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.

[Doktor_Richtofen 1,762]

Heya!

Ground RB:

Strv 103 (both) from 7.7 to at least 8.0
On most map, they are a unkillable, if you dont got a rocket boy on your side.

UDES 33 7.7 to at least 8.0 
This thing is the same BR as the Raketenjagdpanzer 2, without HOT, despite having mouse aimed rockets and a flying truck as rocket.

U-SH 7.7 at least 8.0
Just because it got no armor, doesnt mean, it cant be strong. It can spam you to death AND got the mobility so be at ambush positions faster. 

M163 7.7 to 8.0
This thing meets WW2 probs. It is terrible against ground targets, but simply to good against air.

BMP-1s 7.3 to 7.7
This thing (if aced) is a menace. It is baffling, that it is on the same BR as the Marder.

Obj 906 7.7 to at least 8.0
Stabi, APHE, autoloader with 4,5 sec reload, super mobile. ... What is the reason, that thing is on 7.7, despite being better then some medium tanks. The DF105 is on the same BR and it cant hold a candle against the best light tank (and on of the best tanks in general) on this BR.

ZSU-57 7.0 to at least 7.7
This thing is a menace. It is a xxxx AA, yes, but a better IFV then most of the higher BRed light tanks. It is fast, got superb pen for a autocanon and thanks to the .... annyoing tracking/barrel meta, it can kill you even faster, because it either kills your medium/light in 2 shots, or it tracks/barrels your heavy tank. 

WZ305 8.0 to 8.3
It still got the menace ability to kill tanks easly, but it also got VT grenades. And to be honest, I rather have VT grenades, then a radar.

WMA301 8.3 to 9.0
There are already enough arguments in this thread.

AMX-50 (both) 7.7 to 7.3 
AP ammunition, armor that hold no value, no stabi. Why is this thing better then a Leo1 for example? 

ALL Centurion based vehicles with stabi from 7.3 to 7.7
There is no chance, that a APDS firing, stabi tank, should be on anything less then 7.7. They got trolly armor, a turret that I can reliable pen with 310mm armor, are fast firing, high pen APDS And a stabi, that gives them a major advantage against all non stabi tanks.

 

 

Air RB

Su-11 .... I dont think I need to say even one bit.

[WubboWub 21]

The sim BR bracket changes are excellent, exactly what the community is asking for.

 

BR changes are also needed but the F4j had no need to change in br. 11.0 is exactly where it is. It's comparable to the mig23. And it's near identical to the British fg(r) phantoms which for some reason you have going doen in BR. Keep at 11.0.

 

And f14 needs to be 12.0. When the br spread goes up, keep moving the f14 up with it.

[Thug Shaker Actual 225]

On 05/04/2023 at 11:17, Dirtbag_Jim said:

 

Vehicles: T54E1

Suggestion: Change BR from 8.0 to 7.7 in RB

Reason: Was already a very mediocre vehicle in the past, but has recently been nerfed (most noticeably the APDS is worse than before, and the reverse speed was cut quite substantially). The lack of stabilizer at 8.0 really hurts the vehicle. Don't think it would be unbalanced at 7.7, as other un-stabilized autoloading tanks already exist at that BR.

 

Im glad this was suggested! I was going to buy it but not anymore, not with how awful its ready rack refill is, speed, no stab and the new APDS rework. It's armor is not useful and it's large

 

 

 

[Ghostmaxi 873]

52 minutes ago, Huseyin1453tr said:

ME410 B-6/R-3 to 4.0 Really?? it is fine where its 5.0 this vehicle has 2 30x184mm cannons with 77mm pen HVAP rounds It would wreck whole enemy team if it gets downtiered to 3.0

And the russian 37, 45 and all the Hispanos with 36 mm pen against mostly thin roofes dont?

