I really don’t think the 64D or AH Mk.1 are equal to the ka-52 and mi28mn.
15 Likes
How about you don’t change the BR of the Type 89 until you fix the blatantly broken missile performance of its ATGM.
Also stop turning a blind eye to the BMP-2M and the 2S38.
37 Likes
Agreed. Sim really needs a revisit on BRs, especially at top tiers. When is actual BR decompression coming?
7 Likes
imo VIDAR should be at least 8.7
30 Likes
If I had to guess, it 's to assist new players by not giving them low-damage shells that they don’t yet know how to employ correctly, like how reserve tanks are restricted from having HE even when higher-BR vehicles w/ the same guns have access to them.
9 Likes
why does the type87 rcv go up to 9.0 with only an NVD and the vbc (pt2) remains at 9.0 while having more speed, an thermal imager, a full stab, laser rangefinder and laser warning receiver?
28 Likes
M26 to 6.7 and STILL not getting late M82 that it historically used? The hell is it supposed to do against 7.7’s?
T92 to 7.0 but the German M41 with the same ammo, smoke and better mobility can still be .3 lower?
Is-2’s all going up by .3? Their ultra long reloads hold them back enough as it is.
The Tiger E was fine at 5.7.
I want whatever you are smoking, We need more decompression from 8.3+, Not make 6.0-7.7 worse…
30 Likes
VIDAR’s gotta be at least 8.3.
16 Likes
The M26 and M26A1 go to 6.7.
But the already 6.7 Pershings are staying at 6.7.
Gaijin, these tanks were 6.7 for a reason, they were overall better than the 6.3 Pershings, so they were higher BR.
With these changes you’re just completely killing the M26. The M26E1, T26E1-1 and T26E5 already exist at 6.7, for a good reason.
Also, who the hell thought that the Tiger II (P) should move up to 6.7, but let the Tiger II (H) stay at 6.7? The Tiger II (H) is objectively superior to the Tiger II (P). There is not reason for these two tanks to be the same BR.
Seriously, Gaijin, you need to rethink these changes. These are the worst I’ve seen by far.
35 Likes
Literally 90% of those ground changes are horrible and make 0 sense.
IS-2s are NOT 6.3 material
IS-2 1944s and M26s are NOT 6.7 material
KV-1 ZiS is NOT 4.7 material
ZTZ59D should not have it’s HISTORICAL features removed for stupid balancing reasons.
Pull them all back. They are bad.
47 Likes
english to english transtlation:
we nerfed others’ BR to optimize the environment of Russian vehicles
36 Likes
Maybe, I think TURMS vs Chally DS is a pretty one sided battle currently. Despite both being at the same BR and i’ve had TURMS tank a L27A1 before and then turn around and 1 shot me in a Chally 2. Might just have been unlucky, but Its certainly better than most 10.0s if absolutely nothing else
2 Likes
I didn’t even realize they left the M26E1, T26E1-1 and T26E5 at 6.7.
These changes are terrible. The M26 finally felt like a worthy tank at 6.3 and it immediately goes up.
@Smin1080p its unacceptable to move the M26 in its currently nerfed state. Gaijin has to address its arbitrary nerfs to this tank before considering moving it up in BR.
27 Likes
The T55AM had additional armor for the hull and turret, making it impossible for the 105DM13 to penetrate most of its frontal area;
The T55AMD has APS, and almost all ATGMs on the ground can’t even do damage to it, and the two of them have better maneuverability than the 692G.
As for firepower, it is true that the 3BM25 is very poor compared to the DTW1-105, but the combination of the BR412 and 9M117 allows the T55AM to have the same good kill efficiency against low-level vehicles.
In short, I think the T55AM/AMD is a comparable vehicle to the 692G, and they should not be in a different BR
20 Likes
The Su-25A/K, Both A-10s, and the A-6E should go to 10.7.
All aspect missiles have no right nor place being below 10.7.
Also nice to see they are finally moving all the 10.0 hellfire carrying helicopters up in BR.
8 Likes
M26 should stay at 6.3. Moving it to 6.7 makes it redundant as the T26E5 is as the same br and its performance isn’t exceptional at its current br.
21 Likes
With the STB-1 going to 8.3 in AB, it will be the same BR as the Type 74C all modes. As such it should also get the M456 HEAT-FS round back, because otherwise it is just a worse Type 74C at the same BR
Also some good naval changes, not very sure about Arizona going up but the rest is good. Unfortunate there’s not much coastal changes these days, but it’s biggest problems require a gameplay rework instead of some small BR changes.
However, I am still going to advocate for the:
HMAS Arrow, all modes 2.7 - > 2.3. Then going to rank 3 next economy update.
It is in most aspects worse than other sub-chasers/motor gunboats like the SC-497, which is superior in almost every aspect, while also being 2 tiers lower (and much easier to research) and 2.3. Arrow is just an exceedingly mediocre at best boat, and I think should be moved down even if it’s statistically “fine” just to give it some life.
8 Likes
All realistic mode.
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.
Give the He grenades to Rank I and II, with Overpressure and many unarmored or thinnly armored vehicles, especially if your tank doesnt have a coax (P.204 (f) for example) and most can be effective.
