How about you open some guide instead?
Genuinely who thinks the 9.0 chieftains are so strong they need an uptier lol
Agreed, personally with how the meta is I would put it at 10.3 in air rb and ground rb, while yes it does have laser guided bombs, by that BR there are other vehicles with fire and forget bombs while this thing has to keep its lock on a target. The AMXs are yet another victim of being in the Italian TT and thus being overtiered.
btw, with Canberra bomber going down to 7.7, does that mean no more B-29 nuke bomber for 7.7? So annoying (currently) getting a nuke in a 7.7 uptier and having to try nuke in the B-29. I prefer full 8.0 uptiers so i can get the Canberra. With the recent nerf to the 3000kg bomb, you can also send the IL-28 down to 7.7, so all nations have a 7.7 jet nuke bomber ready to go.
looking at the wiki, it’s way worse, yeah
can’t really say anything else, uou should suggest a br reduction for it
1 Like
Ho-Ri Prototype
6.7- 6.3
The front turrut armor of Ho-RI prototype is only 150-120mm, not 200mm, not 180mm, which is worse than the Tiger 2 or Jagtigers, and it’s engine power is 550HP, so it’s mobiltiy is even worse than the Jagpanther. There is no reason it should be against Jagtiger or Tiger2
the Mk.10 kinda, it’s turret is very strong in a down-tier, so I can understand trying to move it away from 8.0s like the early Leopard 1s, M60s, & AMX-30s, but at the same time 10.3s largely have no problem with it and the mobility holds it back massively. (Personally sat at a 3.0 KD in it)
Another victim of compression ig, my 9.0 line up is gonna be sad without it.
(the 900 shouldnt go up)
It’s a strong lineup, but i’ve never once thought it should go up in BR. China’s 9.0 lineup is even stronger.
My god goijin doesn’t even play their own game.
All the centaros are bad ngl.
1 Like
The type 88 is somehing im looking forward to alot
How can a fast wheeled 105/120 ever be bad
rafale is too weak why did it get a br change it should be 8.0 micas are not op.
1 Like
Bad gun depression, slow load time, bad survivability. Etc.
Pretty much their only pro is “wheeled” cons: everything else
Which other plane gets more than 8x IRCCM missiles?
Hell which other plane gets 8x IRCCM missiles?
1 Like
im not sure there is any other aircrsft that can carry that many fox2s in that bracket
rafale should be moved back to 12.0 its so weak in the current meta and it only has 8 missles while su33 have 20 missles. Micas also do circles instead of hitting the enemy. i have 0.3kd in the rafale cuz its so bad. PUT TO 12.0 ASAP or russian bias is real
1 Like
And give it meteors and mica ir, otherwise it’s gonna suffer against rank 7 powercreeps
USSR
BM-8-24
- Ground AB BR: 1.3 → 1.0
- Ground RB BR: 1.3 → 1.0
This vehicle is widely regarded as one of the worst vehicles in-game. It can barely kill reserve light tanks. There is no need to have it higher than 1.0.
SU-76D
- Reload Speed: 9.0-6.9 s → 7.2-5.6 s
The SU-76D doesn’t really have much over the SU-76M at 2.3, and is generally just seen as an inferior version of the free SU-57B. It deserves a reload buff as some form of consolation.
Great Britian
A1E1 Independent
- Ground AB BR: 1.3 → 1.0
- Ground RB BR: 1.3 → 1.0
It’s not really any wonder you never see anyone play it ever. For a vehicle of its size, it’s deceptively mobile, but it is still quite slow by comparison to most vehicles of Rank I. The gun is just okay, with slightly below average penetration, and the armor is nonexistent. It’s got crewmen to spare, but that’s really the only noteworthy thing it has going for it.
Japan
Type 95 Ro-Go
- Ground AB BR: 1.3 → 1.0
- Ground RB BR: 1.3 → 1.0
- 70 mm Type 94 Reload Speed: 5.2-4.0 s → 4.6-3.5 s
- Add shoulder-stop stabilizers to both guns
Compared to other multi-turreted heavies at 1.3, such as the Nb.Fz. and T-35, the Ro-Go falls short massively in terms of firepower. The 70 mm has some of the lowest shell velocities in-game, while the 37 mm is far from powerful enough to compensate. It should have a somewhat decent firerate to compensate. The 70 mm is a very compact, lightweight weapon with short cartridges, so a quicker reload is not unreasonable. The armor is modest, and the mobility is poor, so it would not become a toxic vehicle at 1.0 by any stretch of the imagination, but it would become much more usable.
