Spokoyny at BR 5.3 raises the same balance concerns as Blagorodnyy.
Its current rating should be evaluated in relation to the firepower, survivability, and practical combat effectiveness of other vessels available at similar BRs. If a vessel has fewer main guns than a comparable alternative, there should be a clear and meaningful advantage elsewhere to justify the difference in rating.
Anti-aircraft armament is useful, but it is not sufficient by itself to establish that a vessel belongs at a higher BR. Several comparable ships at BR 5.0, including USS Frank Knox, Tashkent, and HMS Armada, also possess anti-aircraft capabilities. The comparison should therefore consider the entire combat package rather than a single characteristic.
I propose reducing Spokoynyy from BR 5.3 to 5.0 in Naval Arcade Battles.
The objective is to make its placement more consistent with other destroyers and ensure that its BR reflects its overall effectiveness in actual matches.
Vehicle: HMS Southampton Game mode: Naval Arcade Battles Proposed BR change: 6.0 → 5.7
Reason:
HMS Southampton’s current BR of 6.0 raises serious questions about its effectiveness against the opponents it can encounter in Naval Arcade Battles.
One of the main concerns is the limited armour penetration of its main battery. Its maximum penetration is approximately 216 mm under the relevant ammunition and firing conditions, while battleships encountered at this level can have armour around 279 mm or thicker in important areas.
This creates a substantial practical disadvantage. A cruiser should not be expected to defeat every battleship in a direct exchange, but it should have a reasonable opportunity to contribute damage and influence the outcome of a match. When its main battery struggles to penetrate the armour of its opponents, its ability to fulfil that role becomes severely restricted.
The problem becomes more pronounced when HMS Southampton faces substantially more heavily protected vessels in an uptier. Such engagements can turn the cruiser into an easy target while offering limited opportunities to retaliate effectively.
I propose reducing HMS Southampton from BR 6.0 to 5.7 in Naval Arcade Battles.
This would provide a more reasonable balance between its offensive capabilities and the opponents it encounters. I also ask the developers to consider the practical difference between theoretical penetration figures and the ability to deal consistent damage to heavily armoured targets in actual matches.
The objective is not to make Southampton competitive with battleships in every situation, but to ensure that its current rating does not leave it excessively disadvantaged against the opposition it regularly faces.
Freccia’s BR of 4.7 is unusually high for a coastal vessel and deserves to be reviewed against the performance of comparable boats.
At this rating, the vessel can find itself facing opponents with substantially greater firepower, protection, and staying power. The situation becomes particularly problematic when matchmaking places it against larger bluewater vessels that it struggles to damage effectively.
A useful comparison is the French La Combattante, which is placed at BR 3.7. Although the two vessels are not identical, the difference in their ratings raises a reasonable question about whether Freccia’s current BR accurately reflects its overall capabilities.
I propose reducing Freccia P-493 from BR 4.7 to 4.3 in Naval Arcade Battles.
The intention is not to eliminate challenging encounters, but to ensure that the vessel’s BR reflects its actual combat potential and that it can compete meaningfully with other coastal vessels in its matchmaking range.
Lol, nope.
Yenot is balanced based on the MBU-600 and is the lowest BR vehicle equipped with it. These are very hard to aim in arcade since developers removed lead indicators for guns (you could previously aim the mortar with ~2.5 times the lead for guns), but shred destroyers and cruisers on hit. The mortar also works for indirect fire - you can shoot over islands
Saetta’s current BR of 4.7 deserves reassessment, particularly in comparison with other coastal vessels and the opponents it encounters in Naval Arcade Battles.
At this rating, Saetta P-494 can face vessels that possess considerably greater overall combat capabilities. The resulting matchmaking environment can make it difficult to use the boat effectively, especially when its weapons and survivability are insufficient to respond to larger or more heavily armed opponents.
The comparison with French coastal vessels such as La Combattante at BR 3.7 also highlights the need for a consistent approach when assigning ratings to similar vessels. Differences in armament and mobility should be considered, but those differences must justify the actual BR gap.
I propose lowering Saetta P-494 from BR 4.7 to 4.3.
This adjustment would give the vessel a more reasonable competitive position while preserving the distinction between different coastal combat platforms.
Unlike several of the vessels discussed above, Arras appears to be a case where a BR increase may be justified.
At BR 3.3, Arras can encounter much smaller coastal vessels whose available armament and survivability are insufficient to deal with it effectively. Its greater size, durability, and ability to withstand incoming damage can create a significant imbalance in engagements against lower-rated boats.
This is particularly concerning when the vessel’s spawn classification and the structure of coastal matches allow it to appear in engagements where its opponents have very limited means of responding.
A balanced BR system should account for the effect a vessel has on the overall match, including the ability of lower-rated opponents to damage it and the amount of effort required to destroy it.
I propose increasing Arras from BR 3.3 to 3.7 in Naval Arcade Battles. If its performance data indicates that it continues to dominate lower-rated coastal opponents, a further review of BR 4.0 could be considered.
