Less armor, smaller chassis, cramped crew, ammo in turret, longer reload, no lineup.
BR is based on efficiency but Gaijin refuses to acknowledge the difference between minor and major nations in their infinite stubbornness and believe they always know better.
2 Likes
All very minor details when compared to other medium tanks. It basically just loweres the survivability of the Chi-Nu II a bit. The smaller chassis can also be an advantage at times.
It’s still just a less armored Pz IV but with more destructive power.
The lack of a lineup is irrelevant for discussing BR.
Whether 4.0 or 4.3 is justified, is questionable but the gun is certainly perfectly capable at 4.3.
Lineup is relevant because you don’t get to play at 4.3 very often and instead will have to play 4.7 and 5.0, if not 5.7 and 6.0 with a 4.3 gun, where the Panzer IVs gun is at 2.3 to 4.3.
I don’t see why you’re acting as if the Chi-Nu ll is firing some sort of nuke in comparison to the Panzer IVs peashooter, it’s a good round but so is that of the Panzer IV.
2 Likes
Because it does deal more damage and more damage means more one-shot kills, which means more opportunity to kill another target, which again means getting more kills.
Then you add the increased penetration and velocity and the gun simply much better.
This whole talk about BR x.x gun, often used as argument, makes no sense.
How is it relevant that a Pz IV equivalant gun can be found on an open top tank destroyer at 2.3? That doesn’t make the gun any better.
It’s a good gun on a limited chassis.
You can also find the gun on the KV 747(r) at 5.0, so the same gun also has to fight 6.0 vehicles.
In the end what matters is how good the vehicle is, using whatever strenghts it has.
If you put the Chi-Nu IIs gun into a Pz IV it would be 4.3 as well, simple as that.
Because it does deal more damage and more damage means more one-shot kills, which means more opportunity to kill another target, which again means getting more kills.
Then you add the increased penetration and velocity and the gun simply much better.
It’s still subject to all the RNG and nonsense the game offers, and it’s way more prone to getting killed than a Panzer IV.
Increased penetration of… 4mm?
This whole talk about BR x.x gun, often used as argument, makes no sense.
How is it relevant that a Pz IV equivalant gun can be found on an open top tank destroyer at 2.3? That doesn’t make the gun any better.
It’s not the gun, it’s the vehicle, fighting 2.3 and 4.3 is a lot different than fighting 3.7 to 6.0 because you have 4mm more pen and extra filler on a worse chassis.
1 Like
Worse for what? The only difference is that the Pz IV might survive getting shot sometimes.
They are both capable of being in the same position to fire at the same enemy.
What’s more important is that the Chi-Nu II will always have the edge of killing the vehicle it shoots.
For everytime the Pz IV H doesn’t get killed by a round that hits front armor, it gets killed because it didn’t deal enough damage to a target which the Chi-Nu II would have destroyed.
It’s the same deal how the Chi-Nu is at the same BR as the Pz IV F2.
As long as you don’t need the extra penetration, the Chi-Nu has the edge because it deals more damage. So they are both equally effective overall.
If they are both equally effective one wouldn’t be 3.3 and the other 4.3
1 Like
At the end of the day it’s the ancient story of minor nations having a different playerbase which results in higher performance, all that needs to be done is for a 0.X multiplier to be applied to minor nation vehicle performance to account for this and it would be fine, but Gaijin instead creates a game based on data when it’s horrid at processing said data, and refuses to share any of this data because it would expose their malpractice.
I disagree with this take. There are no minor nation US variants at a higher BR than their US tree counterparts. If minor tree players were overall better players, then these tanks would not share the same BR. In fact, the Italian M26A1 came down from 6.7 to 6.3.
2 Likes
The Chi-Nu is 3.3. The Pz IV F2 is 3.3 as well.
Higher BRs get more and more compressed, the difference between 3.3 and 4.3 is not as significant as a tank at 6.3 and 7.3, so a performance difference is less likely to result in BR differences.