Br Changes:
Bf 110 C-6 3.0 → 2.3
Reason: The better C-7 is 2.7 which is better because: Armored glass, can carry bombs and has 2x 20mm Mg FF/M and faster while the C-6 cant have bombs has no 20mm and is fixed with the 30mm Mk 101. In comparison the Hs 129 B-2 which is also at 2.3 has more armor, 2x 20mm Mg 151/20 and 2x Mg 17 (instead of 4x Mg 17) and a Mk 103 with 100 instead of 60 rounds and higher fire rate. It overall exchanges most of it offencive firepower for a better flightperformance.
Do 217 J-2 2.3 → 2.0 it is simply a J-1 (2.0) with the only difference beeing having an useless radar and changing the camo from black to white with black spots.
Do 217 N-1 2.7 → 2.3 it is a Do 217 J with radar a little bit stronger (but also heavyer) engines (1430 hp to 1580 (150hp more)), changes the 20mm Mg FF/M to Mg 151/20 which are also heavyer (but fire the same rounds and) and has on paper a tiny little improvement in climp (5,9 to 6,8 (0,9 more) and such but because its also a good tat heavyer flyes even worse.
Same goes for N-2 2.7 → 2.3 its even worse as it changes the (useless anyway) small bombload and the 2x only def 13mm Mg 131 for 4x 20mm Mg 151/20 in Schrägemusik position which really is only dead weight and also changes once again the camo from Black to White with black spots.
And move the Do 217 N-1 and N-2 in front of Ju 88 C-6
Ju 87 D-5 3.3 → 2.3 It has worse bomb load than the D-3 (no 1000kg bomb, and less 500 kg loadouts (no 3x 500kg bomb loadout), while also the flightperformance doesnt change and the very aquivalent plane,
the Il 2 Mod. 1941 with 2x 20mm Shvak and 2x Shkas is at 2.3 (while also having a wider arrangement of explosives, such as Bombs and rockets) And even the mod 1942 sits at 3.0
StuG III Ausf. A: 2.3 → 2.0: The Pz IV Ausf. F1 has full 50mm frontal armor, the StuG III Ausf. A (even tho thats incorrect) has only 30mm Hull armor and no turret, overall in general the average thick armor at 2.0-2.3 is 50mm but for the main drawbacks the StuG III Ausf. A can be placed at 2.0 for greater line ups, as well as to avoid the big Power increase at 3.3 (M4A1, T-34 and Pz IV Ausf. F2) where also the StuG III Ausf. F is.
Maus/E-100: reload time 23,6 sec → 20,5 sec (IS-6)
With the Maus still being 7.7, it could really need a slight buff in firepower since unlike other heavy tanks like the IS-3, IS-4, M103 or Conqueror it really is a “heavy” tank without any tactical mobility (similarly to the T95).
Jagdtiger: reload time 23,6 sec → 19,4 sec (T34, Sturer Emil)
The Jagdtiger has two dedicated loaders for its two-piece ammo, because of this the reload should be faster than the Maus/E-100 and significantly faster than IS-3 and IS-4 with their cramped turrets and only a single loader.
The Sturer Emil loads similar ammo into a nearly identical gun in 19,4 sec with just a single loader!
16 Likes
Type 16 (FPS) GRB 9.0 → 9.3
I honestly don´t understand this change. The Type 16 (FPS) is already struggling against vehicles at 10.0+, it also lacks Type 93 round to compete with these at longer distances.
The long reload combined with the already in ground realistic 9.0 awful M735 round is already quite a compromise.
Other changes we would like to see for the Japanese tree:
Type 90 / (B) back to 10.7 - JM33 and generation 1 thermal vision are pretty unfair when you almost constantly get into 11.7 / 12.0 matches, where Type 10 and TKX are present anyway.
With the new TKX (P) on 11.0, both Type 90s also make no sense on 11.0, they are worse armored, have worse thermal visibility and the Type 10 would perform as they should, also worse mobility.
Even better equipped tanks such as Vickers Mk.7, ZTZ-99s, T-90A/S, T-80B and T-72B (1989) can be found at lower BR. Type 90 may have an autoloader, but that alone should not be the only criterion for such a high BR.
Type 93 SAM definitely needs the Type 91 Kai missile, the standard Type 91 missile is hardly usable for higher BRs, and are useless against Ka-52 and co, even at distances of <3km.
Other helicopters such as Mi-24, AH-1F and such, as well as drones, are also very difficult to fight against effectively, at least when it comes to distances of >3km.
Off-topic but worth mentioning is that Japan still doesn’t have some of the important top tier vehicles in the TT, as well as domestic helicopters like the OH-1.
Newer IFVs and missile platforms such as Shinchu-MAT (MMPM) are also missing, the AH-64DJP is still missing the AGM-114L, all Type 10s still don’t have a CVT or at least higher HP for realistic mobility, not to mention other problems such as armor, model inaccuraties and inexplicable fuel explosions.
48 Likes
So, can I get my BR-471D back?
Feedback for planned changes for Battle Ratings, February 2017 - Update Discussion - Archive - War Thunder - Official Forum
February 10, 2017：
- IS-2 mod. 1944 - BR-471D round will be removed
- IS-2 mod. 1944 “Revenge”- BR-471D round will be removed
（I spent over an hour finding this post）
31 Likes