[toddwagn@psn 19]

Vehicle:  Sea Hawk Mk. 100 (Germany)

Mode: Simulator Air Battles

Suggested Change: 8.0 to 8.3

Reason for change:  As far as I know this is the only aircraft in simulator air battles with air to air missles (AIM-9B) at 8.0 BR. Please move it to 8.3, where other aircraft acquire air to air missles. The German Sea Hawk variant is an  (currently unavailable) outlier in terms of armament and justifies the increase in BR.

 

I really like the BR ranges and rotation for air sim, and I think the proposed changes are generally good. However, I often have trouble finding matches from 7.0-9.3. I think it would be great to provide some incentive to join/start games at BR brackets where there are not any currently available games. Some examples would be 50% off a first spawn, a 10-50% boost to rewards, etc.

[Hetaeron 287]

10 hours ago, Pexitron said:

Why PVO was 9.7 or VCC80/60 are 9.0 with same round as HSTVL but with so less noise engine, who are 11.0 and now 11.3 and with only 26 rounds!!! Ohhh bordel de....grrrr Ca m'énerve.

Do you know that you can increase the sound of the enemy engine from the settings? That said, the VCC80/60 is fine where it is at 9.0 BR is perfectly balanced.

[Woody_Wetter 145]

Suggestion for USSR

 

 

T-10A from 7.7-->7.3 

 

After playing 430 battles in ground RB i would recommend adjusting its BR from 7.7 to 7.3 because :

 

1)Frontal armor does not protect from anything besides small caliber auto cannons - unless really gets full down tier opponent. In weird kind of way even light lFVs offer more protection because their front engine/transmission simply soaks up the damage. 

2) Gun does have only -3 depression so you are always in big disadvantage since -8 to -10 is most regular.

3) Ammo is from 1940s so you are always short when fighting at long range against modern enemies.

4) Turret traverse and reload are worse than almost everybody

5) Small 4 man crew in cramped space with ammo means one shots are regular way to die.

 

T-10A basically have IS-3(7.0 RB currently) armor and identical gun + ammo. With small mobility upgrade and Sherman style stabilizer(1 plane and max 20km/h) its not really 7.7 material.

This tank started at 7.7 BR three years ago and mean while we have so many modern vehicles added it still sits at 7.7  

 

At 7.3 T-10A will be at exactly same BR as Leopard 1, Marder , Centurions(Mk3 and Action X) , M47 , M48 , Strv 81  , Magach 6R , Shot"Kal  etc . 

 

Please consider...

 

 

[MagicalMethod 1,768]

All Leopard 2A4 Variants should receive DM33  if they're gonna go up in BR. Even a T64B can pen the UFP of a Leopard 2A4. And the higher BR would mean facing T80Us and T90As more often. As such a new round is needed if they're to go up, preferably i would have their armor changed to the C tech variant as well so that they can bounce at least something.

 

2S38 should go to 10.3-10.7 This thing is an Otomatic wannabe which can take a full load of APDS-FS. It has third gen thermals, IRST and proxy fuse. Making it a better light tank then HSTVL and an AA on par with Otomatic.

 

BMP-2M should go to 10.0-10.7 . Can fire ATGMs on the move, can fire all 4 at once, Can pen frontally pretty much everything that isn't armed with APS. The gun shreds from the side, and Abramses can be killed frontally with the 30mm in close combat. The fact it has IRST, and 10km proxy fuse missiles means it can deal with any helicopter and even low passing planes. The BMP-2M is the only IFV in game which has same trouble killing 11.3 tanks as it does killing 8.3 tanks.

 

CV9040s should stay at 10.0. The CV9040s are nowhere near as powerfull as a BMP-2M yet all but one are at a higher BR. Especially the BILL is basically a slightly better Bradley but 0.7 BR higher for some odd reason. 

 

PUMA should stay at 9.3.  Incorrectly working MUSS, Incorrectly working A-HEAD. Gun accuracy of a sawn-off shotgun, gun overheats way too quickly, the APDS-FS round does very little damage and there is no way for us to switch between fire-rates. Currently the PUMA's gun overheats as quickly as BMP-2Ms... problem is the BMP-2M fires more rounds anyway because the overheat mechanic is tied to time spent holding the trigger not the amount of shells fired. This IFV is meh at 9.3 let alone 9.7. 