The American Jumbo has a k/d of 1.89, the French one is at 3.2.
The American M24 is at 1.79, the Japanese one is at 2.86.
It’s pretty well established that minor nations are overtiered across the board generally speaking, through a significantly smaller playerbase and neglected tech trees pushing away new players, something that needs to be taken into consideration when calculating the performance, a vehicle with 30.000 users and one with 300 get treated equally in the eyes of the snail.
How do you get they are over tiered but then say the players are more effective? If the French Jumbo and Japanese Chafee actually are twice as effective, they should go up a few BR spots.
Because players hate it when that happens and refuse to understand why, people are STILL talking about the German M48 vs the American M48 and use it to speak poorly about German players because the M48 was .3 BR lower as it got wrecked by US/UK powerhouse back in the day with restricted MM, whilst in return it only had a BMP in it’s lineup and an entire team of Tiger lls, but all people see are two identical vehicles with differing performances.
It’s a lot easier to overtier unique vehicles like the Chi Nu ll vs the Panzer IV without people complaining, if they were both Panzer IVs they’d likely be the same BR even if it performed equal to the Chi Nu ll statistically because people would just use it to once again talk down on German players for performing worse with a vehicle despite other obvious explanations.
People were mad about the German M48 because no M48 has any business at 6.7, especially while the US M48 was at 7.3. Not to mention the German M48 has smoke launchers.
That is a different issue, the main complaint was that the M48 was 7.0 and the American one was 7.3.
It went to 6.7 pretty briefly most likely because of the horribly unbalanced game, it didn’t belong at 6.7 but it didn’t belong in the German tree anyways, it’s just crappy filler to compensate for the removal of the Panther ll and whatnot.
Either way the point is that people don’t like seeing the same vehicles at different BRs, the M48, the IS-2s, the Panzer IVs, Shermans.
Yeah, Gaijin put it at 6.7 when it came out simply because it had an extra 10mm of penetration. Guess what, people got mad and complained or straight up stopped playing it, myself included.
This wasn’t a “skill issue” , it was the result of people complaining to Gaijin until they caved in to their demands.
- What. Does one lose skill when playing an overtiered vehicle?
- Yeah let’s have actual in-game “bias”. You either raise all of them or none.
1 Like
I’m not the one saying they are over tiered. I’m not the one saying minor tree players are better. My argument is the minor trees perform the same, which is why the copy paste vehicles are at the same BR.
It’s not bias to raise the BRs of copy paste vehicles, if the stats show they are indeed performing better.
lol
bias: “inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.”
Explain this then:
Tiger H1.
BR: 5.3, has smoke grenades, cupola is a large weakspot, worse mobility than E and No.6.
S-mine launchers block the cannon.
Tiger E.
BR: 5.7, has smoke grenades, cupola is not as big of a weakspot, better mobility compared to H1 and gets access to APCR.
Doesn’t have S-mine launchers that block the cannon when depressed over hull corners.
HT No.6
BR: 5.7, no smoke grenades or shells, cupola is not as big of a weakspot, better mobility compared to H1, no APCR.
Also has the stupid S-mine launchers that block your cannon .
Clearly the HT No.6 is worthy of being 6.3 because it’s a worse Tiger E that somehow performs better, right?
2 Likes
He is talking about the performance of vehicles based on MM.
When one nation faces another more than often, it can create balance issues because one nation might beat the other more often than other nations.
That’s why the German M48, despite being superior, had a lower BR, as it was often fighting British vehicles with stabilizers which completely negated the benefits of the M48.
Nowadys with so many nations it’s complety random which countries you fight, so performance issue based on MM are less likely.
What’s there to explain? The HT No. 6 is better than the Tiger H1 but worse than the E.
So it’s either 5.3 or 5.7. APCR is basically pointless so the only downside is lack of smoke launchers and the S-Mine issue.