The purpose is to prevent a disproportionately durable vessel from overwhelming much weaker opponents while maintaining a fair and enjoyable environment for coastal battles.
The most ridiculous part is that the FA-18C pack shares the same BR as the AV-8B(NA). Does Gaijin not realize that with identical ground-attack loadouts, the FA-18C carries two extra AIM-7P missiles compared to the AV-8B(NA)?
Not even talking about air-superiority loadouts, the FA-18C already has significantly better maneuverability than the AV-8B(NA). Therefore, either the FA-18C should get a higher BR, or the AV-8B(NA) should be placed at a lower BR.
Vehicle: Hunter F.58 Gamemode: Ground Realistic BR Change: 10.3 → 10.0 Reason: It’s a subsonic jet, with only two AGM-65 Maverick missiles. Everyone else at the same BR has better guided munitions load, and at least half the other jets at that BR are supersonic.
Vehicle: HMS Belfast Game mode: Naval Arcade Battles Proposed BR change: 6.0 → 5.7
Reason:
HMS Belfast deserves a reassessment of its current Battle Rating of 6.0 in Naval Arcade Battles. Although it is a capable light cruiser with strong anti-aircraft armament and good protection in certain areas, its overall combat effectiveness against the opponents it encounters at this BR is questionable.
The most important issue is the effectiveness of its main battery against heavily armoured opponents.
HMS Belfast carries twelve 6-inch guns in four triple turrets, using the same general gun family as HMS Southampton. However, its main battery primarily relies on SAPBC ammunition rather than a conventional dedicated armour-piercing shell. The SAPBC round has approximately 216 mm of penetration at 1,000 metres under the listed in-game penetration conditions, with penetration decreasing significantly at longer ranges.
This creates a considerable disadvantage when Belfast encounters heavily armoured cruisers and battleships. Against opponents with thick armour, its ability to inflict consistent damage can be limited, particularly when engaging at ranges where its shell penetration is insufficient to defeat important armour sections.
I therefore propose reducing HMS Belfast from BR 6.0 to 5.7 in Naval Arcade Battles.
This change would bring Belfast into a more reasonable matchmaking bracket while preserving its identity as a well-protected light cruiser with excellent anti-aircraft capabilities.
The objective is not to make HMS Belfast overpowered or to disregard its strengths. It is to ensure that its Battle Rating reflects the balance between its offensive limitations, survivability, and the practical demands of Naval Arcade Battles.
Would be nice you would balance the opressive undertiered US vehicles at 6.0 to 6.7 such as the M18, T20, T25. Together with their overpowered CAS is just impossible to have fun or win if you matched vs. US.
mig23 pulse radar can never even lock tornado with 1.2k chaff and im speaking from experience since i play tornado F3 and its bol chaff can make me immune to mig23s even in head-on
together with pantsir s1 they are way stronger than the competition. same br as ito-90m, really?
over ito90, pantisr & fk have:
no launch warning for many aircraft
much faster missiles
+50% range
+50% missiles
+guns for close range
and can launch & guide at multiple targets at once
Ok then every single supersonic fighter in the game should not be lower BR than tornado so the precious precious tonka never could get gunned down either
well i agree. maybe excuding those that dont have flares or high powered missiles. like the tornado has.
supersonic, flares and all aspect ir missile or good radar ones? should be atleast the same br as tornado.
tornado is the worst supersonic FM in the whole game.
Im glad you can read… I said with MAWS and better armament… Su-35 has been spotted carrying R-77M which would put Su-35 above Su-30SM2 in BR
BTW This site is about making arguments, maybe I was wrong at some point but this is why we are here…
The thread has gotten quite long, so I’m posting this again.
Bf 109 Z-1
Air Simulator Battle: BR: 4.7 → BR: 4.0
Add an option to convert the 30mm Mk 108 to the 20mm MG 151.
Alternatively, add a GunPod on the centerline of the center wing.
Reasoning:
The Bf 109Z-1 power-to-weight ratio is only slightly better than that of the Bf 109F-4, XP-50, and P-51C-11. However, its maneuverability is nothing short of terrible. Its armament consists of the hard to hit 30mm Mk 108 cannons, with just 65 rounds per gun, making it extremely difficult to use. Unfortunately, there is no option to swap them for 20mm MG 151.
In War Thunder, it is the only Bf 109G equipped with the earliest version of the pressurized cockpit. Combined with its twin-fuselage design, the visibility is simply abysmal. Its high-altitude performance is not particularly outstanding compared to other nations’ aircraft, and it is inferior to the MB.5 at the same BR 4.7.
As I probably explained already:
The issue with your argument here is that we do not have said “better armament” yet nor do we actually know fully how it would be implemented (what aircraft get it, if any other changes come or when this happens).
So it’s basically pointless to bring up something that is not an option in the game.
Hence why @bоwie_knife99 is completely ignoring the “better armament” argument
