Planned Battle Rating changes

[Stona_WT 72,761]

Dear players! We appreciate your feedback and suggestions. In the recent BR update we continued to introduce our approach to gradually increase the Battle Ratings of the top- and pre-top vehicles. This approach allows us to identify solid leaders and outsiders by combat efficiency and make corresponding adjustments to the planned BR updates. This time we are updating the BR 9.7+ vehicles (including a few 9.3 vehicles) in order to reconsider BR 9.3-9.7 vehicles and below. Thanks to your feedback, we’ve also noticed a few rank III vehicles (such as Comet and T-34-85), which also had their BR updated. 

 

As for the Harrier GR.1 (1) efficiency, it could have a higher rating, but due to the massive feedback we decided to reduce its BR to 9.7 both in RB and SB. We will closely monitor its efficiency after this update. We have also noticed your suggestions concerning the G.91Y (1,2). At the moment we are working on the new weapon menu, including new air-to-surface munitions for this aircraft. This requires specific model updates, and new weapons to be introduced to the game in one of the upcoming updates. Also, the previously announced BR updates for Fw 190 D-12 and Ta 152 C-3 (1, 2, 3, 4) in RB mode will also not be introduced yet: although these aircraft remain BR rise candidates, we decided to wait and monitor their efficiency a little more.

 

Some aircraft receive their BR updates in accordance with their modifications: The American F-8E (USA) gets BR 10.0 in SB, same as the French F-8E(FN); Chinese F-5A gets its BR 10.7 in RB, same as the F-5E. After the F4U-1A (USA), the British Corsair F Mk II and Japanese F4U-1A will have their BR lowered to 3.3 in SB. Although we agree with your suggestions to lower the BR of the AH-6M, but only in the AB. Further changes of ground vehicles and helicopters will take us further research.

 

We were pleased to hear your positive feedback on the top-tier Enduring Confrontation mode. Other BR changes in the SB mode will also support the variability for all rotations regardless of the week. Unfortunately, some of your suggestions did not take into account the possible encounters for the minimum BR value. However, after analysing the feedback and statistics, we decided to increase Ariete's BR to 9.0. At the same time, we do not plan to lower the BR of the C.202 EC in the upcoming rating updates, which might not correspond to SB matches at 2.3-3.7. 

 

[9] Enduring Confrontation changes will be implemented later.

[Stona_WT 72,761]

Ground vehicles

We continue the planned increase of the Battle Ratings for top ranked vehicles - some vehicles beginning at BR 9.7 will receive a simultaneous increase one step higher. In addition to top ranked ground vehicles, the BR of helicopters and some high ranked aircraft will also change one step higher. This change will noticeably improve the situation for vehicles with BR 8.7-9.0. In the future changes will also affect these vehicles but only after gathering statistics on the result of the current change.

Open the table in new window

Aircraft Simulator Battles

The increase of the maximum BR for aircraft led to the fact that in [Enduring Confrontation] missions in one battle depending on the rotation could meet aircraft of BR 9.7 and 12.0. We plan to add one another top range [9] [Enduring Confrontation] which will cover the following ranges: 11.7-12.0, 11.3-12.0 and also 11.0-12.0.

In addition we plan to change the initial BR ranges in the 1st and 4th variants.

Before

After

 

If you think we should make some additional changes or do not agree with listed changes, please support your suggestions with arguments!

We read all your feedback, so it can take some time to approve your post. Please be sure to stay on topic.

Thanks!

[Ghostmaxi 872]

All realistic mode.

Bf 110 C-6 3.0 -> 2.3

Reason: The better C-7 is 2.7 which is better because: Armored glass, can carry bombs and has 2x 20mm Mg FF/M and faster  while the C-6 cant have bombs has no 20mm and is fixed with the 30mm Mk 101. In comparison the Hs 129 B-2 which is at 2.7 has more armor, 2x 20mm Mg 151/20 and 2x Mg 17 (instead of 4x Mg 17) and a Mk 103 with 100 instead of 60 rounds and higher fire rate.

 

Do 217 J-2 2.3 -> 2.0 it is simply a J-1 (2.0) with the only difference beeing having an useless radar and changing the camo from black to white with black spots.

 

Do 217 N-1 2.7 -> 2.3 it is a Do 217 J with radar a little bit stronger (but also heavyer) engines (1430 hp to 1580 (150hp more)), changes the 20mm Mg FF/M to Mg 151/20 which are also heavyer (but fire the same rounds and) and has on paper a tiny little improvement in climp (5,9 to 6,8 (0,9 more) and such but because its also a good tat heavyer flyes even worse.

Same goes for N-2 2.7 -> 2.3 its even worse as it changes the (useless anyway) small bombload and the 2x only def 13mm Mg 131 for 4x 20mm Mg 151/20 in Schrägemusik position which really is only dead weight and also changes once again the camo from Black to White with black spots.

