It’s a decent first step. Putting the Leopard solidly above the tanks laughably considered it’s comtemporaries under the previous scheme helped. But ultimately, all it did was change which tanks were overly compressed. Now instead of late/post WW2 tanks getting stomped by HEATFS and Sabot, it’s early cold war tanks getting stomped by LRF, APFSDS and stabilizers. The next step would be moving most of >9.0 up by 0.3/0.7, and raising the BR cap to somewhere near 12.3-13.0. This will allow enough space to have things at their proper BRs.
And there’s a few tanks that really didn’t need to move up the way they did. M48, T95E1, 20 pounder Cents, etc.
Time will tell if HEATFS remains a problem.
I am two weeks away from playing ground again consistently cause Su-25BM & F-16A MLU matters more than experiencing 7.7 right now, but my Maus is ready.
the br changes are the worst thing they could do for the game, at least for the nation of germany, it is unplayable, all the tanks that went up from br are at a disadvantage, in br 6.7 all the tanks are better, and the the russians simply and they didn’t touch anything, the is 3 are too unbalanced, it’s just one of the examples and you choose a tiguer 2 and you keep facing the t 54, you go to a higher tier and you find the leopart in 8.0 and you see that They are all 9.0 arrow ammunition, with very large armor and hold and what do you have to offer? I’m not saying it’s impossible but it’s due to pure ability, you still go up more and you find that the leopart1 a1 and the leopart 1a5 are also at a great disadvantage, although it is true that the leopart a5 has thermals and a lazer rangefinder, they pair you up against an abrams or challenger that is far above the tank for example and not to mention the leopart 2k did absolutely nothing to help but strangely if some russian tanks, which we return to the topic of the previous br, the preference for the nation of russia is too noticeable .
If you want to make changes by separating vehicles, think and analyze in an objective, not simple way, in mind, because it is Germany or any other nation that is not Russia, you have to play at a disadvantage.
Surely prioritise all the other vehicles (almost all vehicles) that also made the change in BR? Rightfully the leo 1 is not exactly the same as all the old 7.3s and now we can show that again (as an example).
Or in a full uptier (use lights/TD/SPAA/Aircraft which are designed for uptiers) are you thinking every enemy is top BR?
This is a second step of many and knee jerk reactions are just that currently.
@CPTPEANUTS
Why 6.7 Soviets?
6.7 USA is the strongest.
6.7 Germany is strong.
6.7 Japan is strong.
6.7 Britain is strong if you get Cent Mk2.
French 6.7…
No one was getting bullied by centurions. Any nation at 6.3 is going to expect to be fighting Tiger 2s, and if you can pen a tiger 2 you can pen a centurion much easier.
On the flip side, centurions need to hit heavy armor to generate any postpen at all. Its very common to overpen or kill single crew. So yes, they have a stab, but that doesn’t compensate for the huge disadvantage APDS and HESH have over other round types.
What it comes down to is that brits have been constantly nerfed for a long time now despite maintaining mid-low 40% WRs. Its been that way as long as we have been able to track stats. And look at brit BR clustering if you don’t think theirs a bias against brits. Nearly no clusters left with more than 2 functional vehicles at a BR.
Yeah laughable to compare vehicles with very similar and better capabilities to be contemporaries, it should be amongst all the fully stabilized, thermals, armored and AFPSDS vehicles.
Yes, because the Leopard 1 was definitely equal in capabilities to things like the M47 (90 and 105), M48A1, and Cent 3. Not to mention so much worse than the M60 and AMX-30 that it needed to be 0.3 BR below them.
Also, you seem to have missed the fact that almost all the tanks above it moved up too. It’ll mostly face in 9.0 games what it would have faced in old 8.7. And it’s combination of top tier mobility and solid firepower means it’ll still do just fine.
M47-48 are notoriously just bad to average vehicles and an unfair comparison, Centurion Mk.3 has higher pen APDS, a reload that is like 1.5 seconds faster, smoke grenades, smoke shells AND is fully stabilized… how is that worse?
How is it an unfair comparision to compare two vehicles at the same BR? That’s how vehicles are balanced in game, two vehicles that share a BR are supposed to be equally capable at that BR. If one vehicle is more capable than another, it’s supposed to be at a higher BR to balance that out.
