Responding To Your Feedback On Separate Battle Ratings


Hey everyone, we’ve taken a look at your feedback on our proposed separate Battle Ratings for different modes and are presenting you with the updated table of changes and some explanations for specific vehicles and for Battle Ratings in general.

Battle Ratings

While we’re here, we’d like to give some additional context behind Battle Ratings and how they’re decided. Battle Ratings are decided based on how much a vehicle earns, but this is not purely economical. We use this metric because it’s all encompassing and considers every action a player makes with their vehicle, so this considers frags, assists, caps, and effectively every useful action a vehicle can perform all bundled into one universal metric.

This is the “Efficiency” of each vehicle and gives us a very well rounded perspective on all of its abilities and how it’s actually being used.

If a vehicle has high efficiency, it’s outperforming its contemporaries in multiple ways the majority of times it spawns on the map, and as a result may have to be increased in Battle Rating. Whereas a vehicle with low efficiency is not performing well across the board against what it fights, and may be moved down. However this is not purely a data driven process, we often consider additional factors such as the volume of players using a certain vehicle, its lineup, new features that may be altering performance in different ways etc — and this often leads us to delay a change we otherwise would have made to gather more information. Even though we do primarily go by this efficiency metric, we aren’t bound by it, and spend a lot of time each Battle Rating cycle to look over feedback for different perspectives and elements we may not have initially considered.

Ultimately, it’s very hard to balance a vehicle in a vacuum. On paper an aircraft might have incredible speed, or a tank might have great penetration for its Battle Rating, but this is cold data, in the sense that just because a vehicle on the surface has a very impressive asset, it doesn’t mean that asset guarantees high performance. It’s more about how a vehicle is actually functioning in the game, rather than weighing up its assets in isolation. So efficiency is good data to be informed by as it considers everything and everyone.

We’d like to note that when balancing aircraft before the introduction of separate Battle Ratings by mode, in the vast majority of cases the Battle Rating was set according to the performance for Air Battles, and not Ground Battles. We understand that many of you wanted a Battle Rating reduction for strike aircraft in Air Battles, so we have some additional answers for you on this below.

What’s Changed

We’ve provided some detailed comments about specific aircraft that you raised in your feedback. You can also take a look at the full list of changes in the table linked below.

Q-5L — we’ve removed the increase to 10.7 and instead the Battle Rating will be increased to 10.3 in Ground Battles. Please note that we initially decided to lower the Battle Rating in Air Battles to 9.3 (like the Q-5A), and not to 9.0 (like the Q-5A early), since in the next major update this aircraft will receive countermeasures, making it similar to the Q-5A in Air Battles. Countermeasures should also make it easier to counter various threats in Ground Battles.

Jaguar GR.1A and Buccaneer S.2B — we’ve decided to not increase the Battle Rating of these attack aircraft in Ground Battles. However, please note that when increasing the maximum Battle Rating of ground vehicles, the Battle Rating of these aircraft may increase so that they both remain within the ground setup, while still compensating for the high efficiency and for the increase in Battle Ratings of vehicles of other nations.

Various variants of the F-16A and Netz — we’ve removed the reduction in Battle Rating of all variants of the F-16A to 11.7 in Ground Battles, since these aircraft combine their strike and fighter capabilities well. The Netz will instead be lowered to 12.0, as it’s comparable to the rest of the F-16As in its strike capabilities.

Regarding Strike Variants of the Tornado and Bomb Carriers in General

At the moment, most aircraft that primarily bomb bases in Air Battles are as effective, if not more, than fighters of the same Battle Rating, although they often have much weaker weapons and air combat capabilities than fighters.

We’re aware that many of you think that the Battle Rating of bomb carriers in Air Realistic Battles is too high, comparing them with fighters solely in terms of air combat capabilities.

However, on the economy side of things, the Battle Rating of bomb carriers — which are discussed in many topics — are optimal or even underestimated. This means that their weak capabilities for air combat doesn’t prevent them from receiving on average a good or even great reward. As noted above, the average reward is one of the main factors in determining the Battle Rating of a vehicle. Therefore in order for us to be able to reduce the Battle Rating of these aircraft while maintaining healthy economic progression, the rewards for damaging and destroying bases would need to be reduced so that the average reward (the effectiveness) of bombers and fighters is equalized.

We fully realise that a change like this will not receive any support from players who are asking for a reduction in Battle Ratings at the current average reward values.

