You seem not to understand that Gaijin doesn’t care whether a vehicle has a line-up or not.
1 Like
Combining a tank destroyer’s effective gun and a light tanks superb mobility is why the M18 is where it is
Counteract the M4A1 76’s firepower with its BR range, most 4.3+ tanks have 150+ penetration or more, the 76mm achieves this but nothing else
Its armor is quite literally the worst sherman armor in the game and shermans are already very poorly armored
T-69 II A needs to be 8.0 it cant face t-55 amd and with no APFSDS it have bad round with slow reload and slow tank only good point is LRF so plz down it in br or add AFPSDS to it and make it 8.7 like the Finland one
1 Like
I have argued on this forum that I wish Gaijin would take more importance with this specific issue.
The lack of lineups is the number one leading cause of ODL gameplay outside of premium tanks
2 Likes
I agree with the RCV point. The vehicle in the 8.7 Japan lineup is lacking in penetration against soviet tanks, only able to go through the back of the turret at close range and rear engine. It is amazing against helicopters, but that shouldn’t change anything in terms of player statistics affecting BR raising. I think that if they truly want to move it up, it needs thermals and that stabilizer if it doesn’t have thermals already.
3 Likes
the armor is surprisingly good, especially on the turret. it is a bit slow but that just makes the stabilizer easier to use, and just because there’s other guns with similar/better performance at the same br doesn’t mean the 76mm is bad
1 Like
Lineups themselves aren’t a good reason to keep overperforming tanks in their current BR, especially when their new BR has enough tanks to build a new lineup with already.
Just reviewed the proposed changes, and I can’t help but laugh at how awful and lackluster these are.
Remember, all, Gaijiggles doesn’t actually care about our feedback on these changes. We just need to trust in their lord and savior Statistics.
And as said previously, where Sim changes?
1 Like
They should make the T32E1 6.7 then by that logic. Come on, the game isn’t called Tiger II H vs T32E1. It would add so much “dynamic” gameplay, you don’t get to frontally pen the T32E1 but you can try the very exciting playstyle of “flank or die”. I’m sure you will enjoy it a lot.
4 Likes
The mantlet is reinforced but not enough to stop most high penetrating rounds, and if you’re shooting the turret of an M4 at that BR range I don’t believe it’s the Sherman’s fault
You can use gear 1 on any sherman to hit the stabilized speed, getting to position then slowing down is what makes a sherman good
It’s not bad, it’s not overperforming. The armor is underperforming, and so is the mobility.
It has an average gun and a vertical stabilizer. These are the only two positives. It deserves its placement at 4.7 alongside the KV-85
Both tanks should be with their respective 4.7 lineups
Gaijin’s decision to ruin these 4.7 lineups showcases a fundamentally misunderstanding of their own game
Neither the M4A1 76 nor the KV-85 is “over performing”
Both tanks are early war tanks with increased firepower, that’s it
No better, no better engines, just a slightly bigger gun
They serve a critical role at balancing out 4.3 / 4.7 up armored tank destroyers / heavy tanks and are required for their lineups, especially the M4A1 76
Moving the M4A1 76 to 5.0 makes it completely useless, there is absolutely zero reason to now use this tank
The Type87 RCV is perfectly capable of punching through the sides of T-series tanks at even medium ranges, it only struggles with heavy tanks, which it will arguably see less of at 9.0. Getting a stabilizer would be fair, but it doesn’t need thermals, as you won’t be long range sniping with such a cannon anyway.
You can’t say that the M18, which sits at 5.7, has an effective gun, but then the M4A1 (76), which has a slightly faster reload, a stabilizer, sits at 5.0 and fires the exact same rounds somehow doesn’t have an effective gun.
The 75 mm on the Pz.IVs has less than half the filler, slightly lower penetration and lower velocity, the Japanese 75 mm cannon has about 20 grams more filler, higher velocity, and slightly better pen but then has much higher ricochet chances and a slower reload.
And none of them have a stabilizer.
It isn’t. The 3.3 M4A1 undeniably has worse armor (you can penetrate the front with a .50 cal if you aim carefully enough). On top of that the turret armor is great.
2 Likes
Can we talk about heli changes?
Mediocre Helis are going up in BR.
I spent GE and much time for the A129 CBT to finally have a fun 10.0 Lineup
And now “all” NATO go up???
What about KA50 still bullying as hell in downtiers ( I am on both sides of the game in this one)
I dont see any reason to change the BR of the Helis (for balance reasons only) at all!
Else - KF41 fix or down to 10.3
3 Likes
Which has insane mobility which is why it is where it is
The M4A1 does not have the mobility
That’s why these tanks aren’t 4.7
The turret armor does not withstand good rounds and as I’ve stated previously if you’re shooting a sherman’s turret at this BR range it’s not the Sherman’s fault
“undeniably” poor modeling doesn’t make it have better armor
ignoring the Chi-Nu II, the Japanese tanks armed with the 75mm are 4.7, and the Chi-Ri II is 5.0
1 Like
Japan’s WW2 armor is historically atrocious
I can not help them
Again, you said that the M18 has an “effective gun”. How come you don’t say the same for the M4A1 (76) which sits at a lower BR, has a slightly faster reload, and a stabilizer?
The Chi-Tos are 4.7 though. The Chi-Nu II is 4.3 but it is worse than the M4A1 (76) in literally every single other way. And the Chi-Tos do not fare much better, the M4A1 (76) is better than them.
Stop using the worst nation to justify changes that entire tree is a joke ignoring 6.7
It has an average gun for 4.7
The NETZ is going up to 12.3? does that mean its going to get its 120 extra countermeasures that it should have?
4 Likes