Dunno man. Tanks should be the last thing they up BR IMO when AA is front penning them.
Me262A-1a Jabo
Gamemode: Ground RB
BR Suggestion 7.0->6.7
Reasoning:
The Me262A-1a Jabo is a ground attack specialised version of the Me262A-1a. The primary difference is the ability to carry two SC250s or one SC500.
The bomb load is identical to the Me262A-2a (event vehicle) which is at 6.7 BR in ground RB. The primary difference between that and the A-1a Jabo is that the A-2a two MK108 cannons mounted in the nose whereas the Jabo has four. The MK108 has no ability to attack armoured targets on the ground, therefore there is not a significant advantage as a CAS aircraft over the A-2a.
Germany lacks a good available lineup for 7.0 (there are zero ground vehicles currently available for Germany at 7.0). The Jabo therefore is rarely used in the gamemode it is meant for. Moving it down to 6.7 would enable it to be used, and would not be any better than the existing similar event vehicle version.
A similar reduction in BR for the Kugelblitz which was 7.0 and is now 6.7 was very successful in increasing the usage of that vehicle. The idea has merit.
Also applies to the A-1a (non Jabo) which cannot carry bombs.
Shortened summary:
Functionally similar to Me262A-2a which is at 6.7 and does not overperform at that BR.
Jabo is underutilised. Move to 6.7 would allow better utilisation.
6 Likes
i think the core problem with that is that AA is a bit too effective at blowing up tanks at alot of battle ratings honestly.
i love playing reserve arcade, it’s fun and i do decently in it, but it’s such a killjoy to suddenly be blown up by some guy driving an SPAA spraying tanks down and winning
2 Likes
So, we are still paying the Python tax on the kfir C7, Kurnass 2000 and Kfir C2.
Also the unjustified changes for the Jh7A in GRB also still went trough without any new weapons or changed to the kit.
All in all, big nothingburger of changes
2 Likes
F-14B
- Air Realistic Battles Battle Rating: May or may not warrant an increase in Battle Rating
- Give F-14B’s AIM-54C to have a reduced smoke motor (Bug Report)
- Fix AIM-54C’s performance (buff) (Outstanding Bug Report)
- Model AIM-54C as all-aspect pulse doppler (Outstanding Bug Report)
- Give F-14B’s missing AIM-9M (Bug Report)
- Fix F-14B’s AXX-1 TCS, so it becomes a proper sensor and supporting missile guidance (Bug Report 1) (Bug Report 2)
- Increase the effectiveness of the BOL pod (Bug Report #1 - Chaff) (Internal Bug Report #2 - Flare)
- Flame2512’s writeup (reverse the ahistorical nerf to BOL CMs)
- Give F-14B’s missing AIM-7MH with lofting capability
Reasoning: I feel the F-14B Tomcat could be improved at its current BR placement, so it does not need to be moved down in the future. With its older airframe, it lacks effective IR missiles, and adding the AIM-9M Sidewinder would be a great improvement.
With the AIM-54C Phoenix receiving a reduced-smoke motor and improved performance, it becomes more effective than the AIM-54A Phoenix, which would help better differentiate the F-14B from the F-14A Tomcat’s overall in-game performance.
Additionally, the F-14B is missing the AIM-7MH Sparrow, essentially an AIM-7M with lofting capability, which should be relatively straightforward to implement.
20 Likes
Suggestion
Vehicle: M4A2
Mode: Ground Realistic Battles
BR: 4.0 → 4.3
Reasoning: The general decompression of this area is affecting most medium tanks in the BR range, but leaving the M4A2 untouched. It is simply untenable for this to be at the same BR as a Chaffee or a Pz IV J, and only one BR step above the M4A1. This vehicle is already a downtier monster. Most of the mediums being moved up will be rightfully prevented from bullying 2.3/2.7 vehicles, but they’re also being pegged to a vehicle that in its own right is a bully and a sealclubber. It should move up with the rest.
