Nah they really are deadass moving kfir canard to 11.3?? And not even moving the mig25?? The kfir has faking 2 aim 9g and speed THAT ALL, the mig25 has 4 missile radar missile fastest plane in the game untouchable if they fly high they are deadass
21 Likes
Perhaps the Roland 1 should get the same track radar as the FlaRakPz and XM975 if you insist that they should be at the same BR?
49 Likes
Vehicle: Jaguar GR1A
Gamemode: Air Realistic & Air Simulator
BR Change: 10.7 —> 10.3
Reason: The Jaguar GR1A is the strongest of the 4 current Jaguars, with slightly more powerful engines, a half decent RWR and the ability to freely run the Phimat Pod alongside its full complement of Air-to-Air missiles, something that the other 3 cannot do. But even with all this, the Jaguar GR1A is not in a good state, as like the Jaguar A & E, it cannot really compete in any role within Air Realistic, and has to play extremely cautiously in Air Simulator. A BR reduction, any BR reduction would be a notable improvement for the airframe, whilst options to buff exist like giving the Jaguar GR1A a pair of Aim-9Ls, I would prefer it did not receive that buff as it would benefit far more from a BR reduction.
Another buff the Jaguar GR1A can and should receive is the Jaguar GR1B’s Digital RWR, the Jaguar GR1A already has the TIALD pod and cockpit from the Jaguar GR1B, so they might as well add the Digital RWR as well, improving the situational awareness and defensive potential of the Jaguar, which pairs beautifully with the Phimat Pod.
Ideally the Jaguar GR1A should go lower, down to 10.0, where it would probably be better placed, but 10.3 would be the bare minimum the airframe requires and places it alongside other similar airframes like the Mirage 5BA
45 Likes
Kurnass 2000
Air RB
12.3 → 12.0
The F-16A Netz / Netz Mod are the same BR with the same missile kit. It’s an outright inferior aircraft compared to them. Aside from comparison, it has only 6 IR missiles and a F-4E flight model at 12.3, and it struggles with this kit.
74 Likes
Vehicle: HMS Tiger
Gamemode: Naval Arcade & Realistic
BR Change: 6.0 -----> 5.3
Reason:
On the surface, HMS Tiger looks like a strong ship, with 2x very high rate of fire 6" main guns and 3x Incredibly fast firing 3" secondary guns. But the reality is that HMS Tiger is far weaker than most light cruisers at 5.7 and especially 6.0.
HMS Tiger’s mains guns have 3s reload (80 rounds per minute), which sounds good on paper. However, this is actually pretty poor for the BR. This is marginally better than HMS Liverpool with 9x 6" guns with a 7.5 second reload (72 rounds per minute) but far lower than ships such as USS Atlanta’s 14x 5" guns with 2.8 second reload (300 rounds per minute) or Nurnberg with 9x 6" guns with 5 second reloads (108 rounds per minute)
Compared to 6.0 cruisers since her BR increase, directly compared to something like HMS Belfast with 12x 6" guns with a 7.5 second reload (96 rounds per minute) just makes matter even worse
On top of the fairly poor shells per minute of the main guns, they have massive shell spread, and will rarely all impact the target, Easily 25%-50% of shells fired miss the target due to shell spread. Even at shorter ranges. These guns are only good at taking down aircraft with HE-VT due to their spread, as they act like bird shot. In comparison. 95% of the rounds fired from HMS Liverpool will hit the target due to having a very tight grouping.
Based upon datamines. HMS Tiger’s main 6" guns have double the shell spread of all other British 6" guns in game and there is no justified reason for this increase. If anything, Tiger should be more accurate
Since Tusk Force, the ability to fire the secondary guns at the same time as the Primary guns has been removed. Due to the inherent weapon spread of secondary guns vs naval targets when AI controlled, this has removed them entirely as being an anti-ship weapon vs anything other than coastal boats. I cant see any reason to be firing them manually at a target instead of the 6” guns unless they have been disabled. So this change has eliminated more 50% of the Tigers firepower, especially vs destroyers, which I imagine is the reason for her BR increase to 6.0
As a final note, HMS Tiger also has very poor survivability and cannot withstand fire for very long. She loses crew incredibly fast and due to having so few guns, can be suppressed and disabled very easily. Let alone if ammo racked leaving one or more guns being disabled for an extended period of time.
HMS Tiger, was never a strong 5.7, the increase to 6.0 was already highly unnecessary with the ship in the state it was…… With the further nerfs it has recently received…. It is now impossible to justify being 5.7 and 5.3 would be a more appropriate BR for this air-defence light cruiser
23 Likes
Vehicles: All
Gamemode: Airbattles (All)
Changes: Increase in max BR from 15.0 to 15.3
reason:
With the increase to 15.0 and moving up alot of the 13.7, 13.3 and 13.0 jets many of these have been placed at weird BRs where they are just flat out worse in every way than their counterparts.
Example 1:
F-16ADF US and ITA + F-16A MLU China are now the same br at 13.7 as the F-16CM Block 50 while being worse in every way
Example 2:
MiG-29SMT and MiG-29N are the same BR as the F-16CM Block 50 and Gripen C while being significantly worse at 13.7
Example 3:
MiG-29M and MiG-29KR also being pushed to 14.0 while being worse than other 14.0 planes like the Mirage 2000-5, Su-27SM and J-11B
this could be fixed with 15.3 being added
Vehicle: MiG-29 9.12 Soviet, MiG-29 9.12A Germany, MiG-29 9.12B Hungary and MiG-29 Sniper
Gamemode: Air battles (All)
Changes: Remove R-27ER from its loadout and add R-73
The balancing of the 12.7 MiG-29s are completely out of sync with it having access to the most powerful SARH (R-27ER) at 12.7 and having a extremely poor short range IR missile with short range and a narrow FOV. The better option would be to add the R-73 to fix its poor IR missile issue and remove the R-27ER from it to make such a powerful SARH not be available at 12.7.