And move the Do 217 N-1 and N-2 in front of Ju 88 C-6

 

Ju 87 D-5 3.3 -> 2.3 It has worse bomb load than the D-3 (no 1000kg bomb, and less 500 kg loadouts (no 3x 500kg bomb loadout), when equipping with Mgs or more cannons it cant carry and bombs, while also the flightperformance doesnt change and the very aquivalent plane,
the Il 2 Mod. 1941 with 2x 20mm Shvak and 2x Shkas is at 2.3 (while also having a wider arrangement of explosives, such as Bombs and rockets) And even the mod 1942 sits at 3.0

 

The Me 410 B-6 R/3 5.0 -> 4.0 

Its no different from the other Me 410 (well its slower) but it cant take any bombs and a similar (perhaps even a bit better) plane the He 219 A-7 is at 4.3

 

A suggestion also (if moveing the Me 410 B-6 R/3 to 4.0) move it in front of Do 335 A-1 and the Do 335 A-0 after the A-1 to complet the Ground strike line and to fill the new middle gap take appart the 4 other Me 410s and put them one after the other.

 

The Sd.Kfz 251/21 from 3.3 -> 2.7 it is bugged with ammo choosing when taking more than 1 different kind (only outer barrles have ammo for example) has bad vertical traverse with 49° up and the aquivalents (M 16 and Btr152A) are also at 2.7 

The Bf 109 G-6 to 4.3, it is a little bit worse than the G-2/Trop in terms of Speed, turnspeed and Horsepower and has a smaller max height and feels more sluggish

Maus/E-100: reload time 23,6 sec --> 20,5 sec (IS-6)

With the Maus still being 7.7, it could really need a slight buff in firepower since unlike other heavy tanks like the IS-3, IS-4, M103 or Conqueror it really is a "heavy" tank without any tactical mobility (similarly to the T95).

 

Jagdtiger: reload time 23,6 sec --> 19,4 sec (T34, Sturer Emil)

The Jagdtiger has two dedicated loaders for its two-piece ammo, because of this the reload should be faster than the Maus/E-100 and significantly faster than IS-3 and IS-4 with their cramped turrets and only a single loader.

The Sturer Emil loads similar ammo into a nearly identical gun in 19,4 sec with just a single loader!

 

Tiger II 10,5cm: reload time 20 sec --> 16,2 sec (T29)

Two loaders for 105mm two-piece ammunition, same as on the T29 yet slower for some reason

 

Marder 1A1: add DM63

20mm HVAP is not even able to kill most light tanks from the front.

It already has the worst ground based ATGMs in the game and only four of them with relatively long reload and very limited launch angles.

It should at least have some firepower, the BMP-1 not only has far superiour missiles but also a gun capable of engaging every other tank frontally.

 

Marder 1A3: add MILAN 2

Same as above, MILAN is basically the worst ground based ATGM in game and it has quite a bit below average mobility as well.

The gun is also sub par so it should at least have the slightly improved missiles.

 

Also good to see the M4A3 105 going up, could perhaps even move to 3.3

A but sad about the 222, 234/1 and 140/1, but not really a problem cince i take them at 2.0 anyway.

234/2 a bit lost but anyway.

Edited April 5, 2023 by Ghostmaxi

[_Mr_Fahrenheit_ 222]

So the Bosvark will be 5.0 with the Skink also at 5.0? Why are they both at the same BR?

 

About the Bosvark, it has a terrible turning radius, poor handling and no armor, while the M53/59 with the same long wheelbase, has armor, but is much more nimble and handles extremely well. No idea how or why.

[Favnirbane 182]

Happy to see the changes for BRs in simulator battles, aswell as the expansion of helicopter and ground BRs!

 

Why is the Tunguska facing a reduction in its BR, despite the fact that the BR for ground vehicles are expanded?

 

T-90A should move to 11.0

 

Thankfull that youve considered the reduction of the Sidam Mistrals BR!

 

 

[Monika_in_action 1,363]

The BR expansion of ground vehicles is great, however some adjustments are needed as well:

 

2S6

Should stay 11.0

Its missile could outrange every helicopter from 9.7 (AH-1S/F with TOW2) to 10.3 (Mi-28A with 9M120 ATKA),  just overwhelming. Despite its missiles being converted to new SACLOS mechanics, it's still deadly against helicopters and drones. Besides let's just don't forget Roland carriers were raised to 10.3 a few patches earlier.

Russian would still have a rather decent 11.0 lineup but lowering Tunguska to 10.7 is a bit too much.

 

BMP-2M

9.3 → 9.7 or even 10.0

Gen 2 thermal, 4*9M133 Kornet with fire-on-move and multiple guidance capacity making it extremely unfair for other 8.7 and 9.0 to fight against this beast. With the decompression of BR, this machine could find a perfect place in 9.7-10.0 with the new 10.0 Russian lineup.

