10 12.7 GRB games played.
Once again, 3 wins (teamed up with Russia in those 3 games), and 7 losses against Russia.
Gotta love the balance in this game.
2 Likes
Maybe because Iron Dome its not made to counter ballistic missiles? (we dont even have ballistic missile ingame) Thats the job for David Sling/Patriot, but even so, theres a video of a Iron Dome succesfully intercepting a ballistic missile lol
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7FdhT_YuzUs
Ballistic missiles are easily intercepted before they start diving, something iron dome doesnt have that much range or speed, and so you have to pray it actually works when very close range, like in the video.
Unless you can prove that the Pantsir (or the USSR CAS) was a factor in those matches, that win rate doesn’t really mean anything
The matchmaking isn’t skill based, so you can just end up getting terrible teams in a bunch of matches in a row
My point its that Iron Dome its good at intercepting munitions, even prooven in IRL conflicts, so its nothing to refer as “laughable”.
I don’t know, play 100 12.7-13.0 GRB games in a row and give us the wins/losses results.
Already know the future russian winrate : 70-90%.
E v e r y top tier games (8 out of 10 games) are lost against Russia. Check it yourself.
Add to the fact that most meta players are flocking to Russia to try the new Pantsir + having the best CAS in game, and it’s no surprise the win rate will go up. Easy CAS, and free airspace means the WR will go up.
1 Like
In simulator ground the % its even higher!!!
1 Like
Yes, they’re at 80-90% winrate if I remember correctly. And the reason for that is the games are always Russia + China vs every other nations.
Meaning, the absolute biased nations x2 vs all the weaker ones.
In reality battles, sometimes NATO nations are paired with Russia + China, and that’s the reason why “official” NATO winrates are a little bit higher.
I would rather sandblast myself than to play top tier, but again, unless a game is decided by CAS or anti air it’s not a sign of bad balance
Leopards, the Type 10s and even the Abrams’ are better than the USSR trees top tier tanks, so a match without CAS being a factor is decided by player skill and high/low skill players aren’t being distributed evenly
I’m not trying to defend the CAS or anti air problems, but you can’t blame losses on vehicles that aren’t a factor in a match
1 Like
Oh yeah I wonder how the sim battles WR will look like now… Literally closed airspace for NATO.
2 Likes
when the next winrate update its?
Ok so as a reminder of why NATO forces loose big majority of games (non-exhaustive list) :
- Spikes/MMPs are broken (gotta love hitting commander MG 2 times in a row, a cannon then 6 ERAs eating the ATGM) ;
- Bradley TOW-2B missiles are broken (ridiculous damage model) ;
- Tandem ATGMs sometimes get eaten by ERAs instead of getting through (the whole point of tandem ATGMs) ;
- NATO MBT armors being paper compared to reality and russian MBTs ingame ;
- NATO MBTs getting nerfed to the ground (turret basket and electronics everywhere now, except the Arietes I think. We’re still waiting for t-series basket, maybe in 8 years we don’t know) ;
- NATO MBTs not getting their best DART (Leos, Leclercs, …)
- T-series model are broken (ERAs/side armors in general and autoloaders eat DARTs ( Russian Bias in 2026? - #1603 by SnuggyNyx , unbelievable), ERAs eat ATGMs, the whole model eat bombs ( Stalinium armor? - #684 by TROOPER7 : what is THIS seriously ??!)
- LMURs top down approach are correctly modeled, as well as their damage model => AH-64E AGMs are completely BROKEN compared to these, you usually need 2-4 missiles to destroy MBTs/SPAAs/BMPTs
- BMPTs are broken, no need to develop here
- Pantsir-S1 best 12.0 SACLOS SPAA in the game (12 ready-to-fire missiles, multi targeting system). Let’s not even talk about 12.7 Pantsir, this will end top tier experience pure and simple ;
- Tiger helicopters still at 12.7, why ? 8/12 FnF missiles VS 16 for other helis, 7-8 km max range VS 16/25 km max range for other helis, no IRCM, climb slower than other helis, HAC and UHT don’t even have a cannon ;
- 75% of small maps, advantaging russian MBTs because they rush you in corners
- To shoot at russian MBTs, gotta go pixelhunting. Urban debris on the ground ? Good luck shooting at LFP. The MBT does zigzags ? Good luck shooting at LFP. The MBT has bushes all over UFP ? Good luck shooting at driver’s port/breach (especially when you have the blur motion on, and that those bushes will “melt” with the tank’s armor in a blurry weird way). You shoot at russian MBTs from far away ? Good luck, gotta go pixel hunting. NATO MBTs in comparaison ? You point, click and shoot. Simple, easy.
- Russian MBTs don’t need to have the best pen, because NATO MBT armors are paper. They have basically the same speed going forward. They now have basically the same reload speed as well (6.4sec reload = +/- the 6sec reload some NATO MBTs have). They of course have so much armor that even top NATO darts can’t frontaly pen.
- IFVs : russians have IFVs with much higher fire rate, laser accuracy, 2 cannons (1 main for HE/ATGMs, 1 autocannon), much faster than some wheeled NATO IFVs. NATO IFVs in comparaison ? Bushmaster, completely garbage.
- Yak-9k, completely broken.