55 Likes
Vehicles: Me 163 B, Me 163 B-0, Ki-200.
BR Change: 8.0, 8.3 ------> 6.7
Reason: Unsuitable for larger maps at that BR, no countermeasures for missiles and the BI is at 7.0 which the Me’s will be a good counter for.
17 Likes
Kfir Canard and A-5C have no good reason to up their SimEC BR’s… They’re not even a real threat to other players, they’re just ground pounders. This BR change doesn’t make any sense from a player or competitive perspective.
What? We enjoyed our premiums too much, so you have to raise it into BR oblivion?!
We paid real money for these vehicles at their advertised BR’s. This is an egregious change that only serves to spite your customers.
We’re already severely limited in rewards by the Useful Actions system. God forbid that we use our premium vehicles for their intended purpose…
26 Likes
Vehicle: Tornado F3, ADV and F3 Late
Gamemode: All
BR Change: None
Change: Add Phimat (at least 1 to the F3 & ADV, but definitely all configurations to the F3 Late)
Reason: The Tornado ADVs are currently reliant on BOL for their chaff, and BOL is currently in an artificially nerfed state that renders it much weaker than it should be, when combined with the increased challenge in getting an ADV into an effective notch, the combination often results in being unable to reliably notch an incoming missile. Phimat pods are historically accurate feature to the ADVs and would change the ¼ strength BOL Chaff into Large Calibre Chaff that is approximately 22x more effective. The F3 Late especially needs this kind of buff given what it faces on a routine basis and should recieve the configuration where it has 2x Phimat. If balance is a concern for the 12.0 aircraft, I would suggest the configuration that replaces an Aim-9, so there is a downside to taking it.
Possible configurations:
- 1x Phimat instead of an Aim-9
- 1x Phimat mounted on the unused outer pylon, TRD on the opposite wing (obviously non-functional at this time)
- 2x Phimat on the fuel pylons.
I would like to see a mix of configurations ideally for the F3 Late as different gamemode/situations would need a different configuration, for example Air Sim you ideally want fuel tanks.
This may increase the effectiveness of the 12.0 ADVs to the point of needing to be 12.3, but should be reviewed afterwards, not pre-emptively as more data is available.
37 Likes
Vautour IIN (IAF) → Addition of Shafrir 2 AAM, 8.7 → 9.0
It’d be nice to make it more unique
13 Likes
Why is the F-102 not getting AIM-4A and AIM-4C or D falcons? they are functionally better than the AIM-4G and F, while not being quite as powerful as the AIM-26… the gunpods are great but where are the accurate falcons?
47 Likes
when do these come into effect?
1 Like
Gaijin count your days
37 Likes
So why would the Kurnass go up if its inferior to the Netzs?
Edit: Post has now been corrected
3 Likes
Greek one never had any of them and they are not compatible as they were required modifications to be added
Merkava 2D → Addition of M428 Sword
It just needs new ammo with the new br
13 Likes
Mode: Ground Realistic Battles
Vehicle: Centurion Mk.1
Change: 6.0 → 5.7
Reasoning: The turret frontal armor of the tank has long been only 127 mm, not 152 mm, which makes it vulnerable to most guns at BR 6.0. The vehicle’s survivability is low, as 3 out of 4 crew members are located in the turret, and any hit to it often results in the tank being destroyed.
The gun has good nominal penetration; however, due to the use of sub-caliber and solid-shot rounds without explosive filler, it deals poor post-penetration damage. The high rate of fire is further limited by the 5+1 round mechanic, which negates its advantage in combat.
In addition, the tank’s mobility is unsatisfactory - its maximum speed is only 36-38 km/h, which does not allow it to maneuver effectively on the battlefield.
Taken together, these drawbacks indicate that the Centurion Mk.1 does not fit BR 6.0, and lowering it to 5.7 would be a more balanced solution.
48 Likes
So everything above like 8.0 is going up by the same amount, meaning there is actually very little change again…
17 Likes
Vehicle: Hawk 200
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 11.3 —> 10.7
Reason: The Hawk 200 could be best compared to something like the A-10A in the US for CAS in GRB which currently resides at 10.3. Whilst the Hawk is faster, the A-10A compensates by having a far larger weapons load and defensive suite. In maximum A2G configurations, the A-10A can field 6x AGM-65B, in addition to other rockets or bombs, and still carry 2x Aim-9Ls and 480 CMs. The Hawk 200 on the other hand, currently at 10.7 could only carry 4x AGM-65B, a single unguided bomb, no AAMs and only 60 CMs, substantially weaker, especially if also compared to the A-10A Late which exchanges the AGM-65Bs for AGM-65Ds and 4x Aim-9Ls currently at 10.7. Whilst the Hawk is the faster airframe, the differences in loadout more than mitigate this difference.
At the same BR as the Hawk 200, is the Hawk 209, with 4x AGM-65Gs and 2x Aim-9P-4s. A substantially stronger CAS and fighter aircraft
31 Likes