 

2S38

Finally!

 

Leopard 2A4 (All variants)

Add DM33

It would encounter heavily armored targets like T-80UM2 and T-90A in a higher frequency at the BR of 10.3. Adding DM33 is a reasonable option for balancing concerns.

 

Leopard 2PL

Stay 11.0 (Optional)

Terrible hull protection is a fatal flaw plus it's still using DM43, however could just go to 11.3 as well since there would be no proper 11.0 lineup to back it up.

 

Ariete AMV

Stay 11.3

The new 1500hp power pack doesn't necessarily make it a worthy participant at 11.7, nor making it significantly more capable than other Ariete variants.

 

Z-19/19E

Should not go up without adding AKD-10

AKD-9 with 6km range and relatively poor warhead is obsolete at this BR. It's toxic when played as anti-air chopper due to TY-90 spam but this should be fixed by adding SP cost for extra AAM loadout.

I would suggest for additional SP cost for extra TY-90 loadout (280 SP for 8*AAM, 0 additional SP for 4 AAM). This should still allow Z-19 series to protect themselves without being too toxic to other planes.

 

F-5A (China)

11.0 → 10.7

Considering the F-5E variants are going down to 10.7, I see no point in F-5A remaining 11.0 with inferior engine thrust. It's just a F-5A/C (10.3) with AIM-9P.

 

M41D

8.0 → 7.7

The upgraded Bulldog suffers from awkward mobility and poor after-pen effect, gen 1 thermal plus laser rangefinder won't compensate for its incapacity. It is generally awful to play with even as a tank destroyer. Chinese 7.7 lineup could use a decent addition.

 

Char 25T

Stay 7.3 / 7.3 → 7.0

This thing is not capable of fighting cold war era MBT like T-55AM. It has no sabot or HEAT rounds, making it extremely awful to engage heavily armored targets even in close range. Its mobility would be modest at 7.7, literally taking the best part away from it. Besides, it has no stabilizer or rangefinder, moving it up to 7.7 would be quite absurd considering that Object 906 and Ikv91 stay where they were. Speaking of Object 906, it has a stabilizer and an autoloader of 4.3 seconds, literally better than Char 25T in every possible way except protection (which is not a major issue as we are talking about light tanks).

[WreckingAres283 4,262]

I like the see the slight decompression, but I don´t understand why the Type 90s have to go up in BR (current purposed change: RB 10.7 -> 11.0). Both are not doing well against most top tier tanks, the armor is weak, only gen 1 thermals available and the JM33 is by far not the best round against top tier vehicles. Comparable vehicles (e.g. T-80B, T-72AV TURMS, Leopard 2A4, Ariete (P), Challenger Mk.3, Vickers Mk.7, T-72B (1989) (this one has Kontakt-5 and 3BM42 at 10.0!)) are all at a way lower BR, of course the 4 sec reload is a factor, but considering the survivalbility of the Type 90s and already mentioned factors doesn´t make them vastly better.

Both Type 90s should stay at their current BR (10.7) as Japan lacks enough equipment around that BR bracket.

 

BMP-2M should be at least 10.0 in RB, its way more capable than most of the other 9.3s, it has high pen ATGMs (which can be fired on move as well) and APFSDS capable gun with high fire rate. I don´t understand what makes thing a 9.3 in your eyes.

 

F-5A (CN / TWN) should also go down with the F-5Es, what would be the reason to keep it higher ?

 

I like the color coding in the google sheet btw, it makes it easier to read.

 

 

Edited April 6, 2023 by WreckingAres283

[superbuster11 636]

Finally, 9.7 would not fight with 12.0 

[x_Shini_ 434]

puma 9,7 is bad if this does not include spikes, tornado ids marine flieger 11.0 is not fair it doesnt have the capabilities for it, but the trio turms ,2s38 su-25 only to 10.0 to low, those need to go up another 0.3 at least and with general raise of the br i dont know if it is good enough

[Adr_Farling 265]

Chinese F-5A to 10.7 or even to 10.3
F-5E going down to 10.7 is a good change, but what about the chinese F-5A? Its literally worse in every aspect. Why should it stay at 11.0??

 

Also give the chinese F-104G the flare dispensers the german and italian F-10G have.
10.7 in a jet that is well known for flying like a brick is unacceptable. Also if it stays like that: why would the german and chinese F-104Gs be at the same BR while one got flares and the other doesn’t?

 

Furthermore all Leopard 2A4s should receive DM33 since its armor is obsolete and it faces way better armored enemies now then it did when it was first introduced.

Edited April 5, 2023 by Adr_Farling

[Araknas 9]

Overall nice changes, decompressing the ground and heli trees is welcome.

I'm sure the air sim community will be happy about the new slots as well.

 

Thank you Gaijin, very cool.

