability. Many vehicles at 8.0 and even some 8.3 vehicles struggle significantly to fight it. It also is another example of why the previous decompression changes need to be considered again.
IS-1
5.3 → 5.7
It has strong protection, both frontally and from the side, compared to other heavy tanks of a similar BR. Especially if the IS-2 family are moving up, the IS-1 can also be comfortable at 5.7.
KV-220
5.7 → 6.0
With recent moves to other heavy tanks (Tiger I, IS-2), this vehicle could also be moved to 6.0 without issue. Although slightly weaker in firepower, the high mobility and extremely good protection of the KV-220 make it a strong candidate for moving up.
KV-1E, KV-1B
4.0 → 4.3
The armor protection on this vehicle makes it incredibly abusive at 4.0. With the KV-1 ZIS-5 having moved up to 4.7, this should also move up. It has no business facing 3.0 and even some 3.3 tanks, which have essentially no chance of fighting it.
Crusader AA Mk. II
4.0 → 3.0
The firepower is equal to the AEC AA Mk. II, with the only advantage in ammunition count. Their BRs could be different, but they should not be so far apart.
Ka-Chi
2.0 → 2.3
The Ka-Chi has very strong frontal armor, much stronger than the Chi-Ha Kai even. The large size makes it rather cumbersome to use, but it also means that, with its large crew count, makes it very survivable, especially against low-rank opponents.
M113A1 (TOW) (CN)
Rank V → Rank VI
It should be placed at Rank VI, similar to the Italian and Israeli versions, and put in a folder with the CM25.
M60A3 TTS (CN)
9.0 → 8.7 OR add M774
It is worse than the American counterpart in every way, dependent on the lackluster M735 and without ERA.
QN-506
10.0 → 9.7
Compared to other vehicles with Fire-and-Forget missiles, the QN-506 is sorely lacking in one major feature: mobility. In many situations, the missiles are unable to properly lock on, rendering them useless. Vehicles like the Freccia and KF41, while not exactly great, can compensate for this with good mobility to complement their autocannon, but the QN506 simply cannot.
MiG-21 SPS-K
9.7 → 10.0
This vehicle is equipped with both R-60s and flares, it should not be facing 8.7 aircraft and is already notably superior to existing 9.7 and 9.3 aircraft. I understand it has a hard time in uptiers, but this is just more evidence of decompression being necessary.
A-20G-30 (USSR)
3.7 → 3.3/3.0
It has more ordnance capability compared to the American version, but the flight model and defensive/offensive armament is identical.
P-51K (CN)
5.0 → 4.0
It shares a nearly identical flight model with the P-51D family (historically and in-game), there is no reason for it to be so different.
Q5L
9.7 → 9.3
While having access to laser-guided bombs is nice, the complete lack of any countermeasures or air-to-air missiles, as well as the fact that it has subpar flight characteristics compared to fighters, makes this aircraft incredibly difficult to use in Air-only battles. Compared to the previous Q5 models, the only benefit it has is the LGBs.
Z19
Rank VI → Rank VII
Its battle rating and capabilities are consistent with Rank VII helicopters.
SB 2M-103U (CN) & DB-3A (CN)
Switch positions in the tech tree
Even if they share the same BR in arcade, the SB is a lower BR in Realistic battles.
B-26B (France)
4.7 → 4.3
Consistency with US version.
5 Likes
why is the AGS going to 11.0 just because of the m833? it’s missing its spall liners, autoloader Replenisher like the stryker.and it’s not like it’s getting the m900 either. the m833 is mediocre at that BR, this makes no sense to me. also THE 2S38? Why is it still in 10.0 huh?
8 Likes
First, I would like to know the reasons for placing Blagorodnyy, Spokoinyy, and Neustrashimy at 5.3 BR, with the same BR as Atlanta, which has more firepower, a faster reload, and better armor. What is the rationale for assigning these ships from 5.0 to 5.3?
Another insane changes…
T-20 at 6.3 is not funny joke… What the hell makes this tank be at the same BR at Jumbo 76 which actually has great armor which indeed makes him legit 6.3?
T-20 tbh is on par with M4A3 (76) W which is 5.7… T-25 is 6.3 with much better 90mm gun so that idea to move T-20 on 6.3 is pointlessly.
