I’m basing it off of effectiveness and stats, (or data) if you will.
Which makes a fair argument.
The ammo crates run out. Trust me. I know form experience
then you just build another, from experience you dont run out of apds if you just camp
You get more than one? I only ever get 1
it recharges for me pretty sure
If you go to a cap I think it does.
no, ive done it in spawn
im not a big fan of SPAA being much good at anti-tank beyond throwing tracks or obliterating light tanks unless it was built to also kill tanks to be honest. You get issues like what happened when the Falcon had full APDS belts
For how big and slow the Sidam is, it wouldn’t be all that bad
Any other br suggestions?
That’s wrong.
Hm okay.
I’m Kv-1 enjoyer, 4.7 is fine and Pe-8 is 4.7 too. By the way yeah, P-47D should move to 4.7 too
7.3 is ok. Why go down if you want KTH in 7.0/7.3 ? Is-3 was made to be superior and it’s fine at 7.3
Yeah sure, you’re complaiting about armor is more an issue, T-54 1947 is fine at 7.7. T-54 1949 could be back to 7.7, but 1951 is ok at 8.0
nope.
Conqueror 7.7, only frontal with additionnal armor modification, but you’ve 2 big weakspot in from : lower glassis and this :
Centurion mk10 : 8.0 is correct. You want to move this vehicule ? you need to move ALL of Centurion variants, excuse, ALL medium and MBT tanks in 8.0 - 9.0 area.
i’m gona stop here : you’re a russian main :
This is no sense. Yes, we’ve vehicles that need more adjustments in BR, more USSR vehicles by the way, and the main problem isn’t the vehicles: you’re the problem. Change your mine, reset the movement HOW TO PLAY, after 13,000 games accumulated, what you’re proposing is terrible and no sense.
Ps: do not flag comments if you don’t like reality.
5 Likes
IS-3 to 7.0? yeah, sure.
I mean, T26E5 does indeed have 7.3 quality armor…
But it also has 5.7 level firepower on the other hand, hahah.
So, just like KV-1E, it’s an awkward tank to balance; with this compression, you either put it so high that its gun becomes completely useless in order not to stomp on lower BR tanks with its armor, or keep it lower so it can function.
I think T26E5 facing 5.7s is indecent… but making T26E5 face 8.0s wouldn’t be the right solution, specially when some 7.7s are already too much.
We just need decompression across the board… some tanks face too weak opponents in downtiers, and too strong opponents in uptiers. The margin of opponent strength within a vehicle’s matchmaking is too large.
2 Likes
It has 6.3 levels of fire power. With a 6.7 reload.
It often gets nukes in games where it is 7.0 or lower.
Thus, being 7.0 would be far more fair.
Decompression across the board would solve some problems while creating others.
The hardest thing for it to do would be kill a maus but many things can rarely kill it. Including the IS-6 or IS-3
But people who haven’t played the IS3 think it should be 7.7, people who have played it think it should be 7.0 similar with the Is-6
I think by far it’s crazy that the maus or e100 can see 6.7
Really? 3BM60 slinger with Gen 2 Thermal LWS and armor at 10.7 same BR as Leopard 2A4 with just DM23?
at this point Challenger 2 (from standard to TES) can be 10.7 too
Fine where they sit at it pretty much IS3/4 counterpart but Caernarvon that need to go down no point sit the same BR as Conqueror
still fine where they sit at they have no APFSDS and even no basic rangefinder
2 Likes
But them facing 8.7 is equally as crazy, that’s the problem with compression…
Like… literally T-55AM-1s, T-55AMD-1s, T-62s, IT-1s, M60A1 RISE (P)s, etc. that’s just crazy!
Them facing the equivalent of current 7.3 and 8.0-8.3 at most would be perfect.
They currently face too strong opponents in uptiers, and too weak opponents in downtiers… that’s why they are “impossibly difficult to balance”; because of compression and compression alone.
4 Likes
What are your stats for the T-90A? It’s pretty bad overall. With its armor and pen being the most desirable features. They could instead bump the top tier to 12.3, to bring the Leo 2a7 up to etc.
Don’t forget the chally will outload, and be faster than the T-90a, along with a faster reverse.
The conquerer is far better than the is-3/4/6 that argument isn’t very valid. It has far higher pen, better armor, and similar speeds. Pretty much it lacks an HMG. I’d bet it also reloads quicker. And it fully stabilized. The first “stabilized” soviet heavy is the T-10A, which lacks anything other than APHE, and is only fitted with a low speed stabilizer.
The Americans also lack any stabilized heavy. Nor do the Germans. So how come the Brit’s get special treatment?
The T-10m is 8.3, because of its similar features to the to the conquerer, while having better munitions. Thus 8.0 is the perfect level for the conquerer
Although I don’t totally agree with you, I removed the centurion from the list for the time being.
I don’t consider 2.0 as bad
Out reload is pretty much obvious for Challenger even one is that fast Challenger 2 lack hull armor lack penetration but no LWS to boost situation awareness and size of the house also no HEAT no ATGM T-90A fine where they sit at but what should be done is below.
This i agreed
Tanks like T-80BVM Leopard 2A7V and Strv122 have no point sitting same BR as Leopard 2A5 and A6
1 Like
Was that T-90A stat pre, or post br decompression? Was it also when it was top? As I have played pre, and post br decompression it’s bad. When it was top, I never had it.
The T-80Bvm is not in the same level as the leo2a7…
Nor is the T-90m. I would love to see a historical 6.0 sec correction for many T-80U tanks in game.
The leo2a7s and strv122b should be the only 12.3s as far as I can think as of right now. Which would mean the Leo 2a6 can move to 12.0, 2a5 to 11.7 etc.