 

MBT-70/KPZ-70/XM-803 should go to 9.0.  With the nerf to the penetration of their APDS-FS shells this vehicle now has troubles dealing with common 9.3-9.7 MBTs and has to rely on sideshots. On the other hand most if not all tanks at 8.3 can deal with the XYZ-70/803 frontally. A slight downtier seems reasonable.

 

STRV103C Should go to 8.0.  This vehicle is easily pennable by most if not all 8.0-9.0 vehicles. The "fence" is pretty much useless as it mainly faces APDS-FS rounds which go through it like a hot knife through butter. The fact that it's hull aim is still iffy at best does not help either.

 

Leopard 2PL Should receive DM53 or go at 10.7.  The 2PL does not offer suitable protection from pretty much any kinetic shell at it's BR. It's only real upside is the 3rd gen thermals and a pretty meager upgrade to the turret front armor. If it has to go up. It should receive a new shell. It's allready a pretty underwhelming MBT and i would consider it as a pretty bad upgrade to the 2A4.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 6, 2023 by MagicalMethod
Grammar

[_N4MELESS_ 2,972]

Just leave the Type 90 at 10.7 why does it need to go up aswell just because all the top dogs are moving up ? does the Type 90 always have to follow them so they can continue seal clubbing it ?

So leave it at 10.7 in all modes unless you are planning to buff it which you said you were planning to give it the DM43 and it still not here.

 

 

 

[_N4MELESS_ 2,972]

ZTZ-69-IIa 8.0 > 8.3, All modes.

ZTZ-59A 7.7 > 8.0, All modes.

 

Give this tank the same shell M1000A1 that you gave it to the T-55M in the Finnish sub tree and move it up to 8.3 so the ZTZ-59A can go back to 8.0, it has no business at 7.7 having laser range finder and stabilized gun while other T-55s don't.

 

The M1000A1 is compatible with the Chinese 100 mm gun so it can make the Type 69-IIa a Chinese equivalent to the T-55M.

Spoiler

 

Type 16 FPS 8.7 > 9.0, All mode.

 

Give the MCV its historical ammunition, Type 93 APFSDS and move it to 9.0 ! Currently it is better than the free Type 16 in term of protection but why does it need to be so ? Why just not place it at 9.0 just like the Type 16 that it is copied from ? Why is it necessary for this vehicle to get its firepower nerfed so it can be at 8.7 ? 8.7 doesn't need it, it already have a TT Type 16 and the lineup is already solid !

[kkang2828 1,446]

Please, developers, I implore you to review the naval BRs. The fact that naval is less popular and less talked about in these topics does not mean that balance issues for naval are any less serious than for aircraft or ground vehicles. There are so many ships that need an immediate review of BR. The ones mentioned below are just a small selection.

 

Any sensible actual naval player knows that it is a ship's main gun firepower and survivability that defines her combat effectiveness within WT, and thus should be the main factors in deciding BR. Secondary gun firepower should also be taken into account in special cases. The mobility, AA/torpedo armament, and other factors should only be of tertiary importance as they are only useful in very specific situations in WT naval battles. Especially in RB due to the lack of in-air/at-sea reload for bombs and torpedoes, both for vessels and aircraft, making aircraft less lethal and making torpedoes much less useful. For relative comparison purposes, I will use aced crew figures when comparing the rate of fire of ships within this post.

 

With these standards in mind, I propose the changes below. All proposals apply to RB unless otherwise noted.

 

HMS Kent: 6.0 -> 5.7

A sister ship to the Norfolk and London, with the same main armament and much worse secondary and AA armament, yet somehow at a higher BR than both. Kent doesn't even have the radar of the Norfolk, nor the increased belt armor of the London. No further explanation needed. She needs to go down to 5.7.

