Yeah the old 10.7 BR for the A-10A Late was honestly perfect as it slots in directly with the 10.7 ground lineup and it avoided facing toptier systems like pantsir ect
New BR puts it at 11.3 while the ground lineups sit at 11.0 and its just barely high enough to face toptier SPAA systems that can completely skullfuck the aircraft CS/SA5 being the biggest threat with its fire and forget missiles that use the IRIS-T seeker in the files
2 Likes
I now do not understand why CBUs are being gamemode restricted.
They are the buff needed for any CAS aircraft to actually do anything below top tier now.
cas is lucky to be in grb to begin with. They don’t get to make demands.
At least now they can stop nerfing aircraft in ARB/NE/ASB by using GRB as the excuse.
Like for example, absolutely no reason why the Harrier Gr7 at 12.7 or Tornado GR1 at 12.0 cant get ALARM now
Tornado GR4 at 13.0 can get MMW Brimstones without issue
1 Like
So t72b3a still sit at 12.0 but vt4 at 12.7 and vt4a1 13.0 ?
1 Like
Stirling B Mk III
Air & Ground Realistic
4.7 → 4.3
The Mk III is near identical to the Mk I, but somehow that justfies a BR difference of 0.7, instead of them being same BR. It is not even because they have any major difference in armaments. They are more in effect, the same aircraft, and there is no reason to research and play the Mk III, when you are going through the techtree.
It is getting a bit tiring to continuously ask for the same BR change for now 3 years, for something that for me feels obvious...
Planned Battle Rating changes for the month of October - #428 by OliverXRed
Planned Battle Rating Changes for October 2024 - #538 by OliverXRed
Planned Battle Rating Changes for February 2025 - #558 by OliverXRed
Planned Battle Rating changes for April 2025 - #2838 by OliverXRed
Planned Battle Rating changes for August 2025 (updated 16:00, 15.08) - #3203 by OliverXRed
Planned Battle Rating Changes (January 2026) - #1002 by OliverXRed
Planned Battle Rating Changes (April 2026) - #1885 by OliverXRed
Planned Battle Rating Changes (August 2026) - #570 by OliverXRed
I literally don’t see a reason for the two aircraft to be that far from each other in BR with such a small difference in performance. There are aircraft with only 0.3 or same BR with a bigger performance difference than the Stirling bombers.
Suggested BR change
change: AMX 11.7 → 11.3 in GRB
Reason: This aircraft has 6 air to ground munitions that are laser and require constant lock to hit their mark but the A-7K a fellow sub sonic platform can bring 6 AGM-65 FNF munitions and 2 GBU-8 FNF munitions while at 11.3 in grb and i dont think having a better TGP is a justified reason to have the AMX be 11.7 as the A-7K and AMX are both sub sonic both have 2 9L bith have the M61A1 20mm but the A-7K gets a way more superior kit and safety while firing these weapons compared to the AMX hense why i think the AMX should be put down to the same br as the A-7K
Fw 190 A-5/A-8/D-9/D-12
and
Ta 152 C-3
- Battle: Air Simulator Battle
A-5/A-5(JP) BR: 4.7→ BR: 4.3
A-8/A-8(USA) BR: 5.3→ BR: 4.7
D-9/D-9(USSR) BR: 5.7→ BR: 5.0
D-12 BR:5.7 → BR: 5.3
Ta 152 C-3 BR: 6.0 → BR: 5.7
All variants of the Fw 190 share a wide turning radius and a climb rate that is slightly below average. They have a fast roll and heavy armament, but that’s pretty much all they have going for them. The bomber hunting they once excelled at is no longer viable. Compared to other fighters at the same BR, they are clearly underperforming. I think a BR decrease of 0.4–0.6 is necessary.
Hawk 209 against aim-120, 9x, iris-t and others sound so balanced
I also think that neither the ADF nor the MLU should be raised. You should just post that here too—it’s easy, right?
There is a mistake in the naval list. USS Phelps is 5.0 now, not 5.3. Maybe it is mistaken for the Moffett. USS Phelps should be 4.7 instead of 5.0.
The T-72B 1989 is such a sad vehicle and shouldn’t be 11.0. Max 10.7
1 Like
Make these jets 70 SP at max then
7 Likes
I would go as far as to say that the T-72Bs are sad enough to stay at 10.3.
1 Like
Panther G
- Ground Realistic Battle : BR: 6.0 → BR: 5.7
Panther G is essentially a downgraded version compared to the Panther A and Panther F at the same BR of 6.0. In terms of usage rate as well, the Panther G is low.
Currently, Germany’s BR 5.7 has an empty medium tank slot, so lowering the Panther G to BR 5.7 would make sense for completing a lineup at that BR.
To get right to the point, I don’t know how the Kfir Canard—which is, in fact, the ideal fighter for BR 10.7—currently has a BR of 11.0, so I understand even less why it would end up with a BR of 11.3???
This looks like a mistake—maybe the J-7D or MiG-25PD was supposed to get BR 11.3, and the Kfir Canard was supposed to be BR 10.7? That would make more sense…
1 Like
Seeing how they are planning to limit CBUs to NE, I’m suprised they can’t do the same with other weaponry and loadouts already.
MMW would be no problem at all as long as it gets hard limited to NE (or air gamemodes in general).
Vehicle: Falcon
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 8.7 → 8.0
Reason: The Falcon is outperformed by the Gepard at the same BR in almost every regard, including radar capabilities, autocannons, the availability of APDS ammunition, and mobility. There is little reason for the Falcon to remain at 8.7 when the Gepard offers better overall performance at the same BR. Furthermore, there is a significant gap in the British SPAA lineup between BR 5.3 and 8.7, with no intermediate vehicles available to fill this role. Lowering the Falcon’s BR to 8.0 would help bridge this gap and provide a more accessible option for players who need an SPAA at lower BRs, while also making its placement more appropriate for its actual performance.
2 Likes
Vehicle: F4-J Phantom II
Give it an AIM-9G as a stock missile.
Reason: 2x Aim-9D at 12.0 is painful to use.
“we’re taking the Falcon’s APDS so we don’t have to move it up in BR anymore”
then they move it up anyway