Why you didn’t take in consideration F104S/ASA and F104S to be move from 11.3 to 11.0 and 11.0 to 10.7? Grinding italian F16 is impossible since u always face 12.3 br with ASA/S and you barely do something thanks to R27 and AIM-7.
F104 TAC is bad like the F104S so, you should move S to 10.7 and ASA/S to 11.0 to balance the game.
Do not move the T129 up to 10.3, its already an incredibly mediocre heli with bad missiles overall and putting it at 10.3 would leave it with no lineup, this is borderline scamming those who bought it. It was perfectly fine at 10.0 so keep it there.
The centauros shouldnt be moving either, they were perfectly fine where they were and the ROMOR would be left without a proper lineup as the only other 9.7 is the SIDAM mistral. Keep them where they were in the lineups they fit in, compared to the rooikat they are more sluggish, have worse shells and feel even lesss survivable.
The VBCI shouldnt go up either, its a PUMA with 0 armor.
Interesting thing to say when comparing any tank to a Tiger/Panther, some of the most infamous tanks in the whole game by randomly volumetric’ng side shots. You would know if you had ever shoot at one of those.
If you aim low on the IS-3 you pen and kill, and it also offers you the opportunity to kill at a much wider angle than any 5.7 can pen the Tiger II H’s hull side. If you aim looking at the wheels height it’s 20mm there, you can pen at crazy angles with the short 88mm. And again, if you think that heavy tanks should be immune frontally when downtiered you shouldn’t have an issue with the Tiger E facing the IS-3, but since you only play Germany your view on the matter conveniently changes when Germany is the one that need to “just flank bro”.
you should do something with mig21 SPS-K because now the T-2 a 9.7 plane has 2x aim9p and the mig21 sps-k is 10.0 but it has r-13 wich are worse version of aim9p and the T-2 has better gun and better secondary weapons, better radar, better guns
The AMD.35 Sa35 should be going from 1.7 to 1.3 or 1.0, because it just a premium version of the reserve AMD.35 with a different armament and no coax MG that has no big advantages over the tech tree version that would justify the 0.7 br difference.
1 Like
Typical comment of a rather unsuccessful pilot (Similar like the guy who liked your post) asking for lowering a BR of a certain plane like here F2G because unable to fly it correctly and got challenged. Or a classic example of a premium plane customer with the usual track record.
I was friendly but such a rude response fits perfect to your pathetic stats. Nobody is perfect, but if you can’t fly the F2G in Air RB properly (k/d of 64 to 50) you are obviously the one with no clue what he is talking about.
So if you can’t handle the plane in Air RB - why do you think a BR downgrade will improve your stats in Air SB (40 kills vs 33 deaths)? Ask German / Italian 5.0 fighter pilots about their experiences in constant full uptiers with 4 Ju 288 fighting full US/GB fighter lobbies with massive performance advantage vs 5.0 fighters?
I mean alone that you try to verify your claim with stat card climb rates without considering at which altitudes (surprise they vary) kicks you out of any serious exchange. Things like energy retention, initial and sustained turn, acceleration, engine power available, MEC settings etc are the soft facts which are important. Stat cards are not reliable, every experienced player is aware of this.
And as your reading comprehension is on equal level like your pilot skills - i wrote clear that i have an old inactive account - with more than 200 days Air RB. Alone the fact that i scored halfmost decent in the P-47 D-30 whilst you suck in the identical D-28 should give you an indicator that you lose any pissing contest.
Go and grab another bottle of BRAWNDO…
Again,full off topic,insulting and you have 0 air sim experience while having 0 games in the planes you are discussing.You can claim 50 more accounts with xp,from your track record of speaking besides the subject,and speaking incorectly funny enough,nobody can belive you .Of course there are other stats that matter,like acceleration,energy retention,turn rate,etc,but in all of those the F2G is similar to the F8F and F4U rather than the M262,Yak15,Kikka,etc so your point is again moot and besides to my downtier argument .I never claimed to be a top notch pilot,but at least I play the game mode and know about the F2G,you literally know nothign about it,(air brake claim,prop pitch brake claim) .Stick to subjects you know and not something you don’t.And if you think that having 40 kills to 33 deaths fighting Yak 15s in sim is bad …yikes.Also the Italian p47 D30 is not identical to the USA D28,the Italian one has improved propellor and frame copy pasted from the p47 M.By the way you have 1.1 frag per battle with the D28 and 1.2 with the D30 while I have 0.8 in the F2G in air/ground rb combined that is 64 air targets/56 ground targets in 76 battles and 1.21 in air sim with it.My man,you have 1.0 kda with the XP50 a plane universally regarded as criminally undertiered,127 battles in it. So… if you claim that your stats are somehow an argument for the br changes I proposed …Yikes squared .
