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…
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.
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?
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.
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
Reasoning: These were the world’s first mass-produced jet aircraft. They have poor maneuverability and take a long time to build up speed, which means they can only rely on their velocity - something that is rarely achievable at BR 7.0 (where they very often face 7.7 and 8.0). In addition, they are equipped with a very specific armament: four 30 mm MK 108 cannons with extremely poor ballistics.
It should also be noted that at BR 6.0 there is already the Me 262 A-1/U4, armed with the 50 mm Mk.214a cannon, which offers far superior ballistics and aiming performance, and yet it does not cause any balance issues.
Reasoning: One of the longest reload times for 203 mm guns among its counterparts, weak damage from their 203 mm shells, low accuracy of the same 203 mm guns, lack of torpedo armament, not the best armor.
