What’s the reason for all these French tank nerfs? IMO they all need to be going down to either 7.3 or 7.0. Pushing them up to 8.0 is, frankly, insane. No one who plays any of those tanks would ever be crazy enough to even suggest putting them at 8.0.
7 Likes
Underwhelming and insulting BR changes for French players.
This nation is tough to play and unappealing – nerfing it even more is not a good idea.
7 Likes
I think it is absolutely the right direction. We should still see a little more decompression however. I want to see us at 13.5 area.
With the variants of the F-16, F-14, and F-15 we could easily fill 12.7-13.5. Russia, Sweden, Israel, and France can all make this happen easily. It also reduces the more uncomfortable matches we see at 11.3 range. Leaving the F-15 behind is definitely not a good thing. It should also be bumped. If it’s not moved to 12.7, because it lacked HMD then move it to 12.5 lol. It’s going to end up in a lot more downtiered matches than it should if it remains lower than the rest of the later generation jets. The two high tier premiums are battling out significantly more capable planes in the 12+ region. The F-4S definitely isn’t a great contender as a flying brick, the MiG-23 might be able to hold out a bit more with the right pilot.
A lot of references to the 9-10 range with all aspect missiles. This 100% needs to be fixed. The F-104 is one example of no fun whatsoever at this BR. No RWR, no countermeasures, and no real response to it’s peers in this BR. The MiG-21 and SU are impossibly ridiculous to fight here. I most often see the MiG-21 be the deciding factor for the match. Decompression of this BR range really needs to be considered.
I got a few complaints. Falcon, this is an SPAA and although it performs well as a tank destroyer, it’s a glass cannon and no where near as OP as the zsu-57-2 or the WZ305 at killing tanks. It is also no where near comparable to the Gepard as it doesn’t have radar or the DM23/DM13. There is literally no point in using this over the marksman or za35, and is much better sitting at 8.0 with the rest of GB’s lineup. F5E going to 11.0? Again? It has 2 meh missiles for the battle rating when compared to things such as the JA37C (which is still 11.0!!!) or the mig23, or the mig21 etc. This thing is not cut out for being the same br as those aircraft listed above and will underperform greatly at this BR(as it did before -.-). This also doesn’t make sense for ground as they have the superior F4E to use for cas at 11.0, so the AGM65B isn’t really all that good when all things are considered. I am real glad we’re getting BR decompression for air but come on gaijin, it’s time to do the same for ground. The leo 2a5 and 2a7v should not be the same BR in any world, as it doesn’t take a genius to distinguish the two and their performance. In my opinion I think we are completely ready for 12.3 ground, as there aren’t many more ground vehicles to be added and raising the BR cap will help decompress the 8.0-11.0 range, which has needed some decompression for a while now. And again if you didn’t hear me the first time, please don’t move the falcon up, it’s really not comparable to the likes of a gepard.
Move Strela-10M2 to BR 10.0
1 Like
Kindly leave the AGS, the Stryker sidegrade that gets more (worse) ammo and less mobility, where it is. It cannot fight in 11.0 mostly because it will be nothing but uptiers.
2 Likes
What about F4EJ? they should be go down to 10.7 and >remove AIM7 that they cannot use
https://www.mhi.com/products/defense/f_4ej_jet_fighter.html
Mitsubishi says that it can use the Sparrow. Not sure why you say they can’t use it.
1 Like
T-20 at 6.3 lol
Does anyone still remember the M26 and T-44 are still at 6.7
Brainless change.
1 Like
You should move all 7.0 battleships into their own MM versus eachother
There is such an insane powergap between 7.0 and 6.3/6.0 ships it is utterly unplayable
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