With the removal of apds from the falcon and amx they should both be moved back down to 8.0 as they are both worse platforms than the gepard, especially the falcon as it still hasnt been given its radar.
2 Likes
H-39 is almost more real than the Soyuz.
2 Likes
It is either that or to remove the aim 9M
F-14A
12.7 → 12.0 and moved before the F18
Given AIM-9Ls as a researchable, AIM-9Ds removed stock and replaced with Gs
F-14C
13.0 → 12.3 and moved before F-18, foldered with F-14A
Given AIM-9Ms as a researchable
I dont think i need to explain this, the average player knows these are some of the saddest planes in game right now.
- pheonixes alone are miserable, being one chaffed as far as defending, being multipathed extremely easily, and even then having extremely poor turn rate makes them dodgable. Their range doesnt save them with their abysmal speed giving players very early warning
- the airframe isnt the best at the BR, regularly fighting SU27s and even 30s, aswell as F18s, and other 4th gens, with the C being able to fight monsters like the F15E or other near top tier aircraft
- having ARHs is nothing special at 13.0, with most aircraft at that BR having some variant of ARH missiles, modern IR missiles, or extremely well performing airframes.
Wouldn’t it be easier to fix all the APHEs at once? That way you’d solve this SPAA problem, and possibly the biggest imbalance problem the game has ever had (APHEs in general).
1 Like
Mode: GRB
Vehicle: Tetrarch I
BR: Reserve > 2.3
Rank: 1 > 2
A majority of outstanding reports have been implemented and Tetrarch is now much more survivable. Moving late-war high-performance lights into Rank II will enable them to receive Scouting, and be viable in higher BR matches.
Related;
- Change Cruiser tanks (A13 series, Crusader) to Medium to avoid swamping Rank II with light tanks.
- Add the British Locust I, which replaced Tetrarch historically.
8 Likes
Is this man really arguing there are no fake russian ships lmao… delusional.
1 Like
I would actually have to try to actively play worse in that regard lmao
1 Like
Its called play the AA as an AA, thats like saying the LAV AD would be useless if it lost its hydras
agreed.
WT naval is just a russian alt reality wet dream
I literally noted that this is something that happened to my XM-246, not the other way around.
You have 98 battles in ground realistic.
2 Likes
i would just give them the better missiles and leave where they are and not move the Eagles down
IF the chieftain mk10 and 900 are going to be 9.3, by now they then should get L23A1 since they used that round on the mk10, and might as well make the mk10 the mk11 and give it thermals, and make the reload the standard 8.7s stock, because otherwise there is no reason to play them when other 9.3s beat them in both firepower, have thermals most of them, slower reload than all of them, and mobility while matching protection or being outright better (T-72s), nevermind that applies to the mk10 which at a minimum has the composite turret, the 900? it’s a mk5 with a marginally better engine that in reality it makes it go from unbearably slow to just slow, but it gets an average dart for the tier, how is it on the same ballpark as the T-72A that it’s only drawback is gun depression, but beats it in every other area?, not even an ace crew gets the reload to match the T-72 autoloader, let alone the rest of tanks that get to 6.7s.
Same with removing the belts on the falcon and amx30dca, either you fix the tracking on the falcon, or why remove the sole reason people play those vehicles when they still do the role of spaa regardless? be consistent, either the falcon losses the apds and so does 35mm SPAA, or neither does.
1 Like
A21RB
Air realistic
6.7->7.0
Forgotten vehicle that’s absolutely insane at 6.7. Literally has a vampire engine. Only weakness is max speed compared to 7.0 jets. Climbs well, turns well, and very fast.
2 Likes
Remove diminishing returns mechanic
Currently there is a mechanic where the more bombs you take, the less reward you get. This mechanic absolutely destroys the balance of many ground attack aircraft whose sole strength over fighters with bombs is the ability to run more bombs, but as it currently stands, there is little to no value to actually doing this on any aircraft.
