I want to raise a discussion about a very noticeable and ongoing double standard in how vehicles, weapon systems, and core mechanics are implemented in the game specifically when comparing the US and RU tech trees. There seems to be a massive discrepancy in the “burden of proof” required to add new loadouts, as well as a completely different approach to balance.
The Aircraft Timeline and Loadout Gap.
We are consistently seeing highly modern Russian aircraft being introduced, such as the Su-30SM (2012 standard) and Su-30SM2 (2020-2021 standards). Meanwhile, the US tech tree either receives significantly older airframes, or when a modern jet is added, its historical loadouts are heavily restricted or artificially nerfed right out of the gate.
The Weapon Criteria Discrepancy
The requirements for adding air-to-ground ordnance seem completely biased. For the RU tech tree, we see the introduction of highly advanced weapons like the Kh-38MT (Х-38МТ) - a missile that barely existed beyond paper/prototypes and is extremely scarce in real-life deployment. It was added without much hesitation.
However, the criteria for the US tech tree are vastly different and incredibly strict. Even when players provide concrete proof of a weapon’s existence, its full technical characteristics, and photographic evidence of it being mounted on a specific aircraft, the developers hesitate or refuse to add it. Often, the excuses used to deny US loadouts are trivial—for example, citing a “lack of information regarding the specific drop speed limit of the munition.” Why are minor missing details used as a hard stop to deny historical US weapons, while prototype weapons with highly questionable real-world deployment are green-lit for other nations?
MBTs Disparity: Armor, Ammo, and APFSDS
When we look at Ground Forces, the bias in implementation is undeniable. The RU tree receives top-of-the-line, modern MBTs like the T-90M, T-80BVM, and modernized T-72B3As. These vehicles are fully equipped with state-of-the-art ERA packages and Active Protection Systems (APS), alongside incredibly generous armor modifiers.
On the other hand, the implementation of the M1A2 Abrams series is highly compromised. Yes, the US received the SEP V1 and SEP V2, but they were added in an artificially weakened state:
No Active Protection System: The SEP V2 is famously equipped with the Trophy APS in reality, yet it is denied in-game.
Outdated Ammunition: The Abrams is forced to rely on older APFSDS rounds, while far superior and modern iterations (like the M829A3/A4) exist and are withheld.
Artificial Armor Nerfs: The armor values of the Abrams have been severely nerfed compared to their real-world counterparts, blatantly ignoring public historical documents regarding their depleted uranium hull arrays.
The Unmatched SPAA Monopoly
The current state of Top-Tier Ground RB perfectly highlights this balance double standard. The RU tech tree possesses an impenetrable anti-air umbrella. First, the Buk-M3 was added with its extreme range, acting as the ultimate long-range deterrent. Then, the Pantsir-SM-SV was introduced to completely shut down medium and close-range airspace. While the RU tree gets this state-of-the-art SPAA combo, US remain drastically underperforming by comparison.
Damage Models and The “No Spall” Modifier
This asymmetrical treatment extends to core game mechanics. It has been proven repeatedly that RU MBTs benefit from heavily reduced secondary spalling when their side armor or carousel is penetrated. A similar shot to an Abrams results in catastrophic internal damage.
There needs to be a unified, transparent standard for how weapons, armor modifiers, and vehicles are balanced and introduced, regardless of the nation. Right now, the correlation is obvious and it completely ruins the balance of top-tier matches.
Stuff like Ariete AMV and Leopard 2A7V/HU are newer than BVM or 90M. B3A is also grossly overtiered and the 90M is the worst 12.7 in the game. BVM is solid, but thats about it.
They are arguably better than 2A7/122 if you have the skill to use them. Otherwise, second place is no slouch of a ranking.
Considering SEPV3 was passed to devs I wouldnt doubt it is coming with Trophy.
It fires the 3rd best APFSDS shell at the second fastest reload rate. Stop being greedy.
Besides some turret side and turret ring things can you please prove Abrams has better hull armor? That’s right, nobody knows.
In the same way I am not an air player. Fair enough. I am sure Su-30SM2 is a bit too powerful but what about Rafale, which dominated top tier for 14 months straight? Its not exactly Russian bias here.
Funny, considering M28A2 is still vastly superior to every Russian apfsds besides the 152mm apfsds the 292 gets.
This is completely disregarding the superior reload and gun handling that almost every US tank has over Russian MBTs.
There is no need for USA to get newer rounds.
Not to mention US MBTs are just superior to Russian MBTs.
Thanks to having good mobility (reverse gear does count towards mobility - claiming otherwise is just cope, neutral steering is also worth noting), gun handling, depression, reload and blowout panels.
In this case as well, the patriot would suffer from very similar downsides.
If not worse since some missiles it gets don’t have a proximity fuze if I’m not wrong
While probably also being on a bigger platform(s)
The SM-SV yes was a bullshit addition, however the US does not have a single SPAA that I’m aware of that is built to fill the same role as the pantsir.
So the US is severely lacking in that regard because they simply did not build something like this IRL as it’s not part of their doctrine
@IHаteCAS Comparing the Su-30SM2 vs the Rafale; The Su-30SM2 is most likely better than the Rafale for most scenarios in 16v16 air RB, however the Rafale has an almost non-existent skill floor while the Su-30SM2 has a lot of downsides to handle (boaty fm, bad rwr angles, bad vertical scan as well as lower cm count, compared to the Rafale’s what? lack of BVR capability due to MICA range?) which elevates the skill floor.
The US has one of the most modern ARH missiles in-game from a timeline PoV, and the F-15C GE is fairly modern, given its got the double rack AMRAAMs that have only just entered service. Because the US chose to upgrade older airframes instead of building new ones will naturally result in the US being a bit outclassed here and there.
Su-30SM2 is a bit of a BS addition at the moment, given its radar and engines, plus the fact that R-77-1s are really good and its has a crap-ton of them. But the overall arugment is a bit wierd using date of entry as an argument for balance. Especially as I would argue the US is fine at the moment. Meta no, but DOA? definetly not
You mean like everyone?
This I agree too, the double standards with A2G weapons can be really really annoying.
Would like to point out here that the A2 round is the second best at top tier (third overall) and the Abrams has a 5 second reload where DM53 L/55 has 6 seconds, giving the Abrams actually the best firepower overall at top tier. If A3/A4 rounds were added, then so should DM73/DM83, especially for nations with way weaker shells at top tier like Britian with L27A1
Whilst the US is weaker, they arent the weakest in this regard at top tier, not even close. Though no one can really compete vs the USSR in this regard at the moment
Yeah, American mains sleep on the fact that the Abrams is actually quite tanky compared to more than a few, and has decent mobility and then has some of hte best firepower at top tier
It’s just a matter of checking winrates at StatShark.
While there’s shills coping with technicalities, Russia outpaces every single nation in winrate right now, and that’s due to the fact they hold the best fixed-wing AGM, along the best heli AGM, a good 12.7 SPAA combo and competent tanks, all that in a single nation.
Sure, they might not be better than a Leopard or an Abrams in mobility, but the fact they require a fraction of a second more to aim is key on average players, giving Russian MBTs a natural advantage on reaction time.
I’m not a naval player, but I’m aware that a non-finished battleship has ruined any resemblence of fun in a BR against ships that, in fact, were built and even had active combats in their respective service records
Another reason to not even touch naval with a stick
Put it this way. Imagine that when they added the BMPT, 10.7 was the max BR and so it only ever saw downtiers and it would have been basically impossible to move it up and you get a rough idea what fighting the Soyuz is like in an uptier