 

Kerch(cruiser): 5.3 -> 5.7

The BRs of Kerch(cruiser), Montecuccoli, and Savoia are simply outrageous. They are almost exactly the same ships, with minor differences in crew count, armor, AA guns, and torpedoes. What exactly makes the Kerch especially weaker that she deserves to be a step lower in BR compared to the Montecuccoli and Savoia? All we can see is that the Kerch is being lowered in BR to make her a more attractive premium vessel. Shame on you. From my experience at least, these three cruisers are superior to all other proper 5.3 ships, and slightly weaker than most other 5.7 ships, in terms of the BR deciding factors(mentioned above). They are somewhere in between 5.3 and 5.7, but closer to 5.7 to be exact. In any case, these three cruisers need to have the same BR because they are almost identical ships. So the Kerch must go up to 5.7.

 

Agano: 5.3 -> 5.0

Agano is an extremely weak cruiser and more of an oversized destroyer than anything. I’d say she might even need to go to 4.7, but we’ll have to see how she does at 5.0. The guns are what really ruins her. She only has six 152mm guns in 3 twin turrets. The RoF is a decent 10 rounds per minute per gun(RPMPG) with ready-use ammo, but that only lasts for 10 salvos, after which the RoF drops to a mere 6.2 RPMPG. This means the maximum broadside is 60 RPM with ready-use ammo, and the maximum sustained broadside is just 37.2 RPM with the main ammo. These guns only have an HE shell and a “SAP” shell that is basically a base fuzed HE shell and cannot penetrate any meaningful amount of armor at normal battle ranges and angles. This can only really deal with destroyers and even most 5.0 cruisers have enough main belt armor to stop this “SAP” shell with a bit of angling, including Agano herself, ironically enough. This main gun firepower is significantly weaker than any proper 5.3 light cruiser such as Köln/Karlsruhe/Leipzig(nine 150mm guns, maximum sustained broadside 72 RPM) or Leander(eight 152mm guns, maximum sustained broadside 64 RPM), all of which use proper SAP/AP shells that are much better than Agano's shell. Agano's main gun firepower is even somewhat weaker than most 5.0 cruisers, which have similar broadside weight but use better shells. Her armor is slightly weaker than average for 5.0/5.3 cruisers, the main weakness being the 60mm main belt, compared to 70mm or thicker on most other cruisers. Agano's crew count of 700 is slightly higher than average for 5.0/5.3 cruisers. Her main strengths are high speed and powerful torpedoes, but that doesn't matter much especially in normal RB and only reinforces that fact that she is basically an oversized destroyer. All things considered, Agano can stay at 5.3 for AB, but should go down to 5.0 for RB.

 

Furutaka & Aoba: 5.7 -> 5.3

Furutaka and Aoba are significantly weaker than other 5.7 cruisers. Their main gun firepower consists of just six 203mm guns in 3 twin turrets that fire 5 RPMPG for a maximum broadside of 30 RPM. This is much weaker than other 5.7 heavy cruisers like Admiral Hipper/Prinz Eugen(eight 203mm guns, maximum broadside 40 RPM), Norfolk/London(eight 203mm guns, maximum broadside 40 RPM), New Orleans(nine 203mm guns, maximum broadside 31.5 RPM, offset by 6.0 levels of armor), or Zara/Pola(eight 203mm guns, maximum broadside 30.4 RPM, offset by 6.0 levels of armor). York is similar(six 203mm guns, maximum broadside 30 RPM) but that just means she should be 5.3 as well. Such firepower is more similar to 5.3 heavy cruisers like Northampton/Portland(nine 203mm guns, maximum broadside 31.5 RPM) or Trento(eight 203mm guns, maximum broadside 27.2 RPM, offset by excellent turret armor). Furutaka and Aoba have powerful torpedoes, but that doesn't matter much especially in normal RB, as I've stated above. Their crew complement of 680 and 657 is on the lower side for 5.3/5.7 cruisers. Their armor protection is about average compared with other 5.3/5.7 cruisers. All things considered, Furutaka and Aoba should go down to 5.3 at least in RB. This would leave the Ikoma without a lineup, but the Tone can go down to 5.7, about which I will talk about in a future post.