1 Like
you know why. Its Russian and the 50 is a premium
1 Like
You should really look at my last post and look up, look down. Everyone is talking about gen3 thermal related to BR and I think you are the only one disagree.
And talking about good survivability, Type16 already has decent and good enough mobility as a trade off, like a M18.
Decent reload? You should really check again on the type16.
Powerful guns? It is above average but don’t think it is listed as powerful since type16 has enough competitive gun and unless you are comparing with US MBTs.
I mean, even if you don’t agree, gen3 TVDs are still a huge factor for this community to decide BR and type16 is right in the spot for that
Yes, the T129 should stay at it’s BR. It has no Hellfires but much worse atgms and no Mistrals just stingers.
The cold war tanks they can easily kill? Yes, good change. Do you honestly believe that any ordinary 5.7 (save perhaps the Hellcat) stands a better chance against a Jagdtiger than the Jagdtiger has against an M48 or T-54?
1 Like
Some additional feedback for some costal boats that might be ignored but will leave it anyways.
USS Candid from 3.3 to 3.7 or maybe just LCS to 3.3. Candid after naval hull rework is a beast level of german M-17 and M-801 those boat shouldn’t really spawn with smaller boats which guns do nothing to them. LCS meanwhile got way easier to kill than its early days.
Kim Qui from 3.3 to 3.0 or 2.7. Its way slower and unstable than SC-497 at 2.3 with similar armament and only slightly better survivability offset by giant br gap between those.
USS Cyclone from 3.7 to 3.0 or 2.7. Literally just has 2 25mm guns and 2 12.7mgs. It has zero fire power to deal with large number of ships it faces. APDS round isn’t helpful at all you aren’t fighting tanks in this vehicle. Stock belt has awful aiming long range due to HE shell having massive drag and apds not which makes one overshoot heavily your aiming point. Bradley gun just doesn’t cut it versus destroyers and it has no survivability or other means to deal with dd or any decent survivability boats at its br. Its pretty mucha free kill for almost any vehicle it faces.
1 Like
Its actually a worse version of tech tree AMD 0.7 br higher which is very silly. It looses lots of pen and small size for bigger shell but its like still normal AP. Technically I would make this thing 1.0 and tech tree AMD 1.3 lmao
1 Like
Panther gun mantlets yes (with the exception of the F for obvious reasons). Tiger IIs, never really seen it. As for broadside, if I get outplayed and hit in the side when playing them, I’m always OHK. The tanks where volumetric saves me, including from full broadside shots, are usually the unarmoured stuff, like LeK (and I’m not speaking about overpenetration here).
I have. Though of course it was with German guns. As you know when you squad up with multiple friends sometimes it’ll put you in “all vs all” matches. I’ve been in 5.7 matches against Tiger IIs and Jagdtigers, and also had “Tiger II vs Tiger II” and “Jagdtiger vs Jagdtiger” moments. I knew where to shoot them because I knew what usually kills me.
Like I said, yes, though it’s far less reliable than it should be. I guess I’ll make sure to send you a video the next time I shoot between the tracks of a broadside IS-3 with the Jagdtiger, and the shell magically disappears into the shadow realm.
Heavies are hard to get right. Too weak, and they’re useless, too hard, and they curbstomp. Gaijin usually opts for the former. I think a way to balance them correctly is to generally make them very tough to kill from the front, but vulnerable to other tactics (like flanking).
And this general observation is also very simplistic, because in reality I understand that “heavy” covers a wide variety of vehicles in this game. Like I have already mentioned in this thread for example, Tiger Is are very mobile, so they simply can’t be super heavily protected vs what they face, or they would absolutely break their BRs. Which is why I’m fine with the H1 being moved to 5.7, as again, I’ve already stated multiple times in this thread.
If the IS-3’s armour was modelled correctly, I think it could easily go down to 6.7, which would have the benefit of giving Russia a better 6.7 lineup and therefore reduce constant uptiers for the other nations that play that lineup. Which would certainly be fairer than achieving the same thing by uptiering IS-2 Obr 1944 to 6.7, a move that makes literally zero sense to me, and yet is the one Gaijin chose.
The discussion between you and I specifically revolves around the fact that I think your comparison is incorrect, and the IS-3 has a much better all-round armour layout than the Tiger II, which makes up for it in other ways (like the improbably fast turret rotation and the great reload speed). They may both be heavies, but they have a very different distribution of their performance triangle, and that is imho what makes that analogy spurious.
Of course, like I said, maybe I’m playing Tiger IIs wrong and they are in fact a lot more survivable than I think. Since I gather you’re not interested in squadding up, I’ll try and look up some of your replays with the Sla. It’s really difficult in this game to improve consistently past a certain level for me, because there isn’t much documentation to go around, so meeting players that can use a vehicle I’m interested in so well is always a precious source of knowledge.
