Proposed ground RB battle rating changes

[CorruptShadows9-live]

@UniqueScorpions

Fox 7.7 > 8.0

Only agreeable thing on this list from my biased and unchanging standpoint

@UniqueScorpions

7.3 quality armor at 6.7,

no, just no. If you, a 6.7 player, do not know how to kill the E5 then you need to just quit. The only thing the E5 has going for it that could warrant an idea of the Armor being 7.3-Worthy is the fact that the M26 is near identical with less armor. If we want to talk weakspots, the T26E5 has nearly the same weak spots as a Tiger II (P), minus a somewhat weaker front.

@UniqueScorpions

T-90A 11.0 > 10.7

@UniqueScorpions

a APS that doesn’t work vs vehicles you face

The reason said APS doesn’t work is cause Shtora is pretty much a “lookammy wed eyes!” and less of a reasonable APS especially seeing as you have to look the missile dead in the eyes and hope to god it’s a jammable missile. The reason it doesn’t work at its BR is because the missiles that it would jam are so far outdated, we’d be talking a 11.0-8.3 BR decrease for it to make sense. If you’re hoping for a mobile tank with a good reload you literally should not be playing USSR. Mind you, the T 80 U (Swedish Squadron Vehicle) with less armor, no APS, and it’s best round being the 3BM42 (Which is a surprisingly baller round despite its off-putting pen value), is at 11.3 and it sees countless downtiers to 10.7. Lowering the BR of the T-90A would literally do nothing except shove it somewhere it doesn’t belong.

@UniqueScorpions

Gepard 8.3 > 9.0

As much as I hate dying to Gepards, simply no. maybe 8.7 but tossing it at 9.0 puts it .7 BR lower than it’s better counterpart, the Gepard 1A2

@UniqueScorpions

Pzh2000 7.7 > 8.0

@UniqueScorpions

5.0 sec auto loader

Might I introduce you to the goofy Swede (Den Bandkanon)
[Yes I know you mentioned it]

@UniqueScorpions

Itpsv Leopard 8.7 > 9.3

@UniqueScorpions

Gepard

Loud Incorect Buzzer
The ItPsV Leopard (Which has a really long and fun name in Finnish) is simply just not a Gepard. Theres a reason that after Leopard in the ingame title it says “Marksman”. It’s the British Marksman turret on a Leopard 2A4 Hull. It’s a sacrilegious amalgam but that just does not mean it should be 9.3 without raising the Chieftain Marksman either.

All in all stop recommending furthering the compression of BRs

[An_Pigeon]

Yet the leopard 1 can too.

Oh the amx30 which has no access to apds, aphe, apbc either.

T54 is a victim of compression same as all the other 8.0s.

It has a better profile and armour than any 8.0

A caveat, every single 8.0 gets stomped by 9.0s its how it is.

The t54 is an 8.0 tank statistically speaking.

[WolfgangTheSecon]

For context the maus was reversing faster than my T-72a wanted to go, so I already knocked out his gunner and gun and thought a UFP shot would kill his driver, nope.

The Maus was reversing faster than the T-72 was advancing? Was your engine dying or something?

[CorruptShadows9-live]

Soviet engineering at its ultimate form: Completely outclassed by a prototype from the 40s

[WolfgangTheSecon]

“You see Ivan, if no put reverse gear into tank, tank not retreat, for fear of showing back to enemy”.

[Armen_Lozone]

damn this list is a mess, -1 to all

[UniqueScorpions-live]

My engine was yellow. Shouldn’t have been faster than me, but he was going down a slight hill

[UniqueScorpions-live]

Most of this is definitely biased, especially the fact you think the T80U for Sweden is less armored than the T-90A.

The turret cheeks may be better than the T80U, but that’s pretty much it.

Decompression needs to happen yes, but fixing the broken OP vehicles to make them better balanced is needed.

[CorruptShadows9-live]

@UniqueScorpions

The turret cheeks may be better than the T80U

Don’t want to be that guy but you just contradicted your own statement.

So, T-90A Vs a Vehicle at 10.7 it’ll commonly face, M1 Abrams. Round: M774 APFSDS, Prot Map

For Comp: T 80 U (I’m writing it like this as it’s how it’s stylized ingame, it looks horrid) Same Round, Slightly different angle

Looks decently similar, right? There’s an issue, have you spotted it?
T-80U is 11.3, M1 Abrams is 10.7. Here is the prot map against a tank of comparable BR, if we disregard the ability for downtiers

• M1A1 Abrams, Round: M829A1 APFSDS
  You’ve likely noticed, they’re literally Russian tanks. They have horrendous weak spots. T-80U has slightly more armor holes than a T-90 does, but when we look at the tier they’re at the T-80U is significantly underarmored.

Throughout our whole arguments we’ve each stood beside the decompression stature and while yes, we need to fix “OP” vehicles first, simply put decompression is the way to do it. Just adding one, maybe two more BRs to ground will fix a lot.
I must also mention a stunning lack of 2S38 on this list, alongside a stunning lack of US vehicles being lowered. I must also mention, T-54 going down to 7.7. While yes, I do agree, I must ask. Should a tank built three years following WWII see vehicles from 45? Well the Pansarbandvagn 301 is from the 60s and sees early war tanks, why is it not raised to it’s rightful BR alongside other tanks from that era? The answer to this question is balance. Is this balanced?