Type 2 Ka-Mi
- Reload Speed: 5.2-4.0 s → 4.1-3.1 s
The Ka-Mi arbitrarily gets much worse reload than most other 37 mm armed vehicles despite having a semi-automatic breech and two man turret. The gun is very close in performance to the Swedish 37 mm, so a comparable reload to Swedish tanks is reasonable.
Type 2 Ho-I
- Reload Speed: 7.5-5.9 s → 4.3-3.3 s
Other vehicles with low velocity 75/76 mm howitzers like the T-28 (1938), M8 HMC, and the very analogous early Panzer IVs have aced reload speeds of 3.3-4 seconds, but the Ho-I’s is longer than even many higher velocity 75 mm guns. From a logic perspective, this should be the opposite. Ho-I’s rounds are shorter and lighter than the Germany short 75 mm rounds, and more accessible than those of the Panzer IVs due to the convenient bustle ammunition rack. Additionally, the Ho-I has greater need for faster reload than the Pz. IVs due to the much worse HEAT shell muzzle velocity, meaning misses at range are more frequent, and with the current reload rate, more punishing.
Type 3 Chi-Nu
- Reload Speed: 7.8-6.0 s → 6.5-5.0 s
There is similar logic here to the Ho-I. When you compare it to it’s closest analogue, the later Pz.IVs, it doesn’t make sense for it to have worse reload when it has shorter rounds in a roomier turret with a bustle ammunition rack. The Chi-Nu is already in the shadow of other 3.3 mediums, like the Pz.IV G and M4A1 Sherman. Giving it an more respectable fire rate would be a good way to keep it competitive and would maintain some gameplay consistency between it and the later Chi-Ri.
Type 3 Chi-Nu II
- Ground AB BR: 4.3 → 4.0
- Ground RB BR: 4.3 → 4.0
- Reload Speed: 8.4-6.5 s → 7.8-6.0 s
Again, apply the same logic as the Ho-I and standard Chi-Nu for the fire rate. The Chi-Nu II is currently 4.3 despite the Pz.IV G at 3.3 being an overall better platform with a gun that is nearly as powerful. It doesn’t have to be 3.3, or even 3.7, but it should not be a whole BR higher than the Pz.IV G just because of a better APHE round.
Italy
M11/39
- Move to before the M13/40 (I) without connection, similarly to Ha-Go or H.35
The M11/39 is a vehicle people only play as a challenge. The combination of abysmal penetration and limited traverse massively limits this vehicle’s capabilities compared to most other 1.0 vehicles. Its APHE round even has grounds to be nerfed because it incorrectly received the APC penetration bonus despite being uncapped.
It also never made sense in the light tank line to begin with. Historically, this vehicle was the direct predecessor to all subsequent M series tanks, and is much more similar in gameplay to them in-game than it is to other low rank Italian light vehicles.
M13/40 (I)
- Ground AB BR: 1.7 → 1.3
- Ground RB BR: 1.7 → 1.3
- Add Granata mod.35 [HE]
Most other nations get their first medium tanks at 1.3. The M13/40 (I) is already overall worse than the Pz.III F [BR 1.3] in almost every regard aside from post-pen damage and turret armor. The mobility is on the slower side, and the gun is fairly underwhelming in all regards except damage. I don’t see why it wouldn’t be fine at the same BR as the Pz.III F.
M13/40 (II) & (III)
- Ground AB BR: 2.0 → 1.7
- Ground RB BR: 2.0 → 1.7
- Reload Speed: 3.8-2.9 s → 4.1-3.1 s
- Add Granata mod.35 [HE]
These vehicles aren’t that different from the M13/40 (I), so they shouldn’t be much stronger than the M13/40 (I) already is currently at 1.7.
I propose a very slight reload nerf because a combination of high post-pen damage and fire rate could make them a bit too proficient for “seal clubbing”. 3.1 seconds is still very fast, but gives 37 mm armed vehicles a better fighting chance.
M14/41
- Ground AB BR: 2.3 → 1.7
- Ground RB BR: 2.0 → 1.7
- Reload Speed: 3.8-2.9 s → 4.1-3.1 s
- Add Granata mod.35 [HE]
The M14/41 is a similar case to the later M13/40s. Even with the culmination of the improvements it has over the original M13/40, it’s still not outright better than the Pz.III F [BR 1.3], which is over twice as fast, similarly armored, has a punchier gun with access to HVAP, and has a larger crew. Lowering the arcade battle BR would let it form a line-up with its Semovente counterpart and the Lancia 3Ro 100/17 without facing some of the rather strong vehicles populating 3.3, which it currently can’t do much against.