[列夫 托洛茨基 9]

The Mi-35M is not good enough to be at 10.7,it only has a missle with 6km rang,if it can gat 9m220o,it will be better 

[F-16D Barak II 433]

One change that me and many people would love to see is the Vautour IIN getting access to the Shafrir 2 Air to Air missile.

Currently, the Vautour IIN is basically identical to the IIA and people don't bother grinding for it (since to be honest it is pretty bad)

 

The aircraft could also be moved up to rank 6 to fill the gap between the Vautours and Nesher

 

 

Another change I'd recommend would be the Sa'ar going down to 8.7. After the missile drag changes, the Shafrir 2 has been significantly lost performance, the only thing that made the Sa'ar somewhat useful in 9.0. The plane features horrible flight performance and it is sub par anything it currently faces, its engine is too weak and it bleeds speed like crazy

[nathanclawfish 647]

20 minutes ago, _Mr_Fahrenheit_ said:

So the Bosvark will be 5.0 with the Skink also at 5.0? Why are they both at the same BR?

 

About the Bosvark, it has a terrible turning radius, poor handling and no armor, while the M53/59 with the same long wheelbase, has armor, but is much more nimble and handles extremely well. No idea how or why.

Aye the bosvark is geniunely a bad vehicle, same with the ystvark, both are large, have massive dead zones, and i cant recall the last time i have actually seen one other than people base rushing in them. I just find it funny the crusader aa is slowly going down in br when i prefer it in literally all situations at the same br XD

[JetAcces 4]

USS Mitscher & USS Wilkinson   4.7 --> 4.3

1) No armor belt like Porter & Somer\Sumner 

2) Low amounts of main caliber guns

 

HMS Liverpool 5.7--> 5.3

The issue is that shis ship has 3x3 152 turrets but Belfast at the same BR has 4x3 turrets. Make your conclusion.

 

USS Wyoming 6.7--> 6.3

Most of the early BBs are at 6.3

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by VivereMemento

[TwitchyNGL 595]

Most people aren't even aware of this but Challenger 1s and Challenger 2s went from being good (genuinely) to worthless with your recent nerf to ready rack replenishment rate. It went from approx. 5 seconds to 25s to replenish 1 round into the ready rack, so in the middle of a fight CR1s and CR2s (and Vickers Mk 7) now effectively have the slowest reload at their respective BRs for MBTs. If you wanted to play how you did before you'd have to shoot a few times then wait over a full minute (100s for Vick 7 and CR1 Mk 2 or 125s for CR1 Mk 3 and CR2) for your ready rack to replenish. 

To illustrate what I mean about having now the effectively worst reload at the BR, for your benefit: (basic crew reload used)

Spoiler

Vickers Mk 7: 7.8s reload for 3 shots then 11.7s afterwards.

Leopard 2A4: 7.8s reload for 15 shots then 11.7s afterwards.

T-80B/T-72AV: 7.1s reload for 28/22 shots.

ZTZ96A: 7.1s reload for 22 shots.

M1 Abrams: 6.5s reload for 22 shots.

M1A1: 7.8s for 17 shots. 

Ariete(P): 7.8s for 15 shots.

So as you can see the Vickers (and CR1s and CR2) are hugely affected as you're quite likely to get through the 3 round ready rack in an engagement, while you're extremely unlikely to use say 15 or more on other MBTs. The CR1 and CR2 and Vickers Mk 7 are balanced around their ready rack, the nerf to their ready rack replenishment kills them. This wasn't a problem when the replenishment of the ready rack took about 8 seconds but 25 seconds is mad for a single round. 

 

So your statistics on combat efficiency of these vehicles (on which you're using to pick which vehicles to raise in this change no doubt) will be based on this obsolete data as they've only became suddenly much worse very recently. If you won't be reverting this change then raising the BR ofCR1 and CR2 is a serious mistake. 

 

I mean combined with the APDS shattering problems you've sort of recently killed the worthwhileness of British Ground RB from Battle ratings 5.7-7.7 and British 10.0-11.3. Which were some of the better areas for the nation. (I'm not sure how actually prevalent the shatter issue is but when I played a 2 games of 7.3 it happened literally about 1/3 rounds I fired, even if it happened only 1/10 it's a frustrating problem that's pretty much out of your control making the fun very much removed).

Edit: Also realised the replenishment rate is unique to these British vehicles, CR1/CR2 and Vic7 have a max 20s replenishment rate while Leo 2s is 13s and Abrams is 10s. 

