Planned Battle Rating changes (table updated 04.08.2023)

Now for some BR change suggestions for naval RB.

The fact that naval is less popular and less talked about in these topics does not mean that balance issues for naval are any less serious than for aircraft or ground vehicles. There are so many ships that need an immediate review of BR. The ones mentioned below are just a small selection.

Any sensible actual naval player knows that it is a ship’s main gun firepower and survivability that defines her combat effectiveness within WT, and thus should be the main factors in deciding BR. Secondary gun firepower should also be taken into account in special cases. The mobility, AA/torpedo armament, and other factors should only be of tertiary importance as they are only useful in very specific situations in WT naval battles. Especially in RB due to the lack of in-air/at-sea reload for bombs and torpedoes, both for vessels and aircraft, making aircraft less lethal and making torpedoes much less useful. For relative comparison purposes, I will use aced crew figures when comparing the rate of fire of ships within this post.

With these standards in mind, I propose the changes below.

Kerch(cruiser): 5.3 → 5.7
The Battle Ratings of Kerch(cruiser), Montecuccoli, and Savoia are simply outrageous. They are almost exactly the same ships, with minor differences in crew count, armor, AA guns, and torpedoes. What exactly makes the Kerch especially weaker that she deserves to be a step lower in BR compared to the Montecuccoli and Savoia? All we can see is that the Kerch is being lowered in BR to make her a more attractive premium vessel. Shame on you. From my experience at least, these three cruisers are superior to all other proper 5.3 ships, and slightly weaker than most other 5.7 ships, in terms of the BR deciding factors(mentioned above). They are somewhere in between 5.3 and 5.7, but closer to 5.7 to be exact. In any case, these three cruisers need to have the same BR because they are almost identical ships. So the Kerch must go up to 5.7.

Agano: 5.3 → 5.0
Agano is an extremely weak cruiser and more of an oversized destroyer than anything. I’d say she might even need to go to 4.7, but we’ll have to see how she does at 5.0. The guns are what really ruins her. She only has six 152mm guns in 3 twin turrets. The RoF is a decent 10 rounds per minute per gun(RPMPG) with ready-use ammo, but that only lasts for 10 salvos, after which the RoF drops to a mere 6.2 RPMPG. This means the maximum broadside is 60 RPM with ready-use ammo, and the maximum sustained broadside is just 37.2 RPM with the main ammo. These guns only have an HE shell and a “SAP” shell that is basically a base fuzed HE shell and cannot penetrate any meaningful amount of armor at normal battle ranges and angles. This can only really deal with destroyers and even most 5.0 cruisers have enough main belt armor to stop this “SAP” shell with a bit of angling, including Agano herself, ironically enough. This main gun firepower is significantly weaker than any proper 5.3 light cruiser such as Köln/Karlsruhe/Leipzig(nine 150mm guns, maximum sustained broadside 72 RPM) or Leander(eight 152mm guns, maximum sustained broadside 64 RPM), all of which use proper SAP/AP shells that are much better than Agano’s shell. Agano’s main gun firepower is even somewhat weaker than most 5.0 cruisers, which have similar broadside weight but use better shells. Her armor is slightly weaker than average for 5.0/5.3 cruisers, the main weakness being the 60mm main belt, compared to 70mm or thicker on most other cruisers. Agano’s crew count of 700 is slightly higher than average for 5.0/5.3 cruisers. Her main strengths are high speed and powerful torpedoes, but that doesn’t matter much especially in normal RB and only reinforces that fact that she is basically an oversized destroyer. All things considered, Agano can stay at 5.3 for AB, but should go down to 5.0 for RB.

Furutaka & Aoba: 5.7 → 5.3
Furutaka and Aoba are significantly weaker than other 5.7 cruisers. Their main gun firepower consists of just six 203mm guns in 3 twin turrets that fire 5 rounds per minute per gun for a maximum broadside of 30 RPM. This is much weaker than other 5.7 heavy cruisers like Admiral Hipper/Prinz Eugen(eight 203mm guns, maximum broadside 40 RPM), Norfolk/London(eight 203mm guns, maximum broadside 40 RPM), New Orleans(nine 203mm guns, maximum broadside 31.5 RPM, offset by 6.0 levels of armor), or Zara/Pola(eight 203mm guns, maximum broadside 30.4 RPM, offset by 6.0 levels of armor). York is similar(six 203mm guns, maximum broadside 30 RPM) but that just means she should be 5.3 as well. Such firepower is more similar to 5.3 heavy cruisers like Northampton/Portland(nine 203mm guns, maximum broadside 31.5 RPM) or Trento(eight 203mm guns, maximum broadside 27.2 RPM, offset by excellent turret armor). Furutaka and Aoba have powerful torpedoes, but that doesn’t matter much especially in normal RB, as I’ve stated above. Their crew complement of 680 and 657 is on the lower side for 5.3/5.7 cruisers. Their armor protection is about average compared with other 5.3/5.7 cruisers. All things considered, Furutaka and Aoba should go down to 5.3 at least in RB. This would leave the Ikoma without a lineup, but the Tone can go down to 5.7, about which I will talk about in a future post.

