I didn’t mention the F-16C for a reason. It and planes like the Gripen C don’t need an increase.
Actually no, AIM-120C-5s while having longer range have a longer time to target, and overall are worse than 120Bs in all other aspects within 30km.
T72B3 is going down to 11.3.It is such a wrong idea to implement
1 Like
IPM1 equivalent onggggg Russian bias is NOT real
It gives it an extra 10km of range in-game. That is the only noticeable change it gives (which is not an impactful one, as you’ll never engage a target at those ranges). Furthermore, 120Cs perform worse than 120Bs and 120As; this is why Gaijin was later forced to give it Derby missiles.
F16A ADF
13.3 → 12.7
removal of AIM120A and put back where they belong as they cant move up with the Su30s without more missiles as there to good to be 13.3 to bad to be 13.7s
4 Likes
It should get IRCCM Missiles like virtually every other 13.0 if it gets moved up.
The F15A at 12.7 is too strong. it should remain at 13. and raise everything 13.0 and above. bring the max to 15.0. we have too many aircrafts already.
The F2 ATW and the premium SU30s are undertiered. bring them up
3 Likes
The plane is better than the J-11A which i think should also go up in br. Fox 3 slinging flankers should be at 13.7 minimum
Naval
HMS Saumarez 4.3 > 4.0 ***’
Any attempt to manoeuvre causes her to heel over excessively preventing accurate offensive fire, assuming you can even see the target at this point. The only way to use effectively is therefore to broadside in a straight line (or by standing still) which makes you a big target.
***alternatively fix her and keep at 4.3!?!
1 Like
Solid Proposals by Gaijin. Am surprised. The only one I could think to include or that I would like to see is for a decrease in the chance in fighting 6.7 Tiger IIs in my 5.7 Shermans. So perhaps:
Ground Realistic Battles:
M4A2 (76) W - 5.3 > 5.0
M4A3 (76) W - 5.7 > 5.3
I don’t know the viability of increasing the Tiger II to 7.0. I don’t see the Tiger II struggling as much against say an 8.0 M60 as the 5.7 Sherman does against the Tiger II.
Either or but whichever seems more fair.
3 Likes
T72B3 is not good at first.But this thing has UBH kit
ELDE98
12.0 unfolded → 12.0 folded with ITO90M
it’s an already lackluster of an AA, it’s a useless bloat to the AA line of sweden and putting it in a folder would help who is grinding the AA line as both Ito and Elde are 12.0
2 Likes
Vehicle: Tornado GR4 & Tornado IDS SLE
Gamemode: Air Realistic & Air Simulator
BR Change: 12.3 —> 12.0
Reason: These aircraft are already pushing it in terms of being “okay” at 12.3, as essentially 11.3 aircraft with more CMs and IRCCM missiles, whether they should be 12.3 or 12.0 or even lower is a debate to be very much had. But with the proposed changes to the F-15A and moving it down to 12.7, then there is absolutely no justification for the Tornado GR4/SLE to remain at 12.3 as it is very much not only 0.3 worse than an F-15A running 4x AIm-9M and 4x Aim-7M (and thats without even mentioning the F-15J with AAM-3)
8 Likes
Agree. 13.7 will suffer against the planned 14.7 lineup, all 14.7 vehicle should be at 15.0. ( Of course all 15.0 would get better armament )
All of the current 14.3 should go up to 14.7 and give them 5th gen IR missile.
Maybe 15.0 would get AIM-120D, R-77M, PL-15, METEOR but not now, time will tell.
1 Like
Vehicle: Harrier Gr7
Gamemode: Air Realistic & Air Simulator
BR Change: 12.3 —> 12.0
Reason: It’s incredibly difficult to justify the Harrier Gr7 a subsonic aircraft, at the battle rating of 12.3. Especially with all the Harrier related issues and the nerfed nature of its defensive suite, but it was just about doing okay. The decision to move the F-15A/J down to 12.7 has however had massive impact on this and this current BR is no longer tennable. If the F-15A/J truly do move down to 12.7, then everything below needs to be moved down accordingly.
7 Likes
Ground Realistic
Sherman III/IV
3.7 → 4.0
It is a M4A3, but it doesn’t have a frontal weakspot of the MG port unlike the other sherman, which means that for a lot of the tanks that is at a lower BR, they cannot kill it at all. While it does have a part of its turret that is weaker, it is not visually not obvious at all that it is there, and at the same time, you still need quite a lot of penetration to go through. By comparison the M4A2 which is at 4.0, the Sherman III/IV trades APCR and a .50 cal for no hull weakspot.
8 Likes
Strv103c
Ground Realistic
9.0->8.7
The tank was nerfed simply due the 8.7 sweden lineups stats. The tank cant move and fire at the same time which is the core gameplay of 9.0. There are other autoloading tanks that have stabs and good shells that can also shoot on the move. There are no advantages to playing the tank at 9.0.
7 Likes
Yeah, C-5s should be faster but seem to still lack the overall performance increase stated.
AIR SIMULATOR
Hunter F.58 (1971) 9.7 → 9.3
No flares, no AGM-65s, AIM-9E x2 only. Currently it is at the same BR as the much superior Hunter F.6 with its 4x SRAAMs.
7 Likes