Edited April 6, 2023 by TwitchyNGL
Added information

[dоt 3,457]

Air RB
 

Why are you bringing Yak 38 down to 9.3 while it has 4 r60s? They (both it, and the premium) should be 9.7 at the very least. 8.3-8.7 have no business dealing with r60s

 

F104 stays at 9.3? What do 8.3 planes have to deal with them when flown right? These 104s should be 9.7. I understand they are hard to balance but you see them in every 8.3-9.3 game and 8.3s have no business fighting them

F5E down to 10.7? You don’t need to bring those down because they can’t deal with 12.0s, you need to decompress the top end, not compress the bottom more. Or are you now also implying we should bring the other 11.0s that have no business fighting F16s and Mig29s down to 10.7 as well  don’t do this, you’re just compressing instead of decompressing

 

Nesher goes down to 10.0, how about other flareless planes at 10.3 that have no business flying against 11.0-11.3 constantly, like Mirage 3C.

The F8C doesn’t need a lower BR, you need to fix its FM so it doesn’t break its wings in any turn. Leave at 10.3 and fix it… it should be fine where it’s at

 

Mig21MF and SMT shouldn’t be 10.3, but 10.7. 4 r60s, flares, good speed, acceleration, and maneuverability.

 

G91YS should be 9.3. There’s no reason it should be 9.7 just because it has 9Bs over the G91Y, maybe if it had 9Es, but it doesn’t. It doesn’t have CM, is subsonic, and fights all aspect missiles currently

 

A6E to 10.3, should never see 9.0s, it can have 4 9Ls. Yes it’s slow but it has the technology to handle itself.

 

A10A to 10.3, should never see 9.0s, same argument with all aspect missiles and has decent maneuverability.

 

Su25/K to 10.3, same thing, again! r60M and too good performance for 9.7 or 10.0.. Please fix its flight and damage model as it’s currently surviving many hits (even consecutive missile hits) and is way too maneuverable for its weight

 

Maybe for the A6, A10, and Su25 above, remove the all aspect missiles by replacing them with 9D/r60 (they could carry those...) instead? Would probably make more sense, because the A6/A10 flight performance wise don't belong on a higher BR... the Su25 has around 10.0 flight performance, but again, all aspect missiles... it's just the missiles they have which is causing an issue in Air RB.

 

Lim5P to 9.3, it’s a nightmare for 8.0s to see. Sure it has no missiles but it runs circles around others in a downtier. The other Mig17F in game (Shenyang F5) also sits on 9.3.

 

Me163B0 to 8.3. I don’t think need to argue anything here, it’s actually worse than the Me163B which sits on 8.0

 

La15 to 8.3. Its more maneuverable than a Yak-30 but has a little worse power. It’s been undertiered for a long time. It doesn’t belong on 8.0… it can see props, 262s, and vampires, it really shouldn't see only those. It barely ever gets to be in uptiers due to the way MM works at 8.0. Moving it to 8.3 largely fixes that issue as they are pulled into 8.7 - 9.0 games mostly.

 

Mitsubishi F1 to 10.0, perhaps, bit on the fence about it, probably should just leave at 10.3 and add its flare pod which it had irl(?)

 

J29F to 8.7. It doesn’t have the performance comparable to 9.0s, it would be a solid 8.7 but right now it doesn’t fare well as 9.0s get to see mostly 9.7-10.0 matches and it does poorly in those due to not having any true strength to rely on (not speed, maneuverability, or acceleration)

 

A4N Ayit to 9.7, it’s way too good for 9.3. It has 2 Shafrir 2, and 2 Aim9D, CM, decently maneuverable, and great acceleration. Yes it’s a missile boat, but it’s straight up better than, say, an AV8.

And last but not least - Ta152C to 6.7? April 1 was 4 days ago

 

Edited April 6, 2023 by AdenToTheFace
As per Stona’s note

[HeliAreGae 116]

The OTOMATIC moving up while the 2S6 is going down seems questionable. Mostly happy about the rest though.

[Faster_Boiiiii 753]

this is going to be very controversial BUT::::

JA 37D 11.7 -> 11.3 ; it does not have good SARHs, it does not have great flight performance, its radar is lacking by today's standards, it cannot do ground attack besides some rockets and is overall a lot closer to things like the MiG-23ML(A/D) in overall performance. so, 11.3 please. its only redeeming qualities are the amount of countereasures and the aim-9Ls. the rest is lackluster(and yes that includes speed and maneuverability). there is no reason for it to be the same BR as an f-14. its like an f-16A(or netz) but without the speed, maneuverability, ground strike capabilities, acceleration, T/W ratio, radar, vulcan, etc and only .3 lower. (its also not a gen 4 but thats not relevant to its BR)

 

now for some less controversial stuff

J 29F: 9.0 -> 8.7 ; doesnt turn well, no countermeasures, very expensive, mediocre acceleration, doesnt deserve 9.0

 

Su-25(all variants) : 9.7 -> 10.3(not just 10.0) ; plenty fast, good weapons, r-60ms, lots of countermeasures and a good gun. plus, its an attacker so lets balance it as an attacker and not as a fighter.