French 7.7 lineup to 8.0 is ridiculously bad idea…
Somua with still incorrect autoloader, turret, model, collar armor (40mm instead of 200+) is suffering at 7.7. in comparison to IS-6 for example which have much better armor, APHE somua SM isn’t even 7.7 vehicle, 7.3 was good BR for it. Fix it Bug report i made 3 months ago and then 7.7 would be fair BR.
Char 25T and AMX-50 TO90 are even worse than somua and still are at the same BR and now it’s planned to move to 8.0… what the hell makes these tanks suffer at 7.7 and even 8.0? Autoloader with barely 200mm penetration aphe rounds which have trouble even with tiger 2h 6.7 on medium+ range? All meds at this BR have quite similar mobility so AMX-50 its not special in this case. The only good thing is 4 sec reload on autoloader, but barely 200mm penetration balancing it, even at 7.3, it’s armor is very fragile even at 7.3 (for 6.3 tanks as well) so nothing’s good in this case.
To sum up, those changes above doesn’t make sense and those BRs should be lowered instead, T-20 to 5.7 and AMX 50 TO90, char 25t and Somua SM to 7.3 (fixed Somua could stay at 7.7), but 8.0 for french vehicles to face 9.0 with thermals, LRF and apfsds rounds is ridiculous idea, even vs 8.7 these tanks are struggling as hell.
PS. Dear balance team, please start playing your game, bc that new BRs ideas convince me that u have no idea what’s going on in your game.
PPS. The best option would be reducing Matchmaking from +/-1.0 BR to +/-0.7 BR and decompress BRs Ground/Air to 15.0+ or rework whole BR system.
6 Likes
I guess gaijin decompress higher 11.7 BR for ground vehicle toptier after this month
Is no one gonna talk about how the T-20 is going up again. Seriously, 149mm of pen at 6.3 is dogshit and isn’t useful, bring it down, to at bare minimum to 5.3.
French main here, and experienced player: 4000+ hours in game, 65% winrate and 1.65 K/D in GRB, 58% winrate in ARB.
I stopped playing the French BR range 4.7 - 9.3 because I would fight at such a disadvantage that it’s not even worth trying.
I used to be able to compensate the lack of efficiency of my French line ups by outsmarting my enemies and playing carefully.
Now I can’t even do that anymore in that range – and you’re proposing to make it worse.
These 7.7 should go down in BR, not up.
French line ups are not appealing to anyone but hardcore players that enjoy a difficult challenge, that’s probably why they may perform well in statistics.
Have you considered to use statistics from “average players” only? And excluding top performing players?
Please reconsider this appalling change.
WanouMars
25 Likes
I think on the whole these BR changes are mostly pretty good though i do have a few thoughts on various higher rank aircraft for the coming balance pass:
The incremental increase for most top tier aircraft is very good for overall decompression, though the Barak 2 & f16C don’t have the same potential or performance as fighters as the other proposed 12.7 aircraft which came in the latest major patch (flanker’s, grippen’s, m4k). While they do offer an increase in air to ground capability/avionics, this in my honest opinion is not enough of a step up over other nations capability around 12.3 to warrant an increase to 12.7 alongside such high performing air superiority fighters, at least until fox3’s and/or more modern IR’s come at which point any new missiles they receive can be considered.
su25BM: in RB is 11.0, 0.3 bellow the other more modern frog’s. This is reasonable since it is objectively worse is almost every regard. Though in sim, it is 11.3 alongside these more modern aircraft, i think it should go down to 11.0 matching its rb br to keep this distinction in capabilities between itself and the su39/su25T - as currently there is entirely no point to play it at its current sim br when considering the other vehicles.
Furthermore, all su25’s past the initial 10.0 version sit at very awkward BR’s considering their relative effectiveness in their job as CAS, the anti-air systems they regularly face, and the capabilities of other nations CAS at similar BR’s from 10.3 upwards. Generally, they can’t employ their weapons nearly as effectively as anything else at 11-11.3 - due to the nature of their slower airframe, poor optics relative to their performance & br, and poor ability to operate from defensible altitudes alongside their current contemporaries. Naturally the r73 is a strong missile, but something needs to be done as their current BR doesn’t accurately reflect their practical effectiveness in their intended role at all and potentially incrementally lowering all modern frogfoot br’s relative to other vehicles at their current BR should be considered. ~11.3+ is only appropriate for such slow & low altitude cas if they have capability to acquire and fire on targets fast with better optics and thermal capability, such as future aircraft like su25sm3 & a10C.