Myoko: 5.7 → 6.0
This doesn’t really need much explanation. Another example of a premium ship that is purposefully lower in BR to make it more attractive compared to very similar research tree vessels. Myoko’s main gun firepower is exactly the same as Mogami, which is 6.0. AA firepower is much better on Myoko, but that doesn’t really matter as I explained above. Survivability-wise, she may have somewhat thinner armor than Mogami, but it’s still better than most 5.7 cruisers. Some 5.7 cruisers do have slightly better armor than Myoko, but they have weaker armament(i.e. Duca degli abruzzi/Zara/Pola, New Orleans, Southampton/Belfast) or very exposed magazines(i.e. Admiral Hipper/Prinz Eugen) in return. Myoko’s crew count is also higher than Mogami, and the magazines are less exposed as well. All in all, Myoko is at least on par with Mogami and should be 6.0. If Myoko can’t be 6.0, then Mogami/Suzuya/Mikuma should all be 5.7 as well.

Once again I implore you to pay attention to what us experienced naval players tell you about the naval BRs.

5 Likes

I don’t know why T29 should be in br 7.3
Is dumbass German tree players said again to nerf br of it again as they did before which made it go to 7.0? I have both Tiger2 sla.16 and T29 and cannot sure why they are not in same br.

2 Likes

T29 should stay at 7.0 and then it would be balanced considering the changes to the br of the rest of the vehicles.

Re.2005 serie 0 should stay on his br or go down to 5.3, this plane is pretty good on ground rb but needs a lot of skill on air rb.

T95E1 should stay at 8.0, there is no stabilizer and that’s about it.

Looking at the fact that you want to move the T29, I suggest changing IS-3 br to 7.3, 230mm penetration, etc. he’ll be fine…

T-64A should get 9.3 has layered armor and is comparable to the T-72A but has a lower br.

Shturm-S should get 8.7 or 9.0, tandem 800mm on 8.3 and ATGM-VT rockets…

Object 906 should get 8.3 has fast autoloader and APCBC shell with 245mm pen and HEATFS with 300mm pen.

ZSU-57-2 should go for 7.3 or 7.7, 2x57mm guns with 150mm penetration…

The ZSU-37-2 should get 8.3, it is better than the M163 on the same br in every way, it has better penetration, radar and cannons.

Looking at the fact that Strf 9040C and BILL have br 10.0, I suggest giving much better BMP-2M at 10.7

LAV-AD due to the big penetration nerf should get 9.7 since it’s mostly SPAA now.

CV90 should stay on their br, good ifv but really why do poor CVs always get higher brs, and op BMP-2M will still have the same br as Bradley, Dardo etc and is superior to them in every way.

German M48A2 G A2 should get 8.3 where is the logic if you want to give the weaker T95E1 8.3 but German M48 with better ammo will stay at 8.0

Type 16 (P)/(FPS) has weak ammo, should stay on his br or get a better shell.

The M247 was first moved higher a few times, after which armor-piercing rounds were taken away and HE-VT rounds were limited to half of the total ammo. I suggest either give him the same br as VEAK 40 or even lower, i.e. br 8.7 or 8.3 or just give him the option to take all HE-VT ammo and not just half.

I will also mention the lack of balance in the fleet.
SKR-1/7 should get 4.7/5.0, these ships practically ruin naval battles.
The funniest thing is that they have 4x76mm guns and have a lower br than the Italian Freccia P-493 which has 2-3x40mm guns and a br 4.7…
Why don’t people play Naval hmmmm

2 Likes

Another aircraft need BR change for Air RB

  • F-4EJ KAI 11.7 → 12.3
    Add 3rd IR AAM AAM-3 and AIM-7E replace by AIM-7M

  • Spitfire F Mk 22 6.7 → 6.3

  • Spitfire F Mk 24 7.0 → 6.7

  • Venom FB.4 8.7 → 8.3

  • Sea Hawk FGA.6 8.0 → 7.7

  • F9F-5 8.3 → 8.0

  • F-14B 12.0 → 12.3
    Adding 2nd IR short-range AAM with IRCCM AIM-9M

  • F-4EJ 11.0 → 10.7
    Mediocre manoeuvrability because no Agile Eagle slat and unguided Air-to-Ground armament only

