well they are based on stingers, but i wouldnt call them that as they dont even share any parts.
oh and i did misread your message earlier nvm.
What a joke, this going up instead of J-7D while the latter is much more efficient thanks to 4 missiles instead of 2 in A-5C and GSh-23 copy instead of slow firing NS-23 copy in A-5C.
Only thing A-5C is better at is having bombs in addition to missiles instead of replacing them, and I assume the average points per match achieved by that is the “reason” to increase its BR.
3 Likes
youre not the keofox by any chances?
No, I am keof in Latin and ох in Russian, equivalent to “oh”, why?
Vehicle: Yak-17
Gamemode: Air arcade
BR Change: BR 7.0 and should get RD-10A and removable wings fuel tanks
Reason: The historically accurate RD-10A and removable fuel tanks will enhance the aircraft’s flight performance, which would result in an increase in its battle rating
there used to be a community manager by that name. did not think they would be talking on the forum considering how things went.
no worries
1 Like
Similar performance wise so i would call them stinger esc.
± they are…relatively easy to outmaneuver
Vehicle: TO-55
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: leave at 8.0 (or 8.0 → 8.0)
Reason:
If TO-55 is moved to 8.3, it becomes a direct downgrade of the tech-tree T-55A.
Same stabilizer, same/worse ammunition, significantly less ammo capacity due to the flamethrower, and the flamethrower itself is almost useless at 8.3.
A premium vehicle should not be objectively worse than its free counterpart at the same BR.
And then you’ll try to tell me this changes were made by a human, not with a stupidest AI model
Any comment on that @Smin1080p_WT @Stona_WT ?
2 Likes
So, not much has changed in simulated battles.
You still get thrashed by French AMX models—which date from the early post-war period (the 1950s) and feature auto-loaders and ultra-fast turret traverse speeds—while you’re stuck in clunky Tiger IIs and Panthers. Then again, since I play the Ju 288, it’s the ground units that end up taking the beating.
Let’s take a look at airplanes, too.
The He 100? It’s got good speed, but that’s about it. I’d suggest looking at the Hurricane, the Swedish tech tree, the P-400, or those Soviet biplane contraptions. They’ve really captured the “German character” in the He 100, though—the Bf 109 E-1 is even worse.
The Bf 109 E-3 (late 1939) is “very strong” at its BR? Are you joking? The Yak-1 (1941) entered service in late 1941; its performance and armament are quite solid—a typical Soviet aircraft. Then there’s the P-40F-10 (late 1942), the Buffalo F2A-3 (late 1941), the A-36 Apache (1943), the Ki-43-II (December 1942), and various Italian machines (too many to list). I’ve also spotted a few decent things in the Swedish tree. And honestly, those FF/M cannons are such a curse—you practically have to shove your plane right into the enemy’s face to land a hit.
Let’s look at the models that face the Bf 109 E-4 (June–July 1940), which has a 3.0 Battle Rating: >Soviet tree< La-5 (1942), Yak-9 (October 1942), P-39N-0 (1942), P-39K-1 (August 1942), Hurricane Mk IIB (October 1941); >American tree< F4F-4 (November 1941) — well, at least that’s somewhat close; the British tree is relatively balanced; >Japanese tree< Ki-44-II Hei (1943); >Italian tree< C.202EC (1943).
Now, let’s consider the Bf 109 F-1 (February 1941), which has a 3.3 Battle Rating, and its counterparts: >Soviet tree< La-5F (1943), Yak-1B (October 1942); >American tree< P-39Q-5 (June 1943), F4U-1A (August 1943); >Japanese tree< Ki-61-I Otsu (September 1943); >Italian tree< Re.2001 CN (1942); >British tree< Spitfire VB Trop (spring/summer 1942); >French tree< P-39Q-25 (1943); >Swedish tree< J21A-1 (1945, equipped with a DB 605 engine).
Of course, at 3.3, we also have that beast, the Fw 190 A-1, which entered service in June 1941. Although its “FFM” cannons—those absolute monstrosities—are enough to make you tear your hair out, the aircraft’s speed seems to compensate for them.
3.7 BR: Bf 109 F-2 (March 1941) and its equivalents — American tree: P-63 A-5 (1944), P-38 G-1 (June 1942); Japanese tree: A6M3 (spring/summer 1942), J2M2 (October 1942); Italian tree: C.205 Serie 1 (February 1943), P-47 D-30 (October 1944 — hahahahah)
You mentioned the G-2 at 4.3 BR; well, it faces the P-51 C-10 at 4.0 BR—a plane from late 1943 (or even 1944) that outperforms the G-2 in every single category. Then there’s the Yak-3 at 4.3 BR (mid-to-late 1944). Frankly, most Soviet aircraft turn better than the F-4 or G-2 and are better at energy retention. The P-38J-15 (early 1944) sits at 4.0, the F6F-5N (1944) at 4.3, and the FR-1 Fireball (1945) is also present. There’s the Italian C.205 (August 1943), and the French F6F-5 at 3.7 BR—a truly nasty machine (mid-1944) that turns better than the Japanese planes while retaining all its energy.
