ZA-35 and XM246 don’t have APDS.
And the rest only get 40 rounds at maximum.
XM246 has probably been confirmed that it should have the APDS belts though.
And with the Swiss gun system, the dedicated APDS box on these guns make removing the APDS more silly than anything.
Falcon should move to 8.0 in ground RB after this change though.
AMX-30DCA IMO is fine cause its radar and guns make quick work of jets.
If reloads are meant to be used for balance, then they should be used for that. If not, time to give everything maximum possible reloads
Mode: Naval AB & RB
Vessel: USS Aylwin
Change: 3.7 → 4.0
Reasoning: Borderline impossible to kill for any 2.7-3.3 boats, also has better protection than its peers at 3.7 and has no obvious ammo rack weak spots. Roughly equivalent to the Erich Steinbrinck and Yukikaze
F-15 at 12.7? there’s zero reason why the 12.7 MiG-29s cant have its R-73s now lmao
I feel battle rating 14.7 (Air AB, RB, SB) it might not be for 4.5 gen fighter aircraft if gajin prepare the early 5th gen infrared Air-to-Air Missile
I’m of the opinion that decompression maximum battle rating to 15.0 or 15.3
I don’t understand that. Neither of them have supercharge at the minute do they?
Vehicle EFV
Game-mode Ground Realistic
BR Change 9.3 - 8.7
Reason - The EFV has practically paper thin armor and minimal penetration to be at 9.3, the Bradley is at 8.3 and has superior penetration, weaponry, and speed compared to the EFV.
Falcon looks to be one of the worst offenders at that range, alongside XM246.
T-34 (1940), T-34(P)
GRB 3.3 → 4.0
While worse armed than the other T-34s at 4.0, these T-34s are lighter with more mobility, and are OBSCENELY strong at 3.3
i hope the amx a-1a will finally move down a bit more
it shouldnt be higher with worse missiles and a worse gun than the tech tree one
Also disabling both of its turrets takes a huge chunk of its crew away
AIR SIMULATOR
F8U-2 10.0 → 10.7
Flares, great missiles and guns, great flight performance. Completely ruins 10.0.
Vanguard does, but its only enough to justify being 0.3 higher than Hood.
KGV, dont think so. Rileyy is working on it I think
7.0 is much too low
7.7 is possible
but no lower
those 23mm guns are lethal
Pz IV H
3.7 → 4.0
This is a very strong 3.7, it should be moved upwards
As Gaijin seem to have forgotten about prop balancing, I would like to make a number of proposals, starting with the Yak fighters.
As you most likely already know, most Yaks are incredibly strong at their respective BRs, but I believe several of them should have their BRs increased.
First of all, the Yak-3e and Yak-3 are quite undertiered, and I would propose sending both of them to 4.7 at the very minimum, and possibly to 5.0 if Gaijin are feeling generous. I propose 5.0 as an upper limit on the basis that the 3P is still perfectly competent at that rating without feeling overpowered. What it gains in stopping power, it loses in a slight augmentation of mass, so I think having all of the derivatives of the Yak-3 at 5.0 would be fair, due to the fact that they would effectively become sidegrades.
The next Yak I would propose to be moved up to 5.0 is the Yak-9U. Again, incredibly strong at its BR, the VK-107 is an absolutely monstrous powerplant (but less ergonomic to play than the Yak-3 as it does require MEC to maximise its potential), and some of the less meta planes at that BR could benefit from seeing the 9U a little less often.
Finally, in the most egregious case of a Yak being undertiered, there is the Yak-3U, at the lowly rating of 5.7. While I understand its placement may be a reflection of ShVak cannons (and by extension B-20s) in the past being a shadow of what they are currently, it is time for Gaijin to take stock of the situation and deal with it accordingly. Something like a Bf-109 K-4 (more on the later 109s in a bit) cannot hope to win against a Yak-3U pilot who is even halfway towards being competent, and as they inhabit the exact same BR, this is a clear example of a failed attempt at balance (if, indeed, there ever was an attempt in the first place). As the 3U is almost perfectly tailored for the current lower-altitude Air RB meta, putting it at 6.3 or even 6.7 would not hinder its performance significantly.
Another plane I would propose to move up is the Spitfire LF IX. Like the 3U, it is almost a bespoke fit for the current air RB meta, and only really falls short on the grounds of its straightline speed not being exceptional. I believe anywhere between 6.0 and 6.7 would be fine for it.
I promised to mention the later Bf-109s (namely the G-6, G-10, G-14, and G-14AS). As they are effectively sidegrades of one another, with the major differences being which altitude their engines are tuned for, I believe all of the late Gustav variants of the 109 would be perfectly fine at 5.0. The K-4, in the ideal world, would stay at 5.7, but if the more oppressive planes at its BR do not move, perhaps taking the K-4 to 5.3 would alleviate some of its shortcomings.
Also send the BI to 7.3 I hate that thing with a passion.
I’m assuming Prince of Wales may be scuppered because she didn’t exist after 1941…?
Air RB
F-16A Netz
12.7–>12.3
Considering the fact the damn F-15As are going to 12.7 (this is ridiculous)
why the hell should what is basically a 12.3 block 10 with slightly better 9Ls be 12.7
ZSU-23-4M4
Ground Realistic
9.3 → 10.0
IRCCM SAMs, especially ones on a radar gun SPAA that has very good close range capabilities should NOT be seeing 8.3, or even 8.7s.
Yeah…
Get ready for one of the other 4 to be added as a premium