I don’t think Tiger IIs would fare well against T-10M’s.
3 Likes
theres a reason it is 8.0
I can’t see any reason to make a late war prop see supersonics
???
Having 12.7 M2 Brownings at 7.0 is not fun at all and on the edge of unplayable
AH-64Ds (all nations) & Ah-1Z to 11.7
or
Give them the JAGM-MR (SALH)
Neither of which are on par with the likes of the Ka-52. The main reason being that hellfires are incredibly bad at range due to flight characteristics and the nature of SALH puts these helis at a even bigger disadvantage.
Both the 114K and 114B are nearly identical. Yes the K’s got a tandem warhead but because both has extremely high pen, it already bypasses a lot of ERA.
Giving these helis the JAGM-MR (SALH) will make them competitive at 12.0 albeit it will somewhat still be worse than the Ka52 because the platform is extremely good (MAW+DIRCM+8 AAM + 30mm gun with 6km range)
I dont either.
the compression is really bad which does tie the hands of balancing Tiger 2.
We need ground to top out at 16.0 so that mid tier recieves the breathing room to allow for ww2 to be much fairer.
within current compression i do think SLA and production should be 7.0 though.
2 Likes
or even , god forbid.-
Not a bait, if you don’t want to risk your fuselage when you need to shoot it down,
R.511 is your best bet. Maybe even more trustworthy than AIM-9B, I guess.
Well… Vautour IIN itself isn’t that good fighter jet, though.
Maybe even weirder than F-104.
If you don’t want to risk your plane? use missile
If you don’t want to play plane with missiles, shoot ground targets and force them to lose.
If you don’t want to get some dirt on your nose, too? Then you need to wait a long time.
Just like how you told me to ‘play a fighter’ before. :/
Anyway, your original idea of sending Tu-4 to ‘9.0BR’ is quite absurd.
It needs to be bit lower compared to IL-28 or Tu-14T.
Not higher.
Getting killed by an F-4C with AIM-7D is an even more absurd idea.
I think I heard this same tune when F-14A completely overwhelmed the meta back in those days.
:/
Not without decompression and other vehicles moving up with it. There was also the significant HP/mobility nerf from last year, which IMO puts the T26E5 above the Tiger IIs.
I’d probably agree with you a few months ago, but that engine nerf made them feel alot more sluggish, I don’t think they need to move up as well.
Vehicle : F-14A
Gamemode : Air Realistic
Br Change : 12.7 —> 12.3
Reason : Start at the F-14A, First of all In new BR that change F-15A at 12.7 Its mean we will have a FOX 2 IRCCM at standart in this BR. Which F-14A only have a rear aspect FOX 2 in the same BR. Not about RWR that F-14A got, Its can’t compare againts F-15A RWR, and radar F-14A Radar only have HDN meanwhile F-15A radar got all aspect PD. For this reason F-14A should be in 12.3 and need AIM-9L and real AWG-9 capabiliy (Normal PD all aspect and 20 km ACM like Flanker). About AIM-54 every one migth think its should stay in 12.7 thats good now, However AIM-54 are good againts only new player, For statistic its show AIM-54 shoot down rank 8 premuim the most. But its can’t kill 13.3 -13.7, Its mean AIM-54 not a good FOX-3 missile and cant compare with 13.3 - 13.7 FOX 3. Therefore F-14A should be at 12.3 BR and need AIM-9L just like another 12.3 jet that have FOX 2 all aspect as standart.
6 Likes
they still move perfectly fine.
its like a stock engine centurion in mobility now, which is still very good.
I also think the american 6.7 heavies are undertiered however i CBA with their designations so i couldnt add them to my list of BR change proposals as they were just the ones i could say without looking at the games tech trees
Ive played them a good few times since and the mobility is not bad at all.
people were used to a very heavy tank traversing maps almost like a light at times
see yourself out
5 Likes
T-80UD BR：10.3 to 10.7
it is much better than T-72B，better sight better armor better mobility and better reload. now you decide move T-64B to 10.3，T-80UD is not suitable to share same BR with it.
T-72B3 keep it 11.7
it is just a least armored T-90M，anyway if T-72B3A still in 12.3，T-72B3 should not be changed，the APS doesn’t worth a total 1.0 BR higher，and 10.3 tanks will suffer to fight against T-72B3 which have good armor，top ter APFSDS and good mobility.
BMPT BR：11.3 to 11.7 and give it 3UBR11 APFSDS belt.
BMPT have top ter mobility and armor with fast shooting autocanon and ATGM，it doesn’t need to reload and can shoot everything until they die or disabled，its BR should be higher，then APFSDS belt can be added.
I’d agree with a 9.7 BR, but not 9.3
Currently the only plane with laser guided A2G weapons with a lower BR than the F-117 is the Su-17M2 at 9.7 and that thing has no countermeasures either
1 Like
its nuts for a stealth bomber to be able to fly in a match where it couldnt even see early IR SAMs.
it would be lower than Ozelot lol
1 Like
Mode: Ground Realistic Battle
Vehicle: Chieftain Mk10 → Chieftain Mk11
BR Change: 9.0 > 9.3
Reasoning: Change the Mk10 to the Mk11 so it can have thermals and be actually competitive at 9.3
1 Like
I will asmit 9.3 was a bit too much of an exaggeration, i omly really saw it as a way to not be uptiered to 10.7, but 9.7 i think would be fair for it
1 Like
Keep apds belt for Falcon and amx30 DCA!
Totally unnecessary to delete the interesting belt.
1 Like
You’d have to move a bunch of other helis down as well, so that’s a no
That would warrant a BR increase. 16km range is still 16km range, even if it’s just SAL.