I also support the idea’s others have brought up in regard to the yak141 receiving its archers, potentially losing its (from my understanding) ahistorical limit to ER/ET’s only allowed on the innermost pylons - and going up in BR accordingly to at least 12.3 to match other light fighters with similar armament.
In the same vane, the mig29 9.13 should receive its r73’s and moved to at least 12.3 matching the mig29G - these were a core part of its primary armament from the beginning of its service and were stated to only be removed in game so that the missile guidance could be further worked on. We have had them in the game now for multiple major updates, and especially since the addition of the flanker - the playerbase has adapted to the missile and its implementation on high AoA capable fighters, there is no longer any reasonable reason to hold them back beside forcing unnecessary BR progression with very ahistoric loadouts. I wouldn’t mind the 9.12 also receiving them (and moving up to 12.3 then having the 29G foldered under it at the same BR, as irl it’s basically only an avionics refit to comply with nato standards anyway), though i do think it would make a fun & unique aspect to the east German aircraft to sit as the only mig29 at 12.0 without them.
Finally, like the f16c & Barak, the mig29SMT does not deserve to be placed at 12.7 alongside much more capable aircraft. It has a distinctively worse FM not only compared to all other proposed 12.7’s, but also against all current or proposed 12.3’s and all other mig29’s - while only having, at most equal but often worse ordinance load for both air-to-air or air-to-ground. The slight increase in radar/rwr/ground ordinance capability does not match the severe decrease received in FM performance, neither would any increased atg capability it may receive in the future with addition of the various laser guided ordinance & targeting pods it can carry - as this would only place it on par with current capabilities of other nations at the same BR. As such, SMT should remain at the same BR as the 29G at least until the addition of r77’s & more modern IR missiles.
If u got through reading all that well done, i know it was a lot haha.
1 Like
For god sake how many players are complaining about overpowered french tanks like Char 25T?? ZERO! So why do you have to do dumb changes like this one
10 Likes
Please explain how you come up with these changes.
They make little sense to people who actually play the game.
1 Like
I’ve read for a while and can’t find anyone else mentioning it
PLEASE make the Strela 10.3-10.7, that thing is just too powerful at 9.3, and at 9.7 its missiles fly circles around the joke that is the Stinger K, atm I’d say the Strela is easily the most dangerous SPAA in the game for how many you face vs how few Type 81s you see… in one game, you might see between ~0~ and ~1~ Type 81, if you face Russia you’ll face at least 2-8, as they’re so cheap to spawn, and so murderously efficient, that they’re an “Must Have” in ALL Russian lineups from 9.3 upwards… facing a Strela in 8.7 CAS is just unwinnable as that thing can lock and kill anything but an Israeli A-4E miles before the Strela is in any danger.
(TL:DR make Strela’s BR higher as it is just TOO POWERFUL at below 10.0-10.3. anyone can show you that the Strela can comfortably fight against 12.3 jets as the missiles are borderline immune to flares)
(ALSO APOLOGIES FOR DELETING AND REPOSTING! for some reason I somehow replied to someone when I didn’t mean to)
6 Likes
XM8 9.3-10.0 could need a M833, since its a good tank but needs a better round to fight back in a lot of scenario
Strela AA needs to be at 10.0 its missiles having optical and IR tracking allows it to reach far out and deny a lot planes a chance at its BR a chance to engage in combat
3 Likes
Pz.W. 42 2.3 → 1.7 especially in an uptier there are enemy you cant even (or very hardly) destroy as the rockets only have 27mm penetrarion, on top of that the vehicle is just so painfully slow.
3 Likes
pr.56 going to 5.3? Are you sure gaijin? I don’t think 56 can compare with Atlanta or krasny krym.
1 Like
I feel like the sagittario shouldnt be the same br as the ariete as its engine preformance is already really poor for its br while it can compensate for it with turn rate and guns it will be outran by every other aircraft in an uptier and in a lot of cases even in a downtier making it kinda useless
3 Likes