 

Myoko: 5.7 -> 6.0

This doesn't really need much explanation. Another example of a premium ship that is purposefully lower in BR to make it more attractive compared to very similar research tree vessels. Myoko's main gun firepower is exactly the same as Mogami, which is 6.0. AA firepower is much better on Myoko, but that doesn't really matter as I explained above. Survivability-wise, she may have somewhat thinner armor than Mogami, but it's still better than most 5.7 cruisers. Some 5.7 cruisers do have slightly better armor than Myoko, but they have weaker armament(i.e. Duca degli abruzzi/Zara/Pola, New Orleans, Southampton/Belfast) or very exposed magazines(i.e. Admiral Hipper/Prinz Eugen) in return. Myoko's crew count is also higher than Mogami, and the magazines are less exposed as well. All in all, Myoko is at least on par with Mogami and should be 6.0. If Myoko can't be 6.0, then Mogami/Suzuya/Mikuma should all be 5.7 as well.

 

Once again I implore you to pay attention to what us experienced naval players tell you about the naval BRs.

[MemeticMemory36 7]

You cannot justify moving the 2S6 down from 11.0 to 10.7. It's missiles are quite effective (and it has quite a few of them), even in an uptier, and it's 30mm cannons can severely damage MBTs from the front and absolutely destroy them from the side. The 2S6 sits very comfortably where it is right now.

[MemeticMemory36 7]

The Mirage 2000C-S5 should not be moved to 11.7 until the radar tracking system is fixed. At the moment, the radar missiles cannot be used against aircraft at lower altitudes. If this is accurate to how the real world system performed, then no change is needed for the radar, but then it should not be moved to 11.7 either. At low altitude, it receives just two IR missiles. Granted, these are very good missiles, but when faced with planes such as the F-14, which can carry far more radar and IR missiles (never mind that its flight performance is, in most cases, superior), the Mirage player is at a disadvantage. Another alternative would be to let the M2K carry two additional Magic 2 missiles on the pylons where the 530 series missiles go. M2Ks could definitely carry a loadout of purely Magic 2s. As it is now, however, the Mirage should not be moved to 11.7.

[spacesoldier117 876]

For Realistic Battles:
Italy:

Spoiler

G.91Y 9.3->9.0:
Tornado(every nation non event)11.3->11.0 at the very least: I can't even get to the bases before the fighters, how am I gonna play my role if those who aren't specialized in my role, do it better than me?
F-104G 10.7->10.3: only two Js aren't enough to keep on par with the others, especially considering its airframe(At the same BR we have the F-4F: better airframe, RWR, CAS options and loadout; even its german counterpart is better than it).
F-104S 11.0->10.7: Here you have a good number of missiles but the platform is still the same and the radar makes the use of SARH missiles impossible(At the same BR we find the way more advanced F-4E: better radar, airframe, RWR and loadout).
F-104S ASA 11.3->11.0: After the changes to the Lima missiles, it doesn't keep up and the radar is, once again, atrocious although you could've a nice pair of SARH missiles(at the same BR we find the way more advanced F-4S: better airframe, RWR and radar).

OTOMATIC 10.0: if anything moves from the predicted trajectory, you are going to miss, not even on par with a Roland.(ammunition not guided and easy to avoid, reload of the ready rack too slow)
Centauro 120 11.3->11.0 (no armor, reload not good enough, APFSDS not sufficient)
Ariete(WAR and PSO) 11.0->10.7: they aren't on par with the competition at all, devs should just stop forcing them at top tier. Remove the DM53 and lower them at 10.7(abysmal armor, bad engine and no fast reload gimmick)
Ariete AMV 11.3->11.0: a sidegrade at best should stick at 11.0, dev could consider removing the DM53 here too.(Abysmal armor and no fast reload gimmick)

Rework:

Spoiler

VCC-80/30 : this thing is worst even than the Dardo, we don't even need to compare it to it's counterparts.
The ideal rework would be to make it similar to the M3 Bradley and the Type 89 and to move it at 8.3:
-limit its belts to APDS.
-limit its ATGMs to the first TOW missile. 
This way it would feel a void and would be better suited for this BR.
This could be replaced at 9.7 by the upcoming Freccia or a Proto Dardo with the OWS turret.

