If char 25t is going to 7.7 (destroying the very good 7.3 lineup) it should also receive a HEAT shell to deal with heavy tanks and especially a certain event heavy tank that has been ravaging 8.7 for a while now.
2 Likes
That gun never had HEAT developed for it.
Getting a 4 second reload on a really good light tank is rather fine for it.
It very much can fire HEAT Char 25 T Wrong Gun - Documented Ground Reports - War Thunder - Official Forum
So give me a reason why the stabilized Object 906 can sit at just 0.3 br above it with superior aphe and a heat shell.
5 Likes
I’m not talking about missile firing capability. I’m talking about the ability to spot the enemy. Having a search radar and a TVD makes a huge difference in survivavility and attacking capability. Which can not be ignored as factor of deciding BR. And about the missiles, strela isn’t better in EVERY ASPECT. It doesn’t have any IRCCM so it is really easy to be flared out. On top of that, lock range really makes a huge difference. Like even a jet with A/B on, it can be locked like 2.5km away and talking about helis, theres no hope at all to kill them if they had IRCM, and even without IRCM, they can be locked for lower than 1km only. Also plz don’t forget that stingers has been buffed in like last last update and is way more flare resistant now. So Ozelot have a lot in advance imo.
CAS options are limited already even at 9.3 since France doesn’t have a PGM and flare carrying plane like the A-4E/N (USA / ISR), nor at 9.7 like the Hunter F.58 (GER). The best option for the current 9.3 line-up is either the 9.0 Etendard IVM (no flares), or the SA.342M Gazelle (9.3).
You would have to wait until 10.0 for the SEM, which would only go along with the Roland (FR), which features the worst elevation out of all Rolands for whatever reason (not fixed yet).
All commentary is regarding Realistic Battles.
A few preliminary notes.
-
The ZTZ59D1 nerfs.
The removal of the thermal sights and horizontal stabilizer are based on documentation. It is not simply an arbitrary nerf chosen by the Developers. The thermal sight specifically has had two separate reports, although the older one is no longer visible. -
Removal of Shrapnel and HE shells from Rank 1 vehicles.
While I understand the motivation for this change, I think it would be more appropriate if the tutorial did a better job of explaining the functionality of these shells to new players, rather than remove them for everyone. Admittedly, having an HE shell for such small caliber guns in War Thunder is not so important, but there are certainly some people who opt to use them. -
General commentary on BR changes in the 5.3-6.3 range of Ground Forces.
I strongly agree with the spirit of these changes. However, like with my comments last time, moving vehicles up to decompress certain BRs without raising all vehicles above it ultimately doesn’t eliminate the problem, but just shuffles it around. If the decompression of the 5.3-6.3, 7.7-8.7, and 9.0-10.0 range are to be done properly and in earnest, the progress of previous changes cannot be undone by successive ones.
With that said, on to the responses to this round of changes.
Planned Changes
SU-122
2.3 → 2.7
Good.
3-inch Gun Carrier
2.7 → 3.0
I understand this change, although I also don’t see it as one of the most critical.
M 42 Contraereo
3.3 → 3.7
No comment.
Ystervark
4.3 → 4.0
Not enough experience to comment.
ZSD63 (PG87)
4.3 → 4.7
No comment.
KV-1 (ZiS-5)
4.3 → 4.7
A good change. This vehicle is far too powerful to be facing 3.3 vehicles, and many 3.7 vehicles for that matter.
Crusader AA Mk. II
3.7 → 4.0
I do not see this as necessary. 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.
Bosvark
3.7 → 4.0
Appropriate, considering other similarly-armed SPAA.
KV-85
4.7 → 5.0
An excellent change! One could even argue for BR 5.3, but this was a sorely needed change.
M4A1 (76) W
No comment.
Tiger H1 (all)
5.3 → 5.7
Good. Good all around.
Tiger E
5.7 → 6.0
Not quite as urgently needed as the Tiger H1, but I think it is still appropriate.
Skink
5.0 → 5.3
No comment.
Panther G/A (all)
5.7 → 6.0
Also a great change.