For example, the Buc S2 can carry up to 16x 1000lb or 10x 1000lb bombs alongside CMs but I cant think of a single reason to ever run more than 4x 1000lb alongside the CMs to maximise rewards from 1x base kill, which is somewhat optimstic to get.
This pattern tracks at all BRs for many many aircraft.
The effects of this mechanic:
| Bombs | RP | SL | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 4410 | 10540 | 536 |
| 6 | 3901 | 9320 | 473 |
| 7 | 3533 | 8441 | 428 |
| 8 | 3257 | 7781 | 396 |
| 9 | 3045 | 7268 | 369 |
| 10 | 2872 | 6861 | 348 |
| 11 | 2733 | 6523 | 331 |
| 12 | 2616 | 6244 | 317 |
Tests conducted in the Tornado GR4 the reward recieved for destroying a single base using Mk13s
Running more bombs is already balanced by the increased drag and weight (getting those base kills with 10+ bombs took multiple matches, it was significantly harder than running just 5 bombs) , and in some instances, such as Canberra Mk2 vs Buc S1, a higher BR, a third balancing mechanic on top of that is totally unreasonable
13 Likes
Yak-3 Family
Air RB:
- Eremin’s Yak-3(e): 4.0 → 4.3 - Better performance than the base Yak-3 with slightly worse firepower.
- Yak-3 (USSR & FRA): 4.3 → 4.7 - performance more in line with 4.7 planes.
- Yak-3P: stay at 5.0 - improved weapons balanced by slightly worse performance than base Yak-3
- Yak-3T: stay at 5.0 - improved weapons balanced by slightly worse performance than base Yak-3
- Yak-3U: 5.7 → 6.0 - Performance more in line with 6.0-6.3 planes.
9 Likes
Looks at my stormer ad with half the ammunition and no hydras at the same br… yeah, would make it alot less fun anyway.
Mode: Ground AB & RB
Vehicle: Independent
Change: 1.3 → 1.0
Reasoning: Inferior gun, lousy mobility, and almost nonexistent armor. It’s not even worthy to fight against 2.3 vehicles in an uptiered battle.
3 Likes
1 change per message
All Chieftan Mk. 10 suggestions for keeping at 9.0:
Spoiler
Planned Battle Rating Changes (January 2026) - #124 by TwitchyNGL
Planned Battle Rating Changes (January 2026) - #607 by Dr_NotYaDoc
Planned Battle Rating Changes (January 2026) - #1205 by spartinwarrior64
All Chieftain Mk. 10 suggestions for rebalancing for 9.3
Spoiler
Planned Battle Rating Changes (January 2026) - #59 by Master_Teaz
Planned Battle Rating Changes (January 2026) - #193 by FlyingOstridge
Planned Battle Rating Changes (January 2026) - #207 by AverageWehraboo
All Chiefain 900 suggestions for keeping at 9.0:
Spoiler
Planned Battle Rating Changes (January 2026) - #124 by TwitchyNGL
Planned Battle Rating Changes (January 2026) - #213 by AverageWehraboo
All Chiefain 900 suggestions for keeping at 9.3:
All T-80UD suggestions for moving it to 10.7 or the moon:
Spoiler
Planned Battle Rating Changes (January 2026) - #124 by TwitchyNGL
Planned Battle Rating Changes (January 2026) - #163 by Beeschurger
Planned Battle Rating Changes (January 2026) - #244 by AverageWehraboo
Planned Battle Rating Changes (January 2026) - #560 by Dr_Henk
Planned Battle Rating Changes (January 2026) - #621 by Omaneko_JASDF
Planned Battle Rating Changes (January 2026) - #717 by IsurusOxyrinchus
Planned Battle Rating Changes (January 2026) - #1158 by spartinwarrior64
I think people are rather unhappy with Gaijin’s current decisions with these vehicles.
If I’ve missed any, do tell.
6 Likes