As opposed, M82 V T-54 (1949)

3BK-5 V T26E5, sure it’s HEATFS and early at that, but wouldn’t a well versed individual shoot the ammo racks? Now let’s go to the IS-3 at 7.0, in the case of the fullest of full down tiers, does this look fair? Does this look balanced?
(Tiger E vs IS-3 Best APHE, IS-3 vs Tiger E best APHE)

Yes, this is a biased look at the front plate of each vehicle, though it’s really where it matters most. Any side shot well placed can take out anything, but head to head you’re down to the weak points and I wonder who will come out on top here?
I also must ask, why not lower the Obj 292 to 10.3? It’s literally a naked T-80, all it’s got going for it is the cannon?
And sure, maybe it was the only one I put much thought into, but I’d much rather try to debate off more than one topic next time.

*Side bar with info is not there due to the system I used for the screenshots, all of these were 500m with the round of choice, you can fact check for yourself.

[CorruptShadows9-live]

I also don’t want to bring stats or profile cards into this, I really cannot speak as it ascertains to my K/Ds, but I find it very fitting your squadron is named “RussianBias” and your most played vehicle is the BMP-2M

[An_Pigeon]

@CorruptShadows9

T-54 going down to 7.7. While yes, I do agree,

I agree with almost everything bar this.

No tanks should be moving down

T54 has better armour than other 8.0s.
Middling mobility
And dire turret traverse.

However it has access to a fast array of ammunition, aphe, apcb, heatfs and apds and im sure im missing one.

As you correctly said we need decompression, not recompression

Maybe the t54 1947 can go to 7.7 due to lack of ammo, but foes thst mean the t44-100 should move down

[An_Pigeon]

The T90 is a good 11.0, its not worthy of going to 10.7

Has 3bm60
Has good armour
Has great optics
Has gen 2 thermals

Bad reverse and bad reload dont justify compressing tbe entire 9.7 to 10.7 bracket.

[UniqueScorpions-live]

Brother the cherry picks… the Is-3 driver port is super easy to hit as well as being able to out load the IS-3

[UniqueScorpions-live]

No T-44-100 can stay at 7.0

[An_Pigeon]

Its.not cherry picks.

The IS3 is a good heavy tank at its br,.it also has access (correct me if im.wrong) to B-412D?

The IS3 is designed for long range engagements, supporting tanks like the t54 , youre not supposed to be in close with it.

Lets compare it to something realistic, the m103.

Similar reload
Arguably better round depending who you ask, i prefer heat over aphe though.
Far better mobility
Far better armour.
And better side armour funnily enough

[An_Pigeon]

Issnt the t44-100 sitting higher than that now ? Been a while since i touched it

Just checked it, so it could work as
T-44-100 7.0
T54 1947 7.7 (maybe)
foldered under that
T54 (1949) 8.0
Then t54 (1951) 8.0

[UniqueScorpions-live]

If they did it step by step, it would work out better, and still provide assistance to the 7.3 lineup which only has 2 tanks last I checked.

Putting one t-54 (1947) at 7.3 then the 1949 at 7.7, then the 1951 staying 8.0 would be a pretty good balance. The best with the Leo 1 in Br.

[An_Pigeon]

The 49 isnt much different from the 51 though is it ?

Reckon if we moved some of the 9.0s up to 9.3 it would solve that brutal 8.0 area out.

Tbh most issues jn the game are resolved with decompression.

@UniqueScorpions

If they did it step by step, it would work out better, and still provide assistance to the 7.3 lineup which only has 2 tanks last I checked.

Was gonna sat maybe t54 47 to 7.3 but a lot of 6.3s.will struggle with it maybe.

Definitely a stepping sort of system would be nicer than what we have now though

[UniqueScorpions-live]

The 47 isn’t at tough, unless you hitting the UFP or really odd angles on the turret.

Often shells can / will bounce into the hill roof from lower turret hits.

[TheDudesRug]

@CorruptShadows9

I also don’t want to bring stats or profile cards into this, I really cannot speak as it ascertains to my K/Ds, but I find it very fitting your squadron is named “RussianBias” and your most played vehicle is the BMP-2M

Not a big fan of this line of thinking. Though, where I will agree with it is when someone is crying foul about a nation or vehicle without having any experience in the vehicle - they only experience that nation or vehicle from facing it, and don’t have any clear idea about the downsides of said vehicle. A popular/common example of this was in the Russian bias / NATO woes topic that was posted recently where these people were citing the TOR-M1 as some OP beast of an SPAA, without ever actually using it, without even realising that its a bit shit and has missile smoke trails that can be seen from the ISS. If I see someone crying about a nation tree and they only play one nation, I pretty much discount their opinion.

You also need to dig a little deeper sometimes with that line of thinking, sometimes. If you look at my stat card, you’ll see the 279 up the top, and vehicles that I use with the 279 up there with it. It would be easily to just dismiss me as some Russian-main with vested interests. But if you dig a little deeper, you’ll see that I’m not actually favoring nations, I’m favoring line-ups. Soviet 9.0 is #1, Britain 8.3 is #2, and so on. Sometimes its simply down to the vehicles, such as AFT09/WZ305. If the 279 was in the US tree, I’d have the most games as a US player, simple as that. However, there are actual people who only play Western nations or Russia/China because of nationality/geopolitics, and they’re the ones you need to watch out for when discussing balancing and what nation has biases. These people are the ones easily influenced by propaganda. While I don’t agree with everything Scorp is saying, I don’t think he is one of those people.