Just because a comparison contradicts your argument doesn’t make it any less valid.
Then the gun on the M18 is not effective.
Again, you cannot have one and the other.
4 Likes
It does not contradict my argument at all you’re using one singular example which is noted by everyone to be the absolute worst tanks in the game
Move the Chi Ri to 4.7 I do not care the Japanese tanks are atrocious
The M18 can move to flank the enemy side shots with the 76mm are very effective because as noted elsewhere the explosive filler is quite effective
Comparing an exceptional light tank to a subpar medium tank is asinine
1 Like
Chi-To, Chi-To Late 4.7 → 4.3 (realistic)
They are significantly worse than the 4.7 M4A1 76 in every way except ammunition, where they are identical. M4A1 76 gets a .50cal, more armor than the ‘early’ Chi-To, and stabilizer. Even with M4A1 76 moving to 5.0, the gap between them is too great.
Chi-Nu 3.3 → 3.0 (realistic)
Same BR as Pz IV G but worse in every way, especially firepower. It is unable to penetrate the common M4A1 or M4A3 105 frontally while they have zero issues doing the same, with the Chi-Nu having worse mobility.
J2M3, J2M5 5.7 → 5.0 (realistic)
Severe lack of flight performance and top speed compared to other 5.7 aircraft like F4U-4B and Yak-3U, early armament - two of its 20mm cannons are the slower Type 99 Model 1, which means only half of its firepower can hit a target unless at point blank range. This was later changed in the J2M3a and J2M5a (not present in-game) respectively, with all four wing cannons being Type 99 Model 2 cannons.
N1K2-J, N1K2-Ja 6.0 → 5.7 (realistic)
Severe lack of top speed compared to other 6.0 aircraft, even those similar in maneuverability to it. Not helped by an overestimation of its weight by ~300kg, I am attempting to find a scan of the original flight manual and translation to submit a bug report.
N1K1-Ja 5.3 → 5.0 (realistic)
Low top speed compared to aircraft at its battle rating and low ammunition capacity due to early wing armament (N1K1-Jb changed to same wing armament as N1K2-J, is not present in-game).
Ki-61-I Tei 4.3 → 4.0 + Ki-61-I Hei 4.7 → 4.0 (realistic)
Both have the same flight performance as 3.3 Ki-61-I Ko but much higher battle rating due to improved armament. Ki-61-II at 4.7 has identical armament but with a much superior engine. All Ki-61-Is suffer from severe overheating and cannot WEP for more than a minute continuously and therefore are not competitive above 4.0 due to a lack of engine power.
7 Likes
Helis: A-129 and lynx going up, good. But not the Mi-28 for sweden? And NONE of the russian helis? But the littlebird, AH-1Z, and apaches…? okay .-.
I’m never gonna get to enjoy the AH-1Z, by the time I unlock the ATGM’s and AAM’s for it, it’s gonna be 12.3… (Modification grind SERIOUSLY needs reworking as whole.)
A-6 TRAM going up to 10.3 is very good, same with all the german WW2 tanks like the tigers and panthers. IS-2’s are more than fine where they are honestly… the first one at 6.0 was already pretty awful IMO. The Lvrbv 701 going down to a whopping 9.3 is always nice to see. But what about rolands? They should also go down to 9.3 for the french and 9.7 for the US/german ones after the nerf you did long ago. The Tunguska went down in BR so fast after it was nerfed…
Speaking of AA, the Machbet should go down, same with the chapparal. That thing is super underwhelming so far at 10.3… Stormer is still broken too BTW, made a bug report on that one as well. Meanwhile the strela is still 9.3, which is arguably one of the absolute best AA around that range. (sidenote, why did the VEAK go down to rank 5…? it’s infinitely better as an AA than the leopard 2 AA.)
Type 16’s going to 9.3 and 9.7 is good (though no lineup at 9.7 for japan… they also still need a better AA for top tier). Centauros shouldn’t move, all the 105 ones should be 9.0 IMO. Or the 105 R should have a modification for its add on armour, and stay at 9.3. Lastly the VBCI-2 really shouldn’t go up to 9.7, it’s not that great at 9.3, and will have no lineup at 9.7. Oh and this is not relevant to these changes, but the premium merkava deserves to go back to 9.3.
5 Likes
I would rather not have PL-8 on the J-7E and keep it at its current br, otherwise, it will always be uptiered to 12.3. Pl-5B is already a really good (and fun) missile.
2 Likes
You know that’s not how the game game works.
The Tiger II H is an overweight heavy, sitting at 6.7 with a 10hp/t ratio with good frontal armor and powerfull gun.
The T32 is up-armored and up-gunned M26 that also received an engine upgrade.
In fact it has better mobility than the M26.
At the same time the turret and hull are protected from the strongest AT guns of WW2, like the German 128mm.