What can fill the upper BRs?

Spoiler

Ariete AMV PT2 with all the add on armor(11.0)
Ariete AMV PT3 speculated to receive APS and maybe a new cannon(11.3-11.7)
These two are highly speculated:
C2 Ariete: should come with the add on armor, 1500hp engine and maybe APS later on(11.3)
C3 Ariete(?): rumours that this version could be receiving a new L/55 cannon(11.7)
Ariete with HITFACT II turret (11.7)
B2 Centauro without autoloader (11.3)
B2 Centauro with autoloader (11.7)

China:

Spoiler

The helicopter TT is really in a bad state due to how much the helicopters have been shuffled due to the TY-90 without taking in account their ground armament, therfore I present these changes to make the TT more enjoyable and smooth to research and use.
Z-9W: Remove the TY-90 and return it to 9.3
Z-9WA: Keep it at 10.0 but give it AKD-9.
Z-19(family): they should receive the AKD-10 to keep them on pair with their competition and stay at 10.7 due to the poor loadout and flight capabilities.
Z-10: Should be able to mount AKD-10 on all the pylons to be on par with the competition.

The air TT also has been neglected when it comes down to similar variants and Air to Air loadout, these change should improve the overall feel of uniqueness in playing different iterations of the same vehicles.
F-5A: it should sit below the F-5E due to the weaker engines, the devs could remove the AIM-9Ps.(10.3)
Q-5A: if possible give it PL-2B and move it to 9.3 to differentiate it from the previous iteration.
Q-5L: it desperatly needs AAMs too, either leave it at 9.7 giving it PL-2B or give it PL-5B and move it to 10.0
J-7E and J-8B: they have fallen behind especially due to the lack of SARH missiles in the case of the J-7E and a good radar in the case of the J-8B, without even taking in account their non all aspect missiles.
If to be kept at their BRs, I advise to give them the ability to equip the PL-5C, an all aspect variant of the PL-5 otherwise identical to the B.(this should be also applied to the J-7D)

Israel:

Spoiler

Overall good changes but I think it would be better to move the Vautour IIN (late) to 9.0 and make available to it Shafrir 2s.
The Kfir C.7 is just really bad at everything at this moment, till new missiles are available to it, I would move it to 10.7 where it has some kind of chance to do good.
I also advise to lower both the Kfir Canard and the Kfir C.2 at 10.3 seeing the low amount of missiles and weaker engine.

 

[MastuhWaffles 162]

Why is the event tornado going to 11.0? 

It barely survives at 10.7.

 

Why is the 2000C-S5 going to 11.7? It isn't an 11.7 jet. Are they just trying to make it seem like France has an 11.7 jet?

[BLIZAXCO 36]

Ka50 BR realistic 10.7 -> 11.7

Ka52 BR realistic 11.3 - > 12.0

Pantsir-S1 realistic 11.3 -> 13.0 also repair cost should at least 4 times more than now

T-80BVM realistic 11.3 -> 12.7

T-80U realistic 11.0 -> 12.0

T-80UK realistic 11.0 -> 12.0

T-80UM2 realistic 11.0 -> 12.0

T-72B3 realistic 11.0 -> 12.0

2S38 realistic 9.7 -> 11.3 this vehicle is much more powerful and stronger than HSTV-L and HSTV-L is 11.0(faster reloading, no man tower, HE-VT, 2nd gen NVD, better protection, lower repair cost, premium vehicle)

BMP-2M realistic 9.3 -> 11.0

 

9K127 Vikhr should share same Spawn point as PARS 3 LR

(I think the win rate for top tier ground realistic game for USSR is too high which is close to 70%)

 

Ariete (All) realistic -> 10.7 All Ariete are weak even it is the vehicle with highest BR in a game.