Against the G-6, you have the Yak-3 (July 1944)—an absolute beast. The British P-38L-5-LO (June 1944) feels like an unfair inclusion. The Japanese ‘A’ series seems relatively balanced, though their ‘Ki’ series planes have remained at low BRs despite being produced later and performing exceptionally well.
The G-14 is somewhat balanced, but it faces the D-10 and that monster known as the Spitfire LF. It’s fair to say the Germans were on the decline during that period, though it feels like the British were treated a bit unfairly—though the “LF” beast more than makes up for it.
The G-14’s counterpart, the G-10, is the plane I hate the most; it’s neither fast nor particularly maneuverable—I wish it didn’t even exist. It faces the P-51D-30 (April/July 1945) and the P-38K (currently on sale—a real beast, though I’m not sure when it would have actually entered service; it would have likely been produced around the same time as the G-14). The Spitfire series has opened up an incredible performance gap—they seem completely overpowered. In terms of the timeline, things seem okay, though. There’s the Yak-9P (1946); I didn’t bother looking into the Japanese lineup, and the Italian tree has a new VDM-prop model—something a bit different. On paper, it looks good, and its production year would have roughly aligned with the G-14.
If we look at the K-4, D-9, and Ta 152, some aircraft that stand out to me are the Corsair F4U-4B (with a 1948 engine!)—and while the British models might not look out of place chronologically, they are far too advanced—as well as the French Sea Fury FB 51 at 5.7 BR (from 1952!). I haven’t even checked the Japanese tech tree; there might be some other odd additions there, too.
Let’s add this as well: American aircraft produced after 1943—with the exception of the Corsair and the P-47 (which is on par with the Fw 190)—possess incredible turn rates at high speeds. Furthermore, unlike the models I mentioned in parentheses, they don’t lose energy during these maneuvers. Because they are capable of such high speeds, they can easily compensate for any disadvantage in climb rate. Models like the F5F and F6F are quite unique—they are more agile than Zeros, yet they retain energy better and are faster, too.
In these assessments, the G-14 seems historically balanced, and the G-10 appears balanced as well. However, the earlier models—specifically the E-3, F-4, G-2, and G-6—suffer from a disastrous lack of balance.
The 2.7 to 3.7 BR (Battle Rating) range is a disaster—you could even extend that up to 4.7. The counterparts mentioned were all produced in later years; whether in terms of armament, speed, or maneuverability—or a combination of all three—they are vastly superior to their rivals.
I’m not sure what the situation is like in Arcade or Realistic battles, but in Simulation battles, even the slightest differences can have a massive impact.
The results speak for themselves—may God help those playing the German tech tree.
I won’t get into the tank tech tree for now; I’ll organize that and add it here when I have some time.
They are doing everything in their power to make us quit the game.
There may be some points I’ve overlooked, but frankly, the game—especially in Simulation battles—is in desperate need of serious rebalancing and restructuring.
At the minute its a straight upgrade as its at a lower br and stomps everything 7.7 and bellow. One tank shouldn’t be doing better than 90% of what it faces.
NOBODY plays these things lol, how are they even getting stats for it.
they are good at basebombing, thats it.
same reason why tornados are so high br too.
or f1c
or a-5c
and so on
too effective at grinding? up. br. now.- gaijuub
same place that makes the sabre stay at 8.0
Stomping 7.7 is a feature of almost every good 8.0 vehicle with a stabilizer. That’s not unique to TO-55. The issue is what happens when you put it on the same BR as a better free tank.
You get a balanced premium tank? Premiums shouldnt be inherently better than the TT version just because its at a lower br.
Why is the Su-34 moving up to 14.0?? It has no HMD, its big and slugish. Its might be worse than the F-16 ADF and the Su-30MKK at 13.7, but definetly worse than the Su-27SM and F-15C. Please Gaijin, why?
2 Likes
Vehicle: AH-1Z
Gamemode: GRB
BR change: 12.0 → 12.0 or possibly 11.7
Reason: It is no where near comparable to the Ka52. Worse agms, worse cannon, and no dircm. It is more comparable to the Israeli 64A considering it can carry MAW+4 stingers and that is at 11.3 (moving up to 11.7)
If it’s going to be along side the Ka52, give it JAGM-MR (SAL)
1 Like
Why was the Battle Rating of other artillery vehicles lowered in the previous update, but not the Sholf? How is a 7.3 BR justified? Either lower its Battle Rating or give it a laser rangefinder.
1 Like