- Been playing some 7.3 US recently. Noticed something. Russian heavy/medium tanks, and some of their tank destroyer, are almost unpenable, IF YOU PLAY A NATO HEAVY TANK AGAINST THEM. IS-3 ? Gotta go pixel hunting in that turret neck. IS-4M ? Same, but the spot is even tinier (gotta love bouncing on its side with a 224mm pen shell too). T-10M ? Don’t even think you can pen that. Object 268 ? Gotta go pixel hunting in that driver’s port. T-54/55 ? Gotta go pixel hunting in that tiny cupola, berely visible). Hell, even some of their T-34/44 will bounce if their turret is angled weirdly. NATO heavy/medium tanks in comparaison ? Multiple weakspots, side will not bounce against a shell (even against russian SPAAs lmao), if you turn your turret a little bit, you’re done.
- T-series MBTs have IRST + HE + Proxy HE + ATGM shells. Some NATO MBTs don’t even have any of that (EDIT : they just gave Leclercs and I think Arietes HE shells, that’s a start).
- Sweedish IFVs still don’t have IRST
So many more things could be said. NATO SPAAs don’t have cannons. Russia has literally 10 MBTS/IFVs they can use at top tier, worning out NATO forces because they don’t have as many => which leads to constant losses against Russia at top tier GRB. Russia has that 1 ship that doesn’t even exist. KH 38s don’t exist too as well. In the main trailer, it’s the russian MBT that wins against the Abrams. When the AH-64 launches missiles against the russian MBT, we can’t see if the tank exploded or not, because they cut the scene. A lot, lot more.
5 Likes
They will probably show a perfect “50%” winrate for Russia and thus nothing to change.
it is a bad thing, rather than remove the obviously OP hyper long range weapon. They added SPAA which further invalidate multiple air crafts and systems.
making a lot of planes like the Tornados etc effectively pointless to use.
Don’t try tell him that, only russian bias is on his agenda.
Believe me he will lol.
This big ass list you post mate MAny. many people have already countered most your points on it.
Rather than ahve a reasonable discussion you’ve taken up the mantle of “russian bias” and will absolutely refuse to hear anything that isn’t just that.
We’re here talking about pantsir and the issues of why it was introduced etc.
1 Like
We’re here talking about pantsir and the issues of why it was introduced etc.
The only question here is : what’s the current NATO equivalence of that 12.7 russian SACLOS SPAA.
=> none.
Bias clear as day (if we needed another proof).
Was already the case, for years, with the 1rst Pantsir btw. For the same reason.
They, do not, want to balance the game.
EDIT :
This big ass list you post mate MAny. many people have already countered most your points on it.
No one can counter any of those as those are pure and simple facts.
Spikes/MMPs top down approach are broken, TOW-2B damage model is broken, AH-64E AGMs top down approach/damage model is broken. Bushmaster cannon is nerfed-to-the-ground due to low fire rate/absence of burst mode to compensate/bad damage model. Russian ERAs/side armors in general eat DARTs as they were nothing. And the rest. All of these are simply true.
Why NATO super technology are bugged or nerfed-to-the-ground, while russian stuff are perfectly modeled and OP in most of the cases ? That’s the question.
3 Likes
I only see this going two ways, we either get decompression and this new Pantsir gets pushed up to 14.0 or the hypersonic missile is removed for the time being. It is completely overkill for the game and has no place existing in it yet.
4 Likes
From my experience those work a lot better than people claim they do, also redfor nations don’t even have FnF ATGMs on their ground vehicles
The 2B is very niche, the 2A does the job very well
Haven’t had that problem in a long time
Fair, however, when you hit a spot that would damage the turret basket, you usually damage vital components either way
NATO MBTs literally have the best darts in the game (except for the 152mm on the Object 292)
The best USSR dart has 580mm pen and the best Chinese dart has 577mm pen
M829A2 has 629mm pen, DM53 has 653mm pen, M338 has 611mm pen, Type 10 has 610mm pen, only the Leclercs and CR2s darts are worse than redfor darts
FnF ATGMs deserve to burn in hell and I am going to die on that hill
That entirely depends on the BR range
A player that is good with similar planes is equally as powerful
That’s one nation, not the entirety of NATO
You act like those IRSTs are some kind of gamechanger when they absolutely aren’t and those ATGM shells aren’t gamechangers either
Those ATGM rounds aren’t gamechangers either
That has got to be the most pointless thing to bring up in this entire list
Most players don’t even spawn more than 2 times and even when they do, most nations have equal amounts of actual top tier MBTs, some even more than the USSR tree
NATO nations also has plenty of IFVs and ATGM carriers that you can bring into top tier, you just gotta know how to use them
Does it suck that they aren’t as easy to use as the USSR ones? Sure, but don’t act like there aren’t any options.
And?
wow, great point
No, they are not. They are absolutely trash due to their poor modelling and lofting. JAGM, PARS, Spike/MMP all underperform to a degree, but LMUR works as intended on release. It is obvious at this point that they do this on purpose, otherwise all these bugs reports regarding their loft/lack of top-attack trajectory would’ve been addressed by now. They really only care about Russia being the meta all the time.
And this new Pantsir and missile combo is no exception either.
3 Likes
I must be an outlier then
Why are you bringing up JAGMs PARS and LMURs when the point is about ground launched FnF ATGMs
Because air and ground launched AGMs should have top-attack trajectories, it is relevant. Spike ER and Spike LR2 both underperform in their attack trajectories, which conveniently makes them weak in comparison to other similar missiles. Spike’s main feature is their top-attack trajectory which is how they mainly defeat armor, and yet it doesn’t in game.
1 Like