  • Mirage F1CT 11.3 → 11.7 or 12.0
    If any day gaijin upgrade Magic II maneuvering capability to 50G and with IRCCM

  • F-104G (Italy) 10.7 → 10.3
    Unguided Air-to-Ground armament only

  • F-16A Block 15 ADF (USA) 12.0 → 12.3
    Adding new IR AAM AIM-9M

  • F-16A Block 15 ADF (Italy) 12.0 → 12.3
    Adding new IR AAM AIM-9M and medium-range ARH AIM-120B AMRAAM replace SARH AIM-7M Sparrow

  • Yak-141 12.0 → 12.3
    Could add R-73

4 Likes

hms belfast in 5.7 vs 6.0 and 6.7 it can’t do ant with weak round and gun

No current aircraft should have IRCCM FOX2s, they can all move up without the addition of more powerful AAMs, IRCCM is a very tricky thing to add and shouldnt be done without gaijin making very clear what they are adding.

But why ptl-02 and wma301 may reach 9.0,i think they shouldn’t have the same rating(9.0) as Type 16 (P) and Type 16 (Fps). On the contrary, I think 8.7 is ok for ptl-02 and wma301.

2 Likes

That shocked me as well. Its much slower than 4.0 bf 109 f4 and climbs far much worse but hey. US players just need something they can outnumber 4 to 1 (because of ju288) and easily speed away from at any sight of having to dogfight 1 v 1. Such cowards

TURMS should be at 9.7. It can only move forward, it’s slower than his counterparts in other nations at this BR, it has no armor and it has only 3 crew members. At the end 454mm of penetration is a joke againts 11.0. Do something with this tank or change his BR on 9.7

Undo the previous rate of climb change also please.

This plane has been getting repeated nerfs undeservedly. It doesn’t make much sense that they keep making it harder to use. Completely unfounded changes that should definitely not make it through to live servers.

I mean any day gajin could add infrared homing Air-to-Air Missile with IRCCM in the future

I might hope F-104G (Germany, Italy & ROCAF) down to 10.3 and MiG-9 basic (Soviet & China) could be 7.0

1 Like

New added changes are mostly nice but italian 6.0-6.7 aren’t only heats tanks in the br area. Ratels/ELC/Bulldog/T92/M51 i would move by 0.3 as well its ridiculous some get free pass while other heat light tanks get their br changed. moving these tanks wouldn’t solve them still being directly in ww2 brs but it would help the issue. Nor sure about heat-fs TDs in the 5.7-6.7 area some can be somewhat balanced.

Some atgms vehicles moved up is questionable too M551 and ACRA/AMX-13 HOT really wont get picked over Bradley and Mephisto very often due to long reloads no thermals and other factors.
I still see no rare event tanks like VT1-2 or Object 279 getting upped along with the rest of tanks even though they can be rather good.

I completely agree with your statement

I like most of these, but I do think the 9.7 vehicles getting bumped to 10.0 are going to kind of suffer, but the Wiesel going to 7.3 is going to hurt a lot unless it gets a bit of love, maybe through more ammo or something. I generally consider the Marder A1- to be far better at AA than the Wiesel, due to the fact that the Wiesel has half the magazine capacity and even less gun elevation and traverse, with the only advantage it has compared to it’s contemporaries being the thermals.

We have updated table after checking your feedback. Updates marked with blue font.

4 Likes

So in a recent BR change they raised the BR of 9.7 - 10.0 vehicles to 10.0 - 10.7 to relief the 9.0 vehicles and now they raise them so they face those 10.3 vechicles again?

What? All these BR changes do is shifting the compression problem from one bracket to another.

2 Likes

I am posting again to say that with the recent updates to the table you need to look at the F4J(UK) Phantom II premium rank 7 jets BR in Simulator Battles mode.
It is currently at 11.3 BR while the almost completely identical FGR2 and FG1 Phantom IIs are at 10.7 BR in simulator mode, please correct the F4J(UK)s BR to match that of the FGR2 and FG1 Phantom IIs or add AIM-7Fs to it if you want it to be the same BR as the US Navy Phantom IIs in the American air tree.

1 Like

Totally agreed with this

Why is the Sea Fury going up? It’s just unnecessary since the only thing it’s got is speed… it’s already easy prey for F2Gs, turns like a brick, and is overall not that good unless the pilot’s very good at the game.