IS-2 (1943) (all)
I’m not sure how I feel about this one. The IS-2s are undoubtedly strong vehicles, but their main drawback in reload time and large weakspots makes 6.3 feel rather high for them.
IS-2 (1944) (all)
I harbor similar hesitation for this change as well. However, seeing as the frontal armor was improved with the recent remodel. I would suggest considering re-adding BR-471D to these vehicles if the change is undertaken, as against 7.7 opponents the basic shells of the D-25T become much more difficult to use.
M41A1 (all)
6.0 → 6.3
No comment.
Centurion Mk. II
No comment.
Tiger II (P)
6.3 → 6.7
While I agree it is strong at 6.3, it also should not be the same BR as the standard Tiger II. If this change is to make sense, most/all existing 6.7+ vehicles should also move up in BR.
leKPz M 41
6.3 → 6.7
No comment.
M26 (all) & M26A1
6.3 → 6.7
This probably one of the worst changes. The mobility at 6.3 is already quite lackluster, while the firepower is only barely adequate at-BR. Once the mantlet armor is fixed to historical values, it may be more comfortable at 6.3, but if it moves to 6.7, there is no reason to use the M26 compared to its heavy counterparts like the T26E5 or T26E4-1.
T92
6.7 → 7.0
No comment.
G6
7.0 → 6.7
I do not like this move either. These sorts of mobile howitzers are rather challenging to balance, but their relatively modern fire-controls compare to the contemporary tanks at the BR makes their quirks workable.
Char 25t
7.3 → 7.7
This area for French tanks needs to be fixed all around. Reload speeds need to be standardized.
AMX 50 (TO 90/930)
7.3 → 7.7
Ditto.
K9 VIDAR
7.7 → 8.0
It needs to go even higher.
87RCV
8.7 → 9.0
I don’t really see this as necessary.
ZTZ59D1
8.7 → 8.3
With the other changes to its NVD and stabilizer, this becomes more appropriate.
ZT3A2
8.7 → 8.3
No comment.
ZTZ88 (all)
8.7 → 9.0
A justified change.
T-69 IIG
8.7 → 9.0
Also understandable. However, it is inferior in protection to the ZTZ88 or the T-55AM/T-62M
89FV
8.7 → 9.0
This vehicle’s ATGM controls have been severely nerfed since the missile flight model update. I do not know if this change is necessary.
16MCV (Prototype & Premium)
9.0 → 9.3
Normally I would agree with moving up wheeled vehicles, but they are not significantly better than a comparable vehicle like the PTL02 or WMA301.
16MCV
9.3 → 9.7
Ditto.
Centauro I 105
9.0 → 9.3
This one I support more.
Centuaro I 105 R & VRCC
9.3 → 9.7
Ditto.
VBCI-2 (MCT-30)
9.3 → 9.7
No comment.
Lvrbv 701
10.0 → 9.3
This has been needed for a while, this vehicle is horribly underplayed and overtiered.
Hurricane Mk. IV
2.3 → 2.0
No comment.
MiG-3-34
2.3 → 2.7
No comment.
Ju 88 C-6
2.7 → 2.3
No comment.
Hs 129 B-2 (all)
2.7 → 2.3
No comment.
Ki 49-II Ko
3.3 → 3.0
Good. Many mid-rank bombers have been overtiered for years due to changes in the performance of aircraft guns.
Yer-2 (M-105)
3.7 → 3.3
Ditto. Other Yer-2s should move down too.
Pe-2-110 & Pe-2-205
4.0 → 3.7
Ditto.
J2M2
4.3 → 4.7
No comment.
J6K1
6.0 → 6.3
I haven’t seen this vehicle in a while, but I’m not certain about this.
MiG-21 SPS-K
10.0 → 9.7
I disagree with this change. 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-6E TRAM
10.0 → 10.3
Good.
AJS 37
11.3 → 11.0
No comment.
Su-25 “BM”
11.3 → 11.0
Understandable.
F-16A Netz
12.0 → 12.3
No comment.
A.109EOA-2
9.0 → 8.7
The nerf to the control of TOW-1 missiles can make this understandable, although I am still generally opposed to the lowering of Helicopter battle ratings.