M14/41 (47/40)
- Ground AB BR: 2.3 → 2.0
- Ground RB BR: 2.3 → 2.0
- Reload Speed: 3.8-2.9 s → 4.3-3.3 s
Compared to the bog standard M14/41, the M14/41 (47/40) isn’t a significant enough step up in terms of performance to warrant facing 3.3 vehicles. The 47/40 gun is still generally inferior to most other guns in the 45-50 mm category.
In exchange for a BR reduction, the reload should be slightly nerfed to bring it more in line with the Japanese 47 mm gun’s fire rate.
M15/42
- Ground AB BR: 2.7 → 2.3
- Ground RB BR: 2.7 → 2.0
- Reload Speed: 3.8-2.9 s → 4.3-3.3 s
In terms of mobility, survivability, and firepower, the M15/42 is not on the same level as other light and tanks at its BR (T-50, Pz.III J1, Chi-He, M3 Lee, and Strv m/42 EH), and in some cases, those lower than it at 2.3 (T-28E and Pz.III J). The mobility, while better than its predecessors, is still only mediocre and the armor is only improved along one part of the front plate. The gun is still outperformed by Soviet reserve vehicles, resulting in it being much less competitive in just slight uptiers.
In exchange for a generous BR reduction, the reload should be slightly nerfed to bring it more in line with the Japanese 47 mm gun’s fire rate.
AS 42/47
- Ground AB BR: 2.0 → 1.7
- Ground RB BR: 2.0 → 1.7
- Add Granata mod.35 [HE]
- Fix the sight offset. The sight is below the gun, making it harder to predict shell trajectory.
At 2.0, the AS 42/47 is competing with the likes of the BT-7M and P204(f) Kwk 38. Compared to these vehicles, its gun doesn’t have as much penetration, which makes it less consistent. It’s arguably more vulnerable than many unarmored trucks, so just about any vehicle with a roof or co-ax mg can kill it with a glance. Granted, it does have extremely good mobility, but I don’t believe this fully compensates for its poor protection and gun performance. Like most very mobile vehicles, it can still work when played well, but other light tanks at its BR are more forgiving without being any less effective.
The AS 42 w/ 20 mm Breda sits at just 1.3, and isn’t that much less effective when used in the same manner against ground targets, in addition to being able to engage aircraft.
AB43
- Ground AB BR: 2.7 → 2.0
- Ground RB BR: 2.7 → 2.3
- Reload Speed: 4.3-3.3 s → 4.6-3.5 s
The poor penetration causes the AB43 to struggle much more in uptiers than its competition, mainly the AMD.35 (Pak) [BR 2.7], which can handle 3.7 heavy tanks with little issue. Even the KwK 38 version of the AMD.35 at 2.0 still isn’t an outright downgrade compared to the AB43, since it still boasts better armor and much better penetration.
The arcade BR is lowered to greater extent because this mode’s visibility mechanics tend to put stealth-reliant light vehicles at a disadvantage. This is a trend already seen in other light vehicles’ arcade BRs.
47/32 L40
- Ground AB BR: 1.3 → 1.0
- Ground RB BR: 1.3 → 1.0
- Reload Speed: 3.9-3.0 s → 4.8-3.7 s
If the M13/40 moves down, I don’t think it makes as much sense to keep the Semovente L40 at the same BR, since it would lose its niche. On its own merits, it’s not entirely deserving of its current BR either. Its hp/t ratio is exceptionally poor by light SPG standards. The gun has fairly poor penetration, making it less reliable at dealing with armor than even the reserve vehicles of some other nations. This means that it can’t punch much above its weight, unlike the Pzjgr.I and Lorraine 37L, which both have comparatively far superior penetration and mobility.
The Semovente L40 is also very unstable when firing, meaning it often can’t even take advantage of its current fire rate when trying to engage targets beyond close quarters. Its only advantage over its competitors is some degree of armor along the casemate front (which would only become more negligible if HE rounds are returned to low ranks now that they are more viable).
75/46 M43
- Ground AB BR: 4.7 → 4.3
- Ground RB BR: 4.7 → 4.3
I see this vehicle as analogous to the Hetzer [BR 4.3]. Both are compact TDs with decent frontal armor, but otherwise poor survivability and mediocre mobility. Where the Hetzer has more uniform front protection and a larger crew, the Semovente M43 gets a lower profile and better gun. I therefore don’t see why the Semovente M43 needs to be placed any higher than the Hetzer.
2 Likes
Ground RB / SB
Turm III 8.3 > 9.0 very powerful medium tank with a 5.0 sec reload and auto cannon, and great gun depression, very good mobility, very quote engine / track sound, often it’s so open it will be hit with little to no damage
3 Likes