There is practically no tank at 6.7 that isn’t able to penetrate the Tiger II H turret, maybe with the exception of the T-44 since the APCR it has is subpar and there are a lot of lower BR vehicles that can do the same.
The M36 is 5.3 and can cruise around with 17.8hp/t ratio, easily taking out a Tiger II by outflanking them or setting up ambushes.
The reason the M36 is 5.3 and not 6.3 is because exactly the same reason why 1 vs. 1 comparison hardly make any sense, unless it’s like the same vehicle with some changes to it.
The M36 dies to way more vehicles than M26. So if you want to take out a Tiger II (H), you first need to survive countless of light, mediums, TDs and even SPAA running around on the battlefield.
A Pz IV at 6.7 will never come into the position to be able to take out a T32 because it will already be killed by any other vehicle it’s going up against.
2 Likes
any source for this? apparently in gaijin’s statistics they are.
“just a slightly bigger gun”… almost 50% increased penetration makes a huge difference.
Armoured TDs are still casemate TDs at this BR. They have enough weaknesses to exploit.
What heavy tanks? Are there any left at 4.7?
Idk why you think a 5.0 tank with the same cannon as a 5.3 tank and slightly worse armour would be useless. It still complements the T1E1/M6A1 with a medium tank with better gun handling and a low speed stabilizer. and it’s not like the armour of the M4A1 76 was all that relevant at 4.7 either, so you already had to just not get shot at.
2 Likes
A1H going up seems counterintuitive (mind you i only used it in RB) but in BR its at its almost always a sitting duck if you are a solo player and its pure toss of the dice if you get to a bomb target or get sniped by an Me or another fast mover and i can only imagine it being worse in AB at that BR.
Source?
Where did they say these changes were off win rates?
Assuming you have the gun to penetrate the weak point
Not after these atrocious changes
Much worse mobility
There is already a sherman to compliment the T1E1 the T1E1 should have been moved to 5.3 and the M6A1 dropped to 4.7
What 5.0 lineup are you taking? T1E1 / M6A1 / M4A1 76? You’re going to face 5.7 8/10 games why not go ahead to 5.3 and have the Jumbo / M4A2 / M36 GMC?
These changes are illogical and are not justified by these vehicle’s performance.
2 Likes
And yet the M4A1 (76) is still too good for 4.7.
And the M4A1 (76) can react significantly faster due to the stabilizer. It also doesn’t get taken out nearly as easily by aircraft or artillery. It is at a much lower BR where it does not require side shots nearly as much, so having the stabilization helps even more as you can just outright shoot the enemy tank without having to aim for weakspots, specially in a downtier.
3 Likes
How
You’re comparing a medium tank to a light tank they serve different roles and have different playstyles there is a very gigantic mobility difference you are actively ignoring stop comparing the two until you’ve addressed this
2 Likes
It’s all there on the 2nd paragraph of my reply.
I specifically said that the M4A1 (76) doesn’t need the side shots that the M18 requires due to the fact that it sits at a lower BR, among other reasons such as much lower vulnerability. So it not having as much mobility is entirely acceptable.
Don’t accuse me of ignoring things when you ignored half of my entire reply.
4 Likes
“react significantly faster” except the M18 has already been in position thus completely removing that bonus
Your argument is irrelevent
That it did, this change changes that but doesn’t change the mobility hence the average gun becomes sub par
At 4.7, not at 5.0
2 Likes
More good ground BR changes. Very nice.
These BR changes are atrocious for the WW2 vehicle era
The Helicopter changes completely ignore Russian helicopters
The entire Chinese late cold war bracket is now being treated as if they were modernized tanks with thermals and suped engines
3 Likes
Vrcc/Centauro romor at 9.7,why?
Is fun to ruin italian lineup?
Now if i have to bring the T72 or i have to place it in a 9.0 or a 9.7
GJ ruining the italian tech tree
9.0 lineup ruined by making the baseline centauro 9.3 with no compensation
9.3 lineup ruined by moving up VRCC/Romor to 9.7 with no compensation
10.0 make worse by moving up the helicopters to 10.3
Gaijin, if you don’t want people to play the italian tech tree just say it
3 Likes
the difference in mobility between the M4A1 (76) W and M4A2 (76) W is really not that significant, the M4A1 has 12.23 hp/t if I can do math properly, and the M4A2 has 12.43, and the M4A2 has a top speed around 5 mph higher
1 Like
YAH-64 is same BR as KA-50.
YAH-64 has no form of countermeasures and only hellfire B
what
Why is the Italian M113A1 TOW at rank VI? It creates a hole in the tree, and the Chinese one is rank V. It should be brought back down to rank V.
1 Like
That matters a ton, it also has slightly better armor making some shots less consistent which is especially notable at odd angles
1 Like