Various other top-rank helicopters
10.0 → 10.3, 10.3 → 10.7, 10.7 → 11.0, 11.0 → 11.3, and 11.3 → 11.7
Good.
Suggested Changes
Most 8.0+ tanks
Current BR +0.3/0.4
The changes being introduced presently are going to undo 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 has simply revoked the benefits of BR decompression after only 2 short months.
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.
M4A3E2 (76) W
6.3 → 6.0
Although part of the issue is BR compression, this vehicle is also just overtiered. The 76mm gun is not competitive at its BR, and it gets bullied extremely hard in uptiers. It should not have to regularly face tanks like the IS-3 or M47.
T32E1
7.7 → 7.3
Also a consequence of BR compression, the T32E1 should not be put at the same BR as the M103, which is just outright superior. The protection improvement compared to the regular T32 is just not significant enough to justify it facing 8.7 tanks, especially when most vehicles that can already penetrate the T32 will penetrate the T32E1 just as easily.
T95E1
8.3 → 8.0
This vehicle is also somewhat a symptom of BR compression. However, 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.
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.
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.
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 other heavy tanks like the Tiger I going up, 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.
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) (China)
Rank V → Rank VI
It should be placed at Rank VI, similar to the Italian version, and put in a folder with the CM25.
4 Likes
Indeed, thats is a good idea. Im also for the return of low rank He grenades, they can be effective especially after they had added overpressure.
1 Like
Why is the Netz going to 12.3? are they getting Pythons 4’s?
IRCCM is literally nonfunctional in the game, IR SAMs will always go for flares if any were launched no matter what missile we are talking about. Flares are also available to very few planes below 10.0, not completely unseen but at 9.3 we have what…4? total planes that have any countermeasures.
Also the missile has over 3km lock range for planes, sure that’s lower effective range than the common 35mm AA cannon but also can’t be dodged by pressing a button for half a second. It’s an absolute nightmare for the 8.3-8.7 aircraft that it will see quite often, and very effective even against 10.0s without flares. Having terrible lock range for helicopters is a general issue, only guns have any hope of hitting copters with 3.5km+ range ATGMs until SACLOS SAMs come to play
Easily? By just being able to pen the turret face and mg port yeah. Meanwhile the tiger can just click on 95% of the pershing and it dies.
You are insane if you think the tiger 2 H and base pershing are equal and should be at the same BR.
3 Likes
If thats the case then there wouldn’t be that many planes being shot down by IRSAMs at 12.3 ground RB.
That doesn’t mean it should bring down the BR of Ozelot. Either we bring all IRSAMs BR up or nothing.
Same with stingers
2km and 1km is really a big difference here. And you just ignored IRCM problem here
M48A2? M48A2 GA2? Or is that M60 level protection only “decent” when it applies to non German vehicles?
Seperat Softstat change suggestions:
Pz III Ausf. B-J turret speed to 14°/sec like the other Pz IIIs allready have, they are all hand traversed (so there arent any tests and its a soft stat by the human) they are all at low Br and even Reserve tanks. At the lower ranks mobility is key, pretty much every other tank has a much faster turret traverse as well as general mobility.
The Pz IIIs also have not much armor (14,5-30mm and the J 50mm) but are extremly limited by the turret traverse of 5.5°/sec (6.0°/sec for B) so they should be the same 14°/sec like the rest (which all have allmost the same traverse mechanism as well) And yes i allready made a bug report for the Traverse speed and it was forwarded/acknowleged.
M48A2 is fair. Technically not an MBT though.
Meanwhile, the GA2 is unstabilized hunk of junk at 8.3 with protection of a 7.7 (significantly lower than the M60A1, T-55, etc). Because of its firepower it can’t go any lower but it suffers like few other vehicles (AMX 30) do.
1 Like
People are just discussing the given BR changes. That isn’t wrong even if those changes don’t fit your limited point of view.
So what name calling will it be this time?
I think it would be too unbalanced for the M26 to have the same BR as the German Tiger 2, Jagdtiger, and Ferdinand, as well as the American T34 heavy tank and Super Pershing. In reality, the M26 is said to be less powerful than the Tiger 2, and the T34 heavy tank and Super Pershing are advanced and enhanced versions of the M26. I think the difference in ability between these vehicles is huge even in the game.
