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.
1 Like
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
Turan III 4.0 → 3.7 (all modes)
The Turan III is essentially a Pz IV H, yet the Pz IV H gets APCR, and a smoke shell, whereas the Turan III, with better mobility and less penetration( due to artificially limited shell choices), has to be 4.0. How does this make any sense ?
Either move the Turan III to 3.7 or give it its missing shell types, so that the 4.0 battle rating makes sense.
Missing German APCR shell of the Turan III
Missing German smoke shell of the Turan III
Both reported and accepted 2 years ago, yet nothing has been done!
2 Likes
it has 52 flares at the cost of one pylon. If you bring both flare pods, they both dispense simultaneously meaning your flare amount does not increase and you lose a second pylon.
The flares give it no defensive potential against a MiG-19, F-104 or F-100.
It should be 9.0 at most.
Mode: Ground AB & RB
Vehicle: Ro-Go
Change: 1.3 → 1.0
Reasoning: Terrible and very difficult gun, worst mobility, and inferior armor. It’s not even worthy to fight against 2.3 vehicles in an uptiered battle.
3 Likes
Mode
Ground RB
T-35
1.3 → 2.0
This thing is extremely good for 1.3 with its 2 40-K cannons, and its 76mm, its extremely oppressive at 1.3 and should be moved up
1 Like
Ground Realistic
Vehicle: SAAB F-35
BR: 10.7 → 10.3
This jet only has unguided rockets and dumb bombs at 10.7 GRB.
Honestly, I usually dislike seeing that F-14A being 12.3 or F-14B being 12.7
Due to long-term hatred which built when I was a newcomer
But, IF Gaijin really, reaaally pushes F-15A down to 12.7 thanks to USAF Subsidies, which they did to F-86A before.
Even though I really don’t want to, it seems I need to support that idea for Mavs and Goose :|
Because, with exaggeration, in an exam room where almost everyone cheats, not cheating gives nothing good except some puny little morale improvement.
Hey Iceman! Please support Tonka F.3 to 11.7 for ‘greater good’ and ‘fair trade’. :D
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
No, not till Gaijin fixes this.
lmao coelian at 7.7 is just sohe prime seething
As nice as better IRs would be, they still wouldnt be contending for their BRs, atleast not with how comically useless pheonixes are at their job