Even if the Leopard 2K deserves 10.3, that doesn’t address the argument. This post is about the combined impact of BR changes on an entire lineup , not whether one vehicle is undertiered. You’re arguing against a point I never made.
Vehicle: F-104J/F-104G (Chinese)
Gamemode: Air Realistic
BR Change: 10.3/10.7 —> 10.0
Reason: These aircraft don’t have flares on their BRs, where even with good maneuverability, it’s practically impossible to avoid a missile hit. The ballistic computer on the F-104G is practically useless for this aircraft at its BR, but it can be removed if needed. I understand that they have quite good missiles, but there are plenty of aircraft with better missiles at these BRs that still have flares. Speed on their BRs is no longer a significant advantage, while the lack of maneuverability is still a huge drawback. An alternative to lowering their ballistic missile launcher might be to provide these aircraft with some flares, perhaps not many.
Other way may be giving them flares/chaff and moving them to 11.0 or 10.7. As everyone knows - there is no problem in adding flares to planes which never had ones if this will help in balancing BRs (F-5A/F-5C example). Especially having Chinese F-104s as G-modifications purchased from Germany! China really unmounted flares from plane after receiving it???
1 Like
Vehicle: AH-1Z
Gamemode: Ground realistic-arcade
BR Change: 12.0 —> 12.0(stays 12.0)
Reason: it only gets hellfire k’s ,a mediocore fm, the aim9m shouldnt be a reason for its br increase + the ty90 exists and its on way lower br helis. also has no business facing smsvs
1 Like
What do German players have to do with the BR (Battle Rating) changes? In any case, the BRs for all vehicles are being increased. The tank you are using now will still be the same tank at 11.0 BR—or perhaps even less effective. There are no changes to ammunition or armor. Besides, when you play a tank at 10.7 BR, you already encounter vehicles that are 1.0 BR higher. I don’t believe that raising the BR will bring about any significant change; in fact, I think the current tanks will only suffer further losses in performance.
Why is the CCVL being moved up to 10.3?
10.0 was already more then enough.
Vehicle: Stormer HVM
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR change: 10.3 → 10.3 OR 10.3 → 10.7 + Martlet missiles
Reason (stays 10.3): Currently the Stormer HVM is in a suboptimal spot, as the current starstreaks (which i might add are highly unrealistic, and are missing things such as the explosive filler (which was unrealistically nerfed recently), penetration, etc.) are only effective against non-manouvering aircraft or helicopters. Seen as it’s worse then then its counterparts at the same br (strela, osa, xm975 and such) it should stay 10.3. It would also give 10.3 a different option for a spaa as the rapier is being moved there.
Reason (Goes to 10.7 + LMM): The martlets would give the Stormer HVM a buff that could make it worthy of 10.7. The LMM has a proxy fuze and is effective against lightly armored vehicles and the non-era covered sides of MBTs. It would function as a lower tier ADATS, giving the HVM somewhat unique gameplay.
1 Like
Vehicle: Falcon
Mode: Ground Realistic
BR change: 8.3 → 8.3
Reason: Currently both the Falcon (8.3) and the Chieftan Marksman (8.3) are being moved up to 8.7. This widens the spaa gap between 5.3 (Bosvark/Skink) and 8.3 (Falcon, Chieftan Marksman) even further.
This makes it so that both vehicles and the ZA-35 are at 8.7, leaving no spaa for 8.3.
Furthermore, the Falcon is speed-, gun-, ammo- and radar-wise worse then both the Marksman and ZA-35. This is due to:
-The Falcon having a significantly worse engine, having 216hp vs 672hp/501hp respectively (with the ZA-35 being faster then both)
-The Falcon having lower RoF guns, and not having acces to APDS like the Marksman
-The Falcon having a significantly worse radar set, having a search/track radar with 90°x9° wherever you look vs the Marksman having a 360°x15° search/track radar and the ZA-35 having a massive 360°x45° search radar + a track IRST.
1 Like
Vampire FB 5
Air & Ground Realistic
8.0 → 7.7
While it can be powerful, it will only do so, if the enemy jets chooses to engage it in a turn fight. The thing is, at this BR, most people knows that turnfighting is not advantageous, so it happens in a blue moon. It doesn’t have the thrust to wight ratio to be able to fight like jets usually do. It is literally a plane that was designed to fight in WW2.
4 Likes
Vehicle: T25
Mode: Ground Realistic
Change:
6.3 → 6.0
Replace M77 shot by T33 shot, add M313 smoke round. Remove the artificial nerf to its transmission and add stabiliser.
2 Likes
Venom FB.4
Air & Ground Realistic
8.7 → 8.3
It is an upgrade over the Vampire FB.5 with a more powerful engine, however compared to its competition such as the F-86F-2 or MiG-17, it is very outclassed in regards to its engine performance. It is a jet that have to rely on the enemies making a mistake of turnfighting you, but at this BR most people know to not turn fight you.
1 Like
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
2 Likes
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?