Too low. 9.0 would make more sense, same with the CV9030.
Badger is smaller, but has half the firerate and is at 9.0.
Maybe the Badger should be 8.7.
Ding Ding Ding. I’d never use Badger over Falcon/ZA-35.
1 Like
3 Likes
Type 89 is amazing thats some crazy talk from him
1 Like
only reason i say the EFV shouldnt be at 9.3 is simply cause it lacks the mobility to effectively flank like RCV or other wheeled vehicles it acclerates slower than some fast MBT its also a LOT BIGGER LIKE MASSIVE and it cant shoot behind itself due to having a NATO hump def 9.0 worthy
Its huge, no any atgm, only front 180° useful, poor gun handling, its poop at 9.3, 9.0 at least.
3 Likes
if you’re thinking EFV is bad, go try Badger, you’ll be fine.
1 Like
Literally CV9030, can’t look over the back, slow as can be and also a tracked vehicle.
You know the EFV is bad when it’s being compared to one of the worst additions to this game (the Badger)
You know its bad when the EFV players say the EFV is worse
1 Like
It’s BR serves it right where it’s supposed to be, in terms of arment. But the hull is just too big to actually hide or outmaneuver anything.
So, 9.3 or 9.0 seems perfect, the only problem is that BR gets uptires too often.
1 Like
Then in your case, EFV needs to be lowered because of how massive the chassis is. It is a huge target that is twice the size of any comparable IFV with 25 to 30mm. Any hit in the front-half detonates the tank, and it’s very hard to hide it behind cover due to the height. Lowering the BR wouldn’t put any vehicles at risk because any stabilized gun in the game can still 1-shot it.
1 Like
Why did you fly past all other points that there are to compare and go straight to size? There are many points to compare, and lot of them do meaningfully affect gameplay.
EFV vs. CV9030FIN:
-
EFV has better armor. While this wont come into play 99%, EFVs armor is better, as for example it cannot be .50caled to death from side and rear,
-
EFV has ESS, CV9030FIN does not,
-
EFV is amphibious, CV9030FIN is not. While this wont come into play 99% of the time, its a feature EFV has over CV,
-
EFV has adjustable suspension (at least according to wiki, doesnt seem so in game), CV does not.
-
EFV has better HP/T (26.7 vs 22.7 ),
-
EFV has better gunner optics (4x/12x vs. 8x),
-
EFV carries more ammo (600 vs 400),
-
EFV has larger belt (200 vs 80),
-
EFV has better vertical traverse,
-
CV has better reverse speed,
-
CV has better reload between belts,
-
CV is smaller,
-
CV has better turret horizontal traverse
Why exactly they cannot be the same BR again?
3 Likes
Sounds like this needs to go down in BR, lol
1 Like
prolly, not the point i was going for. it just irks me that argument put forth was basically “hurr durr one vehicle is bigger than means it must be lower in BR” and “hurr durr IFVs at lower BR have missiles, this one has just guns, it needs to go lower in BR”
This is what most players overlooked and downplay how good the 12x could make a sniper. Most people just hodl w to the objective and call something bad if they trade two vehicles for one kill lol
I don’t mind uptiers at 9.0, playing USSR/China 9.0, since there really isn’t too much left at 10.0 these days, most of it went to 10.3. 9.3 you’ll get uptiers full of premiums with low levels, though.
If enemy team has fv4030 or Sabra and the player is not half bad, it’s a boss fight. Might need to send an entire lineup to take these guys out lol
and puma ifv is 10.3 with ap same gun and ammo…other puma 11.0 because have 4 missile
The PUMA has unmanned turret, which mean when the player decides to camp hull down they expose only the turret part which can be fully repair should they take a hit, at worst ammo cook off and ran out of ammo and crews are pretty much safe from taking infinite amount of hits to the turret. Unlike the EFV it could do what PUMA does but it can only afford to take one or two hits as it has two turret crews sitting in jerk off distance, Bradley is in the similar predicament as well. Maybe its just American thing to have two crews hugging and each other in the turret,