9 Likes
I dont think you are playing it right this thing is kind of uptier proof to a certain degree.
oh, yeah, that reminds me i still have to post this
I can’t agree while the D-9 is at the same BR as the D-12 and D-13. It should be .3 behind
Kurnass 2000
ARB 12.3 > 11.7
ASB 12.0 > 11.7
Reasoning, ARB:
The Kurnass 2000’s battlerating is a remnant of old times. The aircraft isn’t effective in the slightest in air battles due to its absurd battlerating and the AIM-9L / Python 3 being borderline useless when the aircraft commonly has to face FOX3s and advanced FOX1s with none of its own. The Kurnass 2000 wouldn’t cause any issues being 11.7 in air realistic as it is a simple F-4E with 6 Python 3s. better aircraft with better loadouts still exist at lower battleratings.
Reasoning, ASB:
The Kurnass 2000 at 12.0 is not a very solid choice for either air to air nor air to ground, as 12.0 and 11.7 platforms such as the F-4J / F-4S, Viggen D, Mirage F1, Tornado F.3 and a handful more are quite oppressive counters to the Kurnass 2000, being capable of entirely blocking the Kurnass from being able to fullfil either its air to ground role or its limited air to air role. at 11.7 it has the ability to no longer face powerful 12.0 air superiority platforms while not being low enough of a battlerating to be oppressive to other aircraft at the bottom of the bracket.
When it comes to air to ground, the Kurnass 2000 also can’t fullfil its job very well due to vastly superior platforms existing at lower battleratings, such as tornados, harriers, Su-24s, etc.
being a slightly lower battlerating might aid the vehicle in doing its job.
3 Likes
I suck at ground but m24 is one of my favourite vics of any to see. I know its going to go boom. The german panzer tank is also easy kill to front. The t34 has RNG turret so I can see why it would go up BR but the rest make no sense
Vehicle : CV9030FIN
Mode: Ground RB
BR: 9.3>9.0
Reason: Similar to the EFV the current gaps between the 9.7 30mm bushmasters and the 9.3 models is too great, specifically with both this and the EFV neither lack the ability to lock on to air targets nor have ammo made for attacking aircraft which puts them at a disadvantage when dealing with other IFV’s which have drones and missiles, additionally the vehicle doesn’t feature a remote turret making any attempts to peak a easy way to head back to the hanger. Additionally the CV9030 has a massive crew view port on the rear preventing the vehicle from having full coverage to defend itself when surrounded while having sub par mobility for a vehicle without an ATGM meaning you’re slower than most MBT’s and other IFV’s and lack appropriate weapons for dealing with such threats making most lower tier vehicles more effective at a supporting role than the 9030.
3 Likes
So happy that the EFV is getting lowered in BR that thing was struggling but I still loved it got 4 nukes under my belt with it.
a fix to the flightmodel would also be nice, the thing can barely pull 7g most of the time
I gotta be real, I will never choose a 30mm bushmasters at 9.x without air tracking or missiles, my BMP-2MD which is the worst BMP is unironically a better tank than the CV additionally the Leo Marksman is also a better IFV than the CV lol.
Ju87D-3
Gamemode: Ground RB
BR Suggestion: 2.0->2.7
Reasoning: it can carry the SC1800. This is quite a powerful bomb for 2.0
Flank tank. but miles slower than the 3.7 german wheeled light and gets 1 popped even more.
Do you have outstanding or forwarded bug reports? If so, I can include it in my feedback.
why?
if anything the D-9 is the second best out of all of them. The 2x 13mil are more suited to Fighter duty instead of the bomber hunter duty of the Mk-108 on the D-12 and goes toe to toe with the 3x 20mils on the D-13
2 Likes
no, but i know the F-14B was nerfed heavily once upon a time and now with gaijin’s 1.5x to the G overload limit modeling policy, it almost feels like the F-14B is modelled after a 5g overload limit. i can only reach 8 to 9g in specific situations, never being able to reach or exceed 10 despite the F-14Bs real life G-Limit being more or less 8g