4 Likes
My feedback will be contained to air vehicles and balancing them, specifically in Air RB (and namely with higher tier jets), as I feel that my level of experience in Ground Forces does not give me enough knowledge to provide valuable commentary. I’m a flyboy, so we’ll contain it to that.
That said:
A-6E to 10.3: Good idea. Honestly its level of effectiveness in Air and Ground RB warrants this, if not 10.7. However, I think there is room for a tech tree A-6E at 10.7-11.0, so maybe save that for a TT vehicle. Anyway, good move.
MiG-21 SPS-K to 9.7: I don’t think this is as good an idea. We already have complaints about aircraft with flight performance like the SPS-K making the 8.7-9.0 bracket very difficult, and having this aircraft in that range more often is only going to increase those problems. While the pilots of this aircraft must make significant compromises when flying this machine, such as the choice between countermeasures or guns, and limited quantities of R13M1 or R60 vs. more R3S/R3R, I don’t think that those compromises warrant its BR going down. If it is suffering, it is due to BR compression from above that needs to be resolved, not increasing the problem by moving this machine downwards in BR. It needs to stay at 10.0 for the time being.
Su-25BM to 11.0: Disagree strongly for the same reasons as above. However, the situation for this aircraft will be significantly improved if the BRs above it are further decompressed upwards. See my remarks below.
Netz to 12.3: Good idea! That said, it shouldn’t be just the Netz, and this should be part of a broader change. See below:
MY SUGGESTIONS:
-ALL 12.0 jets should be moved up to 12.3. All the F-16 variants should, at a minimum, move up to 12.3. The F-14B should also move 12.3, and the MiG-29A 9.12 (Germany) and the 9.13 (Russia/USSR) along with them. The Yak-141 should move to 12.3 as well- it may be lightly armed, but what it does carry is wickedly good and coupled with an excellent radar.
-ALL jets presently at 12.3 (MiG-29SMT, F-16C, Barak II) should move up to 12.7.
-SOME 11.7 aircraft moved to 12.0. The F-14A Early comes to mind, although it should probably receive AIM-9Ls if it does. Alternately, leave it and add the F-14A Late at 12.0 later on.
The later Harriers (GR.7, AV-8B+, etc.) with their AIM-9Ms would also be candidates for a move to 12.0, but this should be reviewed seriously before making the change.
The F-4EJ Kai should stay at 11.7- its flight performance, while serviceable, is too much a disadvantage in WT combat when compared to the aircraft it would regularly face. However, if it were to receive armament upgrades later, such as the AAM-3, then this could change.
This will give the 11.0-11.7 jets some much needed breathing room, and allow many of the 11.3 jets currently suffering in near-constant uptiers to have a little fun again. Some suffer worse than others, but the problem is universal, and we should be able to play these aircraft in an environment where they are more regularly competitive, as opposed to being cannon fodder for far more capable machines.
F-104G (ROCAF): This aircraft is in an awkward spot, and something needs to be done. Either:
-A: Give the aircraft the AN/ALE-40 countermeasures dispenser set as is present on the German and Italian F-104Gs. This is totally feasible, as many of the F-104Gs procured for the ROCAF were from Germany, and so should be able to be equipped with the system. This is the same logic used for the F-5C and F-5A in the US tree receiving countermeasures, so I see no reason not to apply it here. I think this is the preferred option.
-B: Move the F-104G’s BR to 10.3, as was done with the F-104J. However, I believe this is suboptimal, and the F-104J shows why. It still faces aircraft at and below its BR with equivalent/sometimes superior performance characteristics, and with outright better armament. While carrying some unguided rockets as ad-hoc flares or even shooting one of your valuable AIM-9Ps at an incoming missile as a hard-kill defense can occasionally save your rear-end, it is so inconsistent as to not be effective in a meaningful way in a typical Air RB match. However, dropping the BR means that it is an absolute terror to many 9.3 aircraft that also have zero defense against it, thus creating further problems. In short, dropping its BR, like was done with the F-104J, does not solve the original problem, and creates new ones of its own.