 

Saab 32 Lansen(both versions) : 9.3 -> 9.0 ; slow, heavy, dont turn well, j 32 has no tracers, a 32 has a smaller calibre, both just dont perform well and have no flares.

 

 

[Alpine_Lynx 811]

Ground: Easing the compression by extending BR is a good move. It is honestly a great change.

 

Air: a little less change, but downgrading the F-5E and upgrading the Su-25 is a change that deserves recognition. noice!

 

Naval: I don't think there are many changes, but the V-990 increase is the right move.

Now, based on these I would further suggest the following adjustments

 

Air RB

Spoiler

F-5A(CN) 11.0->10.7

Why is it that the F-5E drops but the F-5A does not drop in BR either? Perhaps you just forgot, but the F-5A is also an aircraft that should be 10.7.

F-8E(FN) 10.3->10.0
If the F8U-2 can be 10.0, I feel the F-8E(FN) should also be lowered to 10.0. The aircraft is decent compared to the F8U-2, but it has no flares, no RWR, and only two missiles that are realistic, and I must admit, it is an inferior aircraft to the F8U-2. The forgotten French Crusader needs some love.

Naval RB

Spoiler

Yenot 4.0->3.7 Very inferior to Karl Marx and Rosomacha in that it has no RBU-2500. It also has very low firepower compared to other frigates in 4.0, so I can personally say that 3.7 is fine.

MPK Pr.12412 4.3->4.0 It is slightly inferior in terms of usability, etc. compared to the same BR, Pr.206, etc. And considering that it is equipped with the AK-630, which is almost impossible to reload, 4.0 is also fine.

Pr,183 BM-21 3.0->3.3 
Although the machine gun and torpedo are removed from the Pr.183, the advantage of the BM-21 is immeasurable, and I personally do not feel the difference of 0.3. Personally, I feel that BM-21 is more powerful than Pr.183, but I strongly recommend you to use Pr.183 for the first step.

LE Orla 3.7->4.0

Very good armor, versatile main gun, and a very radical 20mm sets it apart with a BR of 3.7. A poor Orla before the damage model change would have been fine at 3.7, but now we have to say that it is more than a 4.0.

Freccia P-493 4.7->4.3

I think we should release this old champion for good. The current Bofors is far from the extraordinary firepower it used to have and it will be impossible to win the damage race compared to Pr.206 and others. Personally, I would not compare its performance with Jaguar-Klass, which has a 2-step BR difference.

Albatros F543 3.7->3.3

It has an excellent 76mm, but even taking that into account, this slowness is negligible. It is one of the least suited to the current game system, so we recommend bailing it out to 3.3 until the spawn system is improved.

 

[mz_14_Gelzooz 376]

RB

PUMA 9.3 (unchanged) 

PUMA, as an IFV without missiles, has no reason to go to 9.7 unless spikes are added to it. It was supposed to maintain the existing BR, modifying its cannon overheating speed and burst accuracy

 

Ariete 11.0 (unchanged)  Ariete amv 11.3 (unchanged)

Unless Gaijin strengthens the armor for the ariete, it should not continue to be allowed to rise

 

SIDAM 25 8.3→8.0

The biggest advantage of this vehicle is the IRST, which can have better accuracy than conventional radar locking, but it

-No search radar, no thermal imaging. The perception of local aircraft ground vehicles is very low

-Without armor, the armor of the M113 made it almost only resistant to small-caliber machine guns

-Less ammunition and no conventional AP shells. The total reserve was only 660 rounds, making it only a measly 165 rounds per gun, compared to 340 for the Gepard and 240 for the PGZ09

-Low maneuverability, only a pitiful 14.8 hp/t

 

otomatic 11.0 (unchanged) 

The combat performance of the OTO should not go to 11.3 unless it can carry all APFSDS shells

 

G91YS 9.7→9.3

A jet without flare, subsonic, AIM9B should not be at 9.7, it is completely inferior to the Swiss Hunter

 

G91Y 9.3→9.0

It's a worse version of the G91YS, not even the AIM9B and CIP or even the AS20's guided weapons

 

f104s asa 11.3→11.0

Poor radar, no RWR direction display, almost no survivability in the face of radar missiles, F104SASA should not have remained at 11.3 at all

 

Char 25t 7.3→7.0

Compared to the obj906, no stabilizer, slower rate of fire, worse shells, gaijin are you serious?It should not be so close to the 906, dropping 7.0 or increasing the reload time to 4 seconds per shot

 

ASU85 6.3→5.7

It was too high at 6.3, 13.2 hp/t, poor armor, no turret, only a HEAT with an almost useless 300mm pen, it should remove HEAT, leaving only the APCBC down to 5.7

yak38m 9.7 (unchanged)
But add two R60M with flare jamming pods

 

Chieftain Mk 5 8.7→8.3

No thermal imaging, no APFSDS, no laser rangefinder, poor maneuvering, there is no reason why you should stay at 8.7