Therefore in the summer, we’re planning to give more clarification and bring this issue up for discussion — whether or not we should reduce the rewards for bases in order to reduce the Battle Rating of aircraft that mainly bomb bases, or leave everything as it is now. Please follow the news for more details on this.

Based on what we’ve written above, as of now we are going to leave the strike variants of the Tornado at their current Battle Ratings in Air Realistic Battles. The Battle Rating of the Tornado IDS ASSTA1 (Germany), Tornado GR.1 (Britain), and Tornado IDS (1995) (Italy) will not be lowered, and the Battle Rating of the Tornado IDS MFG (Germany) and Tornado IDS WTD61 (Germany) will not be increased to that of the other Tornadoes mentioned above.

AMX — in Ground Battles, the effectiveness of this aircraft is very high. It has a lot of flyouts and its efficiency is more than twice the average for its Battle Rating, so we can’t help but increase its Battle Rating altogether. However taking your feedback into account, we’ve decided to increase its Battle Rating just by one step to 10.7 and will monitor its effectiveness. We’d like to note that we’re not expecting miracles here, and it’s likely that this aircraft’s efficiency will remain at very high levels even at 10.7. If this happens, it may face a further increase in a planned Battle Ratings changes in the future.

Fighters with Weak Strike Capabilities

In our proposed changes, there are many aircraft that can be good fighters, but at the same time they carry weapons that don’t stand out at their current Battle Ratings in terms of quantity and/or quality. Based on the short combat ranges in Ground Battles and the focus on the ground part of the battle (any aircraft in Ground Battles mainly serve as strike aircraft), we consider fighter capabilities to be secondary, and take them into account last when balancing aircraft in Ground Battles. However, we’ll monitor the performance and make changes to the Battle Rating in Ground Battles if needed.

A-6E TRAM — at its current Battle Rating, this aircraft has a large selection of guided weapons that can effectively engage enemy ground targets. However, at its new Battle Rating, this aircraft will, among other threats, encounter longer-range air defences. We’re also considering expanding this aircraft’s arsenal, and in a future major update we’re planning to add the AGM-123 Skipper II, which can be used to combat air defence systems and hit targets from distances greater than regular free-fall bombs. Please note that the AGM-65 Maverick was not used on this variant of this aircraft.

Su-25/Su-25K — we’ve seen your questions about why these aircraft don’t receive Battle Rating increases in Ground Battles. This is because according to current game data, these aircraft are already at their ideal Battle Ratings. They don’t carry “fire and forget” weapons to hit ground targets and don’t have a targeting pod with good zoom or guidance angles that allow them to fly away from combat while guiding weapons. When using their primary weapons, they’re forced to not fly away from the target, but instead to fly straight at it. In order to effectively destroy ground targets, they constantly need to operate in anti-aircraft defence areas and fly almost in a straight line which explains the efficiency for them.

A-10A/A-10A Late — these aircraft have “fire and forget” weapons, which gives them an advantage in both defeating ground targets and duelling situations when going up against air defence systems. They’re quite effective in Ground Battles.

Super Etendard — in Ground Battles, the efficiency of this aircraft is too high to increase its Battle Rating by only one step, as its efficiency is almost 2 times higher than that of its contemporaries. When its Battle Rating is increased to 10.7 in Ground Battles, we’ll be adding the option to carry the AS-30L missile to the Super Etendard.

Aircraft with All-Aspect IR Missiles at 10.0-10.3 Battle Ratings

For this one, we’re primarily talking about the A-10A, A-10A Late, Su-25, Su-25K and A-6E TRAM, which populate these Battle Ratings in Air Battles and have all-aspect missiles. The flight performance characteristics of these aircraft after expending air-to-air missiles does not allow them to fight equally with aircraft that have higher speeds and thrust-to-weight ratios, which is why these aircraft can only effectively fight with aircraft that have similar characteristics.

The effectiveness of these aircraft, even at their Battle Rating, is lower than expected or equal to that. Increasing their Battle Rating can lead to encounters with even more difficult opponents, which will further reduce their effectiveness. The AMX on the other hand has good performance characteristics and a fairly high efficiency, so in a future planned changes to Battle Ratings, its Battle Rating in Air Battles may be increased.

