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.
4 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.
5 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
and where’s the problem?
Ok fair when you put it that way.
Be able to be penned by SPAA isn’t really a great metric for balance on its own.
2 Likes
The Ikv 103 should not lose the slpsgr HEAT-FS round nor be lowered to 3.3, where it currently sits at 4.0 is perfectly fine and makes it a fun but not too insanely strong vehicle while being uptier proof due to the HEAT-FS.
Imo, if the devs want to do this they should add the Ikv 102 and limit it to HE, smoke and stock HEAT (psgr m/49) from the Ikv 103 at 3.3. This tank already got passed a year or so ago and would fit perfectly in the spot the Ikv 103 is unfairly being shoehorned into.
8 Likes
XP-55
- Air Realistic Battles: 4.3 → 4.0
- Removal of 2 x 20 mm cannons and replacement with two .50-cal machine guns (Bug Report).
Reasoning: Historically, the XP-55 Ascender was never armed with two 20 mm cannons and two .50-cal machine guns. The report I created cites a source stating that the XP-55 was equipped only with four .50-cal machine guns during construction. Along with another report already correcting its engine performance, this warrants a reduction of one BR step by replacing the 20 mm cannons with .50-cal machine guns.
8 Likes
How you figure?
If the tanks are moving around (and with more speed) there’s tons of bouncing on the guns.
Which differs from RGB where a lot of the attacks are ambush - where the attacker is sitting and waiting. Not a lot of gun movement there.
IMO STAB is equally important in both modes.
i think arcade has a semi-stabilised gun for every vehicle where sway is generally reduced, ontop of the fact that traverse rates are higher
Will the f-106 receive the aim-26B (the flz 64/79 in game on the mirage IIIS) since the bug report was acepted?