 

type 62 6.7→6.3

The weakened engine HP makes it even less maneuverable than the ZTS63, which should be at 6.3 with the ZTS63

 

M41D 8.0→7.7

The small-caliber APFSDS is almost one of the worst shells in the game, and its maneuverability is even worse than the 6.3 M41, and its armor is not improved, it is completely inferior to the 8.0 AMX10RC and MARS 15, and even inferior to the ZTs 63 (1980) except for thermal imaging

 

ZTZ59D1 8.7→8.3

It is reported that in fact, 59D does not have thermal imaging, and its other performance is far worse than 692g, it should be reduced to 8.3

 

SA.342L Gazelle(cn) 8.7→8.3

The HJ8A is inferior to ITOW, TOW2, 9M17M and even SS11, and does not have a self-defense machine gun, thermal imaging, rocket CCIP, and it is supposed to be at 8.3 with other initial helicopters

 

Z19 Z19E 10.7 (unchanged) 

Why does Gaijin think that a 6km range AKD9 should be in the same BR as a 10km range 9M127? The BR of Chinese helicopters is affected by TY90, making the BR too high. What Gaijin should do is distinguish the ty90 respawn points for each one and then decrease the weight of the z9w z9wa z19 z19e by 0.3

 

F5A(cn) 11.0→10.7

F5E is down 10.7, F5A has no reason to stay at 11.0

 

Edited April 6, 2023 by mz_14_Gelzooz

[NoodleCup31 8,824]

RB Feedback:

 

Air:

Tornado IDS Marineflieger: stay 10.7

It doesn't have any features justifying an uptier to 11.0

It has no air target radar, only two missiles,  bad manouverability and still less bombload than the F-4F.

Only thing it has is decent speed!

 

Tornado GR.1/ASSTA.1/IDS: 11.3 --> 11.0

Same as above but at least guided bombs for ground RB

 

Ta 152 C.3: stay 6.3 / 6.3 --> 6.0

This is one of the worst turning single engine fighters in game and it's not even fast.

The "overwhelming armament" argument should not be used to such a drastic effect.

6.7 is absolutely ridiculous for such a plane with such poor flight performance.

 

Su-11: 7.3 --> 7.7

Significantly superiour flight performance than everything around this BR

 

Ground:

MBT/Kpz-70: 9.3 --> 9.0

With the recent nerf to its firepower this tank really shouldn't remain at 9.3.

It's mobile, but has poor survivability and no thermals at all.

 

BMP-2M: 9.3 --> 10.3

I hope this needs no explanation.

The four 1200mm pen tandem missiles, extremely high RoF cannon with APFSDS, excellent gun handling, excellent thermals  and very good mobility make this one of the most undertiered vehicles in the game at 9.3.

 

 

Balance / vehicle characteristics:

 

Marder 1A1: add DM63

20mm HVAP is not even able to kill most light tanks from the front or angled side.

It already has some of the worst ground based ATGMs in the game and only four of them with relatively long reload and very limited launch angles.

It should at least have some firepower, the BMP-1 not only has far superiour missiles but also a gun capable of engaging every tank it can face frontally at any range.

 

Marder 1A3: add MILAN 2

Same as above, MILAN is basically the worst ground based ATGM in game and it has quite a bit below average mobility as well.

The gun is also sub par so it should at least have the slightly improved missiles.

 

Begleitpanzer 57: add HOT and uptier to 9.7

Compared to other IFVs, especially Russian ones the Begleitpanzers ATGM really lacks in terms of damage and penetration.

The missing HOT missile for the Begleit was bug reported before and it would provide a slight buff to penetration and damage but not too much.

 

Leopard 2A4: add DM33

It will encounter heavily armored targets such as T-80UM2 or T-90 much more frequently at 10.3 and the current ammo already struggles to penetrate some 9.3 - 9.7 enemies.

 

Maus/E-100: reload time 23,6 sec --> 20,5 sec (IS-6)

This vehicle was subject to a lot of discussions after its removal.

The reload should be buffed a bit since the vehicle is mostly defenceless after a shot due to its poor mobility and high BR rendering the armor ineffective.

 

Jagdtiger: reload time 23,6 sec --> 19,4 sec (T34, Sturer Emil)

The gun and strong armor are its key features, but since the guns reload is so long it is often rendered completely defenceless to more mobile / faster shooting enemies.

Edited April 5, 2023 by NoodleCup31

[MiG17_Is_My_Life 1,402]

Feedback of BR8.0 to 9.3BR(espesially subsonic jet tier)

Su-25/Su-25K move up to 10.0BR in ARB is good but, Why compress the 8.3 to 9.3 BR range with every planned BR change and ruin the Korean War jets and post Korean War era jets like Hunter and F-2 Sabre???? 