Therefore, I propose that both the F-104J and F-104G (ROCAF) should receive the AN/ALE-40 countermeasures system that they both were capable of being equipped with (as the F-104J is just a JASDF-spec F-104G airframe with ground attack capabilities limited) and set at BR 10.7.
F-4C renamed to F-4D and given the AN/ALE-40 countermeasures dispensers, moved to 10.3: The F-4C has been in an exceptionally rough spot for some time now, increasingly facing aircraft at or near its BR that it has little hope of fighting due to superior weapons systems, flight performance, or both. Primarily, its problem results from the near constant presence of exceptional IR-homing missiles at its BR that, in a typical match of Air RB in WT, are near impossible to defeat without dedicated countermeasures of some kind. As the F-4C could not be equipped with a chaff/flare dispenser per manuals provided on the old forum, a simple solution presents itself: rename the F-4C to the F-4D, which would share an identical model to the F-4C, as it had the same engines and airframe, amongst other similarities, and yet- per the manuals previously provided here- could carry the AN/ALE-40 system in the same pylon-mounted configuration as the F-4E. This would allow its BR to be raised to 10.3 or even 10.7 [consider switching out the AIM-7Ds for the AIM-7E-1], if it received some armament upgrades, which would also help relieve the pressure on many 9.0-9.3 aircraft, which can do little against an aircraft like the F-4C, even in its present state.
Mitsubishi F-1 receives countermeasures, moves to 10.7, T-2 receives same countermeasures, moves to 10.0 or 10.3: See above discussions for my reasoning. For so many reasons, these aircraft need them. Not least of all because this aircraft, under no circumstances, should be reduced in BR. In a downtier, it is a nightmare to come up against due to its flight performance and armament (especially with the T-2 and T-2 Early now having 9Ps at 9.7…), however it is exceptionally vulnerable to aircraft in its immediate BR range due to the presence of some very powerful IR-homing missiles.
However, I posit this could be fixed by equipping the aircraft with the AN/ALE-37A pylon-mounted countermeasures pod (same pod as on AV-8A and A-6E). This pod can be mounted to the pylons of the aircraft as long as they are of the correct pattern, which the T-2/F-1’s should be (AERO 7A). See this link: AN/ALE-37A Countermeasures Chaff Dispensing Set for a brief overview and a previous post here: A-6E TRAM Countermeasures Dispenser Pods (underwing) - USA - War Thunder - Official Forum .
Yes, this would be ahistorical, and this was not a configuration utilized by the JASDF. However, the current situation of the F-1 should not be allowed to persist either. Implementing this would allow for further decompression of the 9.3-10.3 bracket, and make the T-2 and F-1 more enjoyable to play and allow them to be moved to a bracket more reflective of their weapons and capabilities.
A-4N Ayit to 9.7 This aircraft is exceptional and I love flying it, but with its capabilities and armament- especially being able to carry four good-quality IR-homing missiles (x2 AIM-9D and x2 Shafrir 2)- it needs to move up. Nothing 8.3-9.0 should be facing off against something like that in Air RB.
Su-25/25K and A-10A Early to 10.3: These aircraft, among others, are often the cause of the issues facing the 9.3-10.3 bracket. Moving them up to the top end of that range will at least help a little bit until further decompression can be achieved. They’ll face largely the same opposition they face most of the time as it is, but pressure will be relieved on the lower range of this BR bracket somewhat as they get drawn in to uptiers more frequently.
Anyway, that’s what I can think of for now. I appreciate all the work the Devs do to improve the game, and I commend them for their efforts. Hopefully some of these suggestions are found to be useful.
Thank you!
15 Likes
3 Br changes ago we decompressed top tier which was great for the back then 9.0 area.
Then we decompressed 6.7 area which was great again bad side was it compressed the 10.0 area again which was not great.
Now we decompress 4.7 area which is great but now we compress the 6.7 area again wich is not great and worse part is that compression compreses top tier even more.
Long story short.
Can we please change the br selling too 12.7 or more please.
12 Likes
Thank you all for your feedback!
This has now been passed to the developers for review.
17 Likes