And you’ve clearly not got a ton of experience with the Cents. The stabilization is their only advantage. Their firepower is very lackluster, the APDS has pitiful postpen damage and shatters at the drop of a hat. Not to mention the new APDS which means their higher pen APDS is effectively much worse due to the awful performance against angles. Their mobility is terrible, practically everything at the BR including some heavies are faster than they are, which hampers their potential to position or flank. And their armor is very unreliable, only low performance APHE can’t just lolpen right through it. If you’re holding up smoke grenades and smoke shells as an advantages over the Leopard, that says a lot.
How is it an unfair comparision to compare two vehicles at the same BR? That’s how vehicles are balanced in game, two vehicles that share a BR are supposed to be equally capable at that BR. If one vehicle is more capable than another, it’s supposed to be at a higher BR to balance that out.
Because it’s rarely ever like that, BR compression for one pushes a lot of these vehicles together, and second there are rules for features that cannot go below a certain BR.
I’m sure we both can think of dozens of vehicles at the same BR as something else but not at all equals.
A stabilizer is already a massive performance advantage, having mobility is nice but it’s not a night and day difference, it just has lacking top speed that usually doesn’t matter, the smokes are a bonus on top of the other features it has, and APDS having pitiful post pen isn’t any different on the Leopard, unreliable armor is better than no armor.
If you want to pretend that is not an advantage that’s one thing, but to pretend it’s not even on par with a Leo that’s just silly.
We both can, and that is a problem, not something to just brush off. And we aren’t talking about a small difference in ability, like how the Caern is better than the Cent 3, but not enough for a BR difference. We’re talking about a sizable difference in ability which would be easily worth a BR difference. If the AMX-30 can be higher than the tanks I listed, the Leopard can be. I’d trade the nerfed 20mm and smokes for a better turret and APDS easy. At the very least that’s infinitely more comparable than the M47 105 is.
If you honestly don’t think there is a night and day difference between the Leopard’s mobility and the Centurion, I can’t help you. Nor if you think there’s no difference between 20 pounder APDS and 105mm APDS.
The mobility on the Leopard is nice, but I don’t think increased mobility is worth the BR increase opposed to having a stabilizer, you’ll win every single engagement 100% of the time against a Leopard because it cannot shoot on the move, doesn’t matter if it does 20 or 200 km/h, you might be stuck at 30 km/h or whatever but you can point and click on anything, and with the increased reload I don’t see how you think these things aren’t even equals.
So, genuninely, the idea that a Leopard can use it’s mobility to get into a prime shooting position and use it’s better gun, better zoom, and rangefinder to hit the Cent while it’s still trundling into battle is a new concept?
The stabilizer advantage only comes into play if both tanks are moving when they see each other. Which if the Leopard is playing anywhere near intelligently, isn’t a factor. The Leopard’s best in class mobility means it’s going to be set up in a good sightline long before the Cent comes into view. At which point, the stabilizer doesn’t matter, because unless the Cent is literally staring at the peice of cover the Leopard is using, it can drive out, stabilize quickly, fire, and pull back, all long before a Cent can react. Even on urban maps, a Leo showing up somewhere the Cent isn’t expecting can defeat the Cent before it can turn it’s turret and get a shot off.
And that’s not even considering the firepower disparity. Which even the game thinks is a 0.3 BR difference, as seen comparing the Mk 3 to the Mk 10. Plus HEAT-FS for a higher velocity chemical round against overpressurable things. And a rangefinder. And you think a slightly faster reload balances that out?
So, genuninely, the idea that a Leopard can use it’s mobility to get into a prime shooting position and use it’s better gun, better zoom, and rangefinder to hit the Cent while it’s still trundling into battle is a new concept?
Because every single map just has those positions and that’s relevant throughout entire games?
Better gun how?
Zoom just makes it worse, completely throws you off in CQC environments and long range distancing, the rangefinder isn’t laser either.
Maps generally aren’t that big that sniping is what the playstyle is.
Stabilizer is always in play, it means you are always able to return fire, if it’s a parked Leo you also don’t have to stop.
I’m not going to sit here and argue in circles about how going fast is somehow the most important feature in the game.