That is a completely unfair characterisation of what I’m saying. I think most heavy tanks in-game are getting shafted, and just in this thread the examples I’ve cited include the 76mm Jumbo. Even the IS-3 arguably gets shafted because of just how much postwar ammo it meets that completely trivialises its protection, and with a 23s reload, you can’t exactly afford to make mistakes.
If I really had an issue with “just flank bro” when Germany has to do it, I’d be complaining about 5.3 Jumbos, or 5.7 Black Princes. I’m not. In fact, when discussing how to play Tiger Is, I have specifically said multiple times that I use them primarily as flankers and jokingly refer to them as “the m18s” because they have great mobility but (it feels to me) very unreliable armour. I agree with moving the H1 up to 5.7. I agree that Jagdpanther shouldn’t stay at 6.0 (before also, but with these changes especially). I think the proposed uptiering of the M26 is the worst out of all the suggested BR changes in this document.
If you want to characterise my opinion as, I don’t know, average German main whining, go ahead, it sure makes it very easy to delegitimise it. Of course there is the issue that it doesn’t match my actual words, but I suppose that’s not really important, is it.
So if the a10s are 11.0/11.3 worthy what br should the mig 27K, 12.3?
We will have a big decomp after the december update which is just around the corner.
If the Netz is going to 12.3, it should get rid of the AIM-9P modification and get AIM-9M’s or Python 4’s.
1 Like
“I can pen you, you can pen me, ergo this is balance!”
Yeah, no. That’s not how it works. You know how I can easily prove it to you? Leopard I is fine at 8.0. If you seriously think that tanks being able to pen one another is balance, then I guess you saw nothing wrong with the Leopard being at 7.3, did you? After all, you can take Leopards out using even low BR guns.
Here is what actually happened in the old 6.7. You get a full uptier, therefore your armour doesn’t matter, right? That’s the whole thing about heavy vehicles in general being very BR-sensitive, taking a slow heavy tank in a full uptier match is always a meh proposition at best. This is because speed is always an advantage, whereas armour is only worth the sacrifice of mobility, if it actually saves you. Why would you accept that tradeoff if the armour is just dead weight?
Sure, the Jagdtiger still has an amazing gun, but it also has an 18 second reload, is quite slow to position, and is unsuited to most of the maps we play on.
So before the recent decompression, if I was playing 6.7 and got a full uptier, my first choice of spawn was the LeK, or the JPz 4-5. They are a lot more “meta” in that context since they’re fast, can also pen quite considerably, and have a much higher RoF.
After the decompression, things improved, and now even at 7.7 I think the JT is usually reasonably competitive enough that it’s worth spawning in it. Raise it by 0.3 BR and it will meet the same stuff that it used to meet before the decompression, so what was the point of that? Obj 268s will see Leopards again, too, which they absolutely should not.
EDIT: In any case, the whole point of my comment was that these are not mutually exclusive propositions. Sure, I’m down with 5.7 not meeting some of the more armoured vehicles currently at 6.7. Let’s make sure those, in turn, don’t meet the old 7.7 BR. Decompression all round. No objections on my side. ;)
2 Likes
It’s truly maddening because the cl13s are just god awful yet are so over tiered while all of the g.91 with M3 .50s is lower with better performance in every way
I miss some tanks in the br changes
Kv-220:
If the tigers go up in br this thing should aswell. Even if it isn’t a researchable vehicle it’s very strong.
Is-3 and Is-4:
both should sit at a higher br. These things are just dominating 6.7 because they get downtiers a lot. With the t-34 you have to aim at weakspots on the sides. Because of volumetric no tank without heat can pen them in the front and like i said from the side only at their weakspot. They are heavy tanks but this is only unbalanced. The t-32 wich sits around the same br has a worse gun and armor. It’s pathetic. Even with heatshells i time to time struggle to pen them and i know well about their weakspots.
Ka-50:
Is a explanation really needed???
Tiger 2h and maybe Ferdinand:
at 7.0 i think they would sit better. Both very good armor and good gun, Ferdinand sometimes struggles because of his speed and his inability to move his turret (yeah he hasn’t one)
Jagdpanzer 4-5:
At least 6.7 or 7.0 br. Hes reload is good his penn is “WOW”. He has heat and his speedy he shouldn’t be at 6.3
3 Likes
The M6A1 and T1E1 are practically the same tank. They are fine at the same BR. The T1E1 gets great reverse but has Cast armor so it’s worse armor than the M6A1. Then the M6A1 has welded armor but bad reverse. The M6A1 does feel more torquey tho cuz gaijin doesn’t model electric drives well.