Both have very high resistance to damage compared to NATO and it used to be even worse.
IR SAM lock range (even on Type81) is extremely gimped so Ka50 can easily sealclub from a distance
Vikhrs have both proximity and impact fuzes active (not realistic) allowing them to easily take out every single US heli
So at a glance it looks like it’s rigged for wallet warriors, but if that were true then the premium Apache and A10 would have equally broken damage model and similar capabilities vs their AA counterpart but they don’t. Apache players can’t do anything to Ka50s above 5-6km, Apache need to have 200 iq and zigzag between trees to get kills, while 99% of Ka50s just fly straight up like zombies and still get multiple kills. That’s proof it’s not about the money.
Isn’t premium a10 the best CAS at 10.3 battle rating because of his fire and forget weapons? Oh, I forgot, that they added Osa at this battle rating. Hehe…
Considering I’m almost exclusively using Stingers and don’t play any CAS, I believe your statement is very wrong.
Wish my Stingers were working that well against most targets (A-10 included), my kill count would be much higher.
I also wish YAH-64s didn’t just eat Type 81 missiles producing nothing but Hits.
I think you forgot about the big balance-issue with the 2S38. It is sitting on 10.3 but is way better in terms of thermals, LWS and firerate then the HSTV(L) and the RDF/LT wich are sitting at 11.7. They have a bit more armour than the 2S38 but it doesn’t matter, because the 2S38 is way more viable and tanky then the HSTV(L). Additionaly the 2S38 can carry more ammo than the RDF/LT. The 2S38 is still performing good at 11.7. So why is it sitting at 10.3?
It’s also way better than the PUMA, which sits at a similar BR and is overtiered.
On the topic. Nothing will change because GJN wants this to be the situation. Russia and China have these win rates because it’s what GJN wants them to be. People keep talking about “player skill” and the likes, which is a hollow argument.
At the end of the day BR’s, modelling, and available vehicles as well as other decisions made by GJN directly impact and lead to Win Rates. 80%+ win rates for some countries aren’t because the players of that country just happen to be the best players around. But is based on a variety of factors.
Strong line up and countries further become FOTM, leading to certain people switching to them. There’s a reason the 2S38 ammunition functions as proxy when it shouldn’t in game, while AHEAD doesn’t despite both being very similar ammunition IRL.
Years ago I went wallet warrior mode and purchased the Chinese new year package that comes with three cold war MBTs and add the 122MT on top of them, sounds like it is better that I stay with them and don’t go higher, probably will research that TD with ammunition performing close to 3BM42 and that 8.3 ztz that looks like a direct upgrade to the T-55A and stick to them until the end.
Top tier ones are just gimped RU tanks with better reverse speed.
Anyone complaining about top tier China is certainly not doing it for in-game reasons and is driven by real life biases.
People have trouble being objective about the 2S38 because it is a very frustrating tank to fight. But when you look at the vehicle, 10.3 is an appropriate BR.
I will say I’m really tired of people saying it’s better than the HSTV-L.
That’s not at all how it works, MANPADS (e.g. Stinger, Igla, Mistral etc. ) tend to use Rolling Airframe guidance methodologies so in effect can only make dual plane maneuvers, which is why there is an erroneous G-Averaging Coefficient attached to the Overload of the FIM-92 / Mistral.
The issue is that the MANPADS article assumes that the Igla, Stinger (and to an unknown degree the Mistral ) all use the same methods being;
the use of “Bang-Bang” actuators
and an “Open” control Loop
As the Stinger (among other issues, like the Lack of the Optical contrast, lock-on range extension mechanic, and resultant underperforming Seeker) uses both proportional actuators and a Closed Guidance loop, said assumptions do not apply to the STINGER, but would the FIM-43 Redeye as discussed in the following report on the issue, which Gaijin have yet to action, which is somewhat odd after 7 months (so far) since the report was accepted.
Stinger is probably one of the best examples of how buffs (even if historical) would make stuff much harder to balance and might lead to them being worse off in the end.
It getting more G load, photocontrast and 6km range against helis would automatically put something like LAV-AD at 11.3, making it face Kamovs and FnF munitions on a regular basis.
I genuinely think that LAV-AD would do much worse at 11.3 than it does now at 10.0 where it can club vehicles with dumb ordnance like Su-25s.
tbh if it works correctly facing karmov isn’t much of the problem (but 11.3 still too high for MANPAD base SPAA maybe 10.7) plus it’ll benefit a lot of stuff that rely on stinger only
(if you think historical stinger are scary you might change your mind when you see historical Mistral)
Why would it specifically need to go up in BR, why not treat it and the other impacted IR SAM launchers as the new yardstick for said BR, it would certainly make the Pantsir less of an issue since the IR SAMbush playstyle would actually become reliable and so limit their performance significantly prior to the introduction of IIR F&F ordnance.
This does after all impact most nations, and you can see that with just how many now have a C&P SA-8 & -13. and only needs to bridge the gap until things like the MIM-23 or Rapier “Field Standard A / -B / -C” etc. turn up to provide longer range performance and serve as the longer range component of SAM systems
Right back at you, surprising to see someone so incredibly wrong. Nobody uses the PUMA to speed run nukes for a reason, but they absolutely use the BMD4 and 2S38. Both in the same rough BR range. And the Spike Puma sits at 11.0, the singularly highest BR of any IFV. I hardly ever see anyone even bringing either Puma, I do regularly see BMD4 and 2S38, as in virtually every game.
I don’t know if the linked reports would also cover the Mistral(Since I don’t have similarly detailed sources to hand), but they would at least serve as a basis to correct where Gaijin has made errors in the technical understanding and give them an opportunity to revise them.