ItO 90M(all) and FlaRakRad realistic 11.3 -> 11.0 All SACLOS missile for SPAA are suck now.

 

Challenger (All) stay at 11.0 (realistic)

 

M1A2 should get M829A3 and move to 12.0, it is not powerful enough to against the Russia in top tier game.

All helicopter with AGM 114K should be replace with AGM 114L (AGM 114K is too weak in top tier game, it is slow and really difficult to hit people) and move to 12.0.

Edited April 7, 2023 by BLIZAXCO

[sugarstudd 466]

Opinions are based for RB ground and RB air only.

I fully support the decompression of the BR for ground as mentioned if not even further to 12.0 which I think the game is more then ready for .

 

 

 

 

PLEASE MOVE STRIKE DRONE up to 11.0 + or outright remove them  they have no reason to exist at BR where there are no missiles SPAA that can reach them they do nothing but ruin the game mode. I also  think scout drones should be moved further up or removed, they already make the small maps feels smaller . I think spawning the scout drone should cost RP like any other vehicle so people should be to think twice about spawning one. Getting a birds eye view of the battleground and being able to mark targets I think adds too much of a advantage especially considering the limited sizes of the maps and how easy it is to spot vehicles already. The scout drone is extremely detrimental to certain vehicles that depending on flanking and being sneaky in terms of play-style. While the devs idea in adding drones might have been in the right place I think they have had a more negative impact on the game then a positive one . I hope they consider removing them or making them at least arcade/top tier only functions where they can be easily countered .

F-5E -  I fully support the F-5E going down, it has no business facing some of the newly added top tier jets and radar missile equipped jets , let alone jets it had no hope of keeping up with in terms of speed or acceleration .  P.S please add the F-20 tigershark into the game I beg you Devs!

 

F-5A (CN / TWN) should go down with the F-5Es, no reason to keep it .

Tornado IDS Marineflieger  (Germany )- This vehicle does not belong any higher then 10.7 please reconsider leaving it alone where it is. I think 10.7 is a perfect BR for it, its a fast bomber with very limited AA capabilities due to its 2 AIM-9L missiles on top of this jet being very  heavy and not maneuvering well . Moving it up would outright be a death-sentence to the planes play-ability as it would face vastly superior platforms and weapon systems it has no business facing .   Please reconsider leaving the BR of this plane alone .

 

OTOMATIC - I think this vehicle needs to have its BR  lowered to 10.7  instead of raised. It a great vehicle for intercepting  air vehicles  not paying attention and flying to close or for too long in a straight line or helicopters hovering unaware of you. But outside of catching unaware air vehicles and its limited anti-ground capabilities due to being limited to 12 sabot rounds and easy to spot I dont think it belong any higher then a 10.7 BR

 

The Ariete line of tanks - I dont think the Arietes deserve to be moved up, they lack the armor or overall effectiveness of other nations top tier tanks, instead of moving these vehicles up in BR I think leaving them at a lower BR would be more balanced for them. The Ariete tanks have decent sabot ammunition but they lack the armor and overall survive-ability other nations top tier tanks have, they honestly could all go down .3 -.6 of a BR instead .

 

BMP-2M - This vehicle at the very least should be moved to 9.7 or possibly 10.0. While it is a squadron vehicles which is most likely why its stats are not that great it has some of the BEST and most capable anti-tank tandem missiles in game as well as anti-air capable missiles which can also be fired on the move. On top of that this vehicle received 30mm APFSDS munition which was recently added. This vehicle is superior in many ways to other IFV counterparts from other nations and should not be this low of a BR . I think 9.7-10.0 should be more then reasonable for this vehicle .

 

2S38 - I think this vehicle is under tiered considering its armament and capabilities, I think it is more then capable of being 10.3 . Its 57mm apfsds round lets it engage vehicle at much longer ranges then its closest counterparts on top of having no tracers , it also has a 57mm APHE round that makes it very deadly hitting the sides of any vehicle it faces some which it can even penetrate frontally and kill in 1 hit. It also has  gen 2/3 thermals  with search and track capabilities , while it may not have any missiles its armament is more then capable of dealing with any vehicle it would face some even frontally with no problem thanks to its apfsds munitions.