Future Plans

We’d like to reiterate that the separation of Battle Ratings for lower ranked vehicles will be carried out as part of future planned Battle Rating changes. We’ll also be monitoring the performance and any changes may be revised as part of the planned Battle Rating changes if the efficiency of changed aircraft becomes too low or high.

We hope we’ve clarified the situation on this news and addressed the concerns you raised in your feedback. Thanks once again for all of your comments!

The War Thunder Team


Awesome man

1 Like

Getting ready for the new major update?

This is fine. This was our complaint. That we’d have no ground line up to use with them. If the tanks go up then these can go up

Well that is just stupid. No tornado ever gets a base kill, unless in a full downtier. These aircraft are identical to those at 11.0. so you saying that BRs have no logical placement


I still think stuff like the buccaneer and A-6 should be moving down in air RB due to the lack of offensive weaponry


Wow that’s great. A very efficient aircraft that would perform okay at 10.7, if it had a lineup. France is the country that lacks a lineup the most above 10.0 and yet you yeet out the only aircraft that worked for France at 10.0


Welp RIP the A-10s cant play them in ARB and now cant play them in GRB.


I’m happy they didn’t ruin Brits 10.3 line-up.

now we can suffer less until 11.3



We want to nerf the hardest type of aircraft to use in ARB even more


You expect the efficiency of the AMX to remain high when decoupling it from its lineup at 10.3? That just makes no sense whatsoever. Yes, it’s effective. It’s one of the few really standout options Italy has. Not everything needs to be normalized. Let people have nice or standout things in their lineup. Italy top tier is shite otherwise.


If we could be seeing more ASM’s in a future update hopefully we get them in a working state, currently the ASM’s we have now just fly over the target ship no matter the angle it’s fired at

Do you agree?
  • Yes
  • Yes but increased Battle Rating to 9.3
  • No
0 voters

The Israeli Vautour IIN should also recieve the Shafrir 2 IR AAM due to its very poor performance both as a bomber but as an aircraft in the current AIR RB climate in general. It would bring its capabilites on par with other aircraft like the Javelin or Sea Vixen, having the ability to carry short ranged missiles with relatively good maneuverability on a very bad at maneuvering platform while also having the ability to choose to carry bombs.

The problem with the Vautour
The main issue with this aircraft is that it cannot even effectively dodge even the most basic and earliest AAM like the AIM-9B due to its very poor maneuverability, especially at higher speeds where you would ideally want to be to dodge such missiles.

Summary of the performance of the Shafrir 2:
It’s a slower AIM-9B that burns for longer and has an uncaged seeker before launch. (It’s even slower to accelerate than the AIM-9D and its maximum range is almost identical to the AIM-9B)

1 Like

You’re just flying straight and hitting spacebar man 🙄🙄
This is as close to playing the game as hobby horsing is to actually riding a horse.


Thank you for confirming that BR has nothing to with capabilities of a vehicle. It’s only there to ensure the same RP and SL per time. Can’t have anyone falling out of line now, can we. Need to maintain that X RP per hour goal at all cost.

Thinking about lowering their rewards? As if they aren’t already useless, because of how ARB is set up.
How about we fix ARB instead, hint hint my other post maybe

I guess completely ruining an entire BR bracket and basically having 2 or more free kills against planes without flares is fair, since their flight performance sucks. A-10s are basically 5km wide no fly zones against planes without flares, and SU-25 can catch up to a lot of planes that it faces.


Fire and forget does not mean fired and destroyed, usually just hits in maverick. buff it if still moving up to 10.7


It’s flying in a straight line dodging IRCCM missiles with barely any CMs in aircraft that is slower than most at it’s BR and less manoeuvrable with minimal self defence.


Brother, ALL planes have to dodge missiles and guns… 😂😂

1 Like

great so f104’s, mig19’s, and the all aspect mobiles are stuck at their current brs forever
see yall when they drop the mig15 to 7.7 to compensate


Equivalent Jaguar A in french TT?

And before that each one of those killed 2 or 3 people from the ennemy team before ending up with guns only (on which i love to use A-10A thanks to his maraveleous abilities at low speed).

So,… let me call that bullshitery,…

Check on my stats for A-10A late, i played most of the time for AIR-AIR fights in ARB matches, and i’m sitting just fine at 2.6 KD (111 gamess 180 kills 70 deaths)


Then let’s move the f111 to 11.3 then. It’s just flying in a straight line pressing space bar