 

I have been playing BR 9.0 since 2017, including my old PS4 account, and every time since the BR of Lightning F.6 was changed from 10.0 to 9.7 in 2020, Tier 5 has been destroyed all the time, and recently I have been trying to change the early supersonic aircraft including Century series to BR 9.3 and the latest BR revision is about to change the BR of the Yak-38M, which can have four R-60s, from 9.7 to 9.3. I do not want to see any more of my most enjoyable BRs continue to be destroyed. I'm not asking for the return of old top tier until 2017 because I already lost hope, but can you please stop thinking about compressing the BR of transonic jets anymore and fix that BR asap?

 

Feedback of BR10.0 to 10.7

• MiG-21MF  10.3BR→10.7BR(ARB)
• MiG-21SMT 10.3BR→10.7BR(ARB)
• J-7D 11.0BR→10.7BR(ARB)

 

There are almost all the same reasons why these MiG-21s should move BR. Currently, the MiG-21MF and SMT is sitting on BR10.3, but compared to its counterparts (F-5C/Mirage IIIC/Mitsubishi F-1/J35D), it has too many advantages over the BR10.3 aircraft in many ways, including having a CM and a reasonable top speed. R-60 is still decent IR missiles at that tier also, Su-17M2 that doesn't have CMs will move down to 10.3BR so, it shouldn't have same BR with MiG-21s. As for the J-7D, the flight model and its performance is quite close to the MiG-21MF and MiG-21SMT but, it has same BR with MiG-21bis. The PL-5B and PL-7 are certainly fine, but compared to the J-7E, which has the same loadout and the same BR, the J-7D doesn't have advantages except radar. These MiG-21s have advantages such as maneuverability, top speed, fuel economy, etc. that could be trade-offs, and if they all had the same BR, players would be able to choose the MiG-21 they prefer depending on their play style.

 

• MiG-21MF...More manuverble MiG-21 but slower and worse missiles
• MiG-21SMT...More faster but fatter and worse missiles
• J-7D...Better missiles but its engine can overheat and worse fuel efficiency

TBH, since there are many quite capable aircraft in the 10.7BR, such as the J35XS and the Kfir Canard/Kfir C.2/F-104G (Germany) so, MiG-21MF/SMT/J-7D would be fine even if the BR is changed to the 10.7BR.

Edited April 5, 2023 by WheelchairGamer

[sudo__su 455]

@Stona @Smin1080p

Please add another event for Ground Simulator battles as well.
Currently there are only two events, first one rotates between various low tier WWII setups, and the other one rotates between various cold war setups.

But the problem is that in the high tier event, EVERYTHING WITH A MISSILE, be it AIM-9B or AIM-9L, can ONLY be played on a single day and have to face each other.

How do you expect the players to play things like F9F-8 (With AIM-9B) to play against MiG-29 etc?
 

Not to mention that you have to wait like 4 days to be able to play a specific tier (e.g. top tier) at all.

You have to divide the GFSB events into 3 concurrent events (instead of the current 2). 

This will not cause any problem with player count, as top tier is always popular (as many of the players are mostly/only interested in the most modern vehicles) and there are a healthy number of players always wanting to play the top aircrafts and tanks. 

So please divide the ground SB events into 3 concurrent events, and preferably make the newly added event fixed top tier event (without daily rotation). So that players who want to play top tier and the most modern vehicles in the game, can play it everyday, instead of having to wait 4 days to play it again ...
(as many of the players are mostly/only interested in the most modern vehicles)
 

Spoiler

Thanks

[XarachiX 389]

Both Yak-38 variants should stay at 9.7. If you stay fast enough and be careful of who you target the armament of these aircraft are more than adequate.

[Noir89 2,576]

TANK Realistic Battle BR Recommandation:

 

Italy:

 

Otomatic - BR 11.3 to 10.0 :

I never saw the Otomatic that prominent in Hightier, even less in its intended role of an SPAA. The maximumrange of 6km (only really viable against hovering helicopters) and the slower shellvelocity compard to toptier SAM-Missiles dont ever really explained why it should be >10.0, not to mention 10.7, 11.0 and now 11.3 -> i personally would rather have the APFSDS load reduced to 10 or 8 rounds and see the BR reduced to 10.0.

 

 

 

The Otomatic is worse than 2S38 / Lvkv9040C / HSTVL:

1) Slow

2) Very big Target

3) No Armor

4) Low sitting Gun (big disadvantages Hulldown)

5) only -5° Gundepression

6) only 12 rounds APFSDS (could be reduced if necessary for BR 10.0)

7) even at BR 10.0 the AA Meta is mainly focussed around Missiles

 

 

I am just lost for words when i see that it should be raised another time to BR 11.3.

 

Watch Timestamp of Video:

Spoiler

Timestamp 1:

 

Timestamp 2:

 

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Noir89