 

2S6 - I dont see why this vehicle is being lowered in BR . I think it is more then capable of being moved to 11.3 at least considering it has 4x30mm cannons which are great for close targets on top of 8 missiles with thermals and irst .  I don't see why this vehicle deserves to be moved at a lower BR then its similar counterparts which are all being moved up instead.

 

T-72AV (TURMS-T) - I think this premium should have no issue being further increased to 10.3 similar premiums are being moved to 10.3 already like the 2a4 (PzBtl 123)  which I think is also where the TURMS-T belongs. The TURMS-T is more then capable of being moved to 10.3 and would have no issues dealing with vehicles at that BR and it would still retain its capabilities. 

 

Radkampfwagen 90 - While it was a very fast vehicles at the time of its addition, moving it to 9.7 was a bit unfair and unnecessary , similar vehicles with better modifications/capabilities  were added to the game at a lower BR , I fully support moving it back down to 9.3 .

 

PUMA - I am sure the devs are aware of the plethora of bug reports for this vehicle. I don't think moving this vehicle to 9.7 is fair  in its current condition unless some form of the SPIKE missiles are given to it, I think adding SPIKE missiles with only the capabilities of being mouse guided or direct line of sight fired  without TV optical guidance or  its top down attack capabilities would be fair . It would function like any other mouse guided missile which I think would not be difficult to balance and allow the vehicle to be easily moved up in BR .

 

I would also like to see the AHEAD ammunition be properly modeled to function either like a HE-VT round found on other vehicles or instead properly implemented to have its FCS timed fuze function work with the fire control system and IRST system it already has . Furthermore I think the PUMAS faster rate of fire for the main 30mm cannon should be enabled as a firing option for the vehicle which it is currently missing.

I think once this vehicles list of many bug fixes are implemented  and its missiles added with only mouse guided/direct line of sight capabilities it would have no issue going to 9.7-10.3 .

 

HSTV-L - I don't think this vehicle should have its BR increased but possibly lowered. Its a great light vehicle but I don't think it should be raised in BR unless its missing features are implemented like its more effective Delta 9 apfsds ammo and its XM884 HE-VT round for engaging low flying  air targets. I would also like to see its IRST system be implemented .

 

 

AFT09- I think this vehicles BR is too low considering it capabilities and armament. I has 4 ready to fire Tandem missiles at a 8.7 BR while similar missile carriers don't even have tandem missiles or the agility this vehicle has nor the ability to fire more then 1 missile at a time without reloading . I think it could easily be moved to 9.0-9.3 considering its armament and agility .

Edited April 7, 2023 by sugarstudd

[yunna65@psn 2]

Is-4m 7.3 becase it have bad firepower  and its start to be uselese even the maus is beter in firepower and in armor pls dont make it sufer even more 7.3 thx

[Malekitth 149]

Black Prince needs to go down, its a horribly weak tank, same armor as a 4.7 tank, with inconsistent apds, and very VERY slow. needs to be 5.7

[Tantor57 10,319]

Char 25T : The BR increase is not justified given its current hard statistics. The mobility at 7.3 is challenged by BMP and Leopard, the penetration power is just bad already for a 7.3 vehicle, the rload of 6.7 second is not even the fastest... The vehicle does not have a lot going for it at 7.3 and it is planned to be 7.7 ? I don't understand this when the Object 906 which is 7.7 beats it in every category but armor , turret rotation speed and reverse speed... However the Object 906 has :

 

- Better penning APHE

- Much faster reload

- Two axis stabilizer

- NVD

 

If you uptier the Char25T in the end, please give it the HEATFS if could historically fire as well as its historical reaload of 4 second.

[Smin1080p_WT 60,444]

Hello guys!

 

Thanks for your feedback. It has now been sent to the developers for their consideration 

 

[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.