Jump to content

Planned Battle Rating changes

Best answer

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.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, x_Shini_ said:

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

Totally agreed on this one. Seems like gaijin wants some more pairing to keep up with 10.3 but you could increase begleitpanzer or leo2K, T72 even but Puma 9.3 in its current state makes more sense. Also marine flieger 11.0 without guided bombs makes no sense, no reason to play it at airRB with that br matches at all, since for bombing grind people stuck playing ids assta1 11.3 anyway.

medal medal medal

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ghostmaxi said:

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.

For the Maus, in comparison to the IS-6, the loader has the ammo further away, and it's of a bigger caliber, so while certainly it's not as cramped, that travel time and turning around because he has the ammo behind him makes sense for the longer reload, and the armour makes up for its mobility, it's just how the tank is, all those heavies suffer equally from HEAT-FS round, and the Maus sometimes even tanks HEAT-FS if angled well.

Have you ever heard of ergonomics? The Jagdtiger is pretty cramped, naturally it's gonna be a long reload even with 2 loaders. Its sides are angled inwards and the loaders are side by side with the breech, meanwhile the Sturer Emil in comparison is open topped, isn't angled inwards, and the loader is at the back of the breech. The reload time is proper as is.

The Tiger II 105 never existed, and realistically the 105mm gun wouldn't even fit in the KT's turret, have you ever even noticed how the breech is that of the 88 copy-pasted in game? the cannon clips out of the breech in the models. Even if it had somehow fit, the KT turret is way smaller than the T29's, so of course the reload will be longer.

I don't see the need for the Marder A1(-) to get APDS because anyways you're flanking and if you come across a Light Tank frontally you can always damage it so it doesn't get you in the case you can't pen it frontally (In my experience there's always a way to get them frontally with the 20mm anyways but oh well) and with the MILAN, in comparison to the 9M113 in the BMP-1, you don't have to research it and you get the same amount of ATGMs, also the lack of post-pen damage with the MILAN can be easily addressed by aiming it properly towards crew or ammo, no issue whatsoever.


  • Confused 5
  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sim main here.  You have no idea how glad I am to see this!

Nice to see that aircraft like the non-PD phantoms are getting a bracket to play in.  Also, my J35D gets to spread her wings again. :DD  Still in an awkward spot with no countermeasures, but it gets four days out of eight away from IRST or PD / SARH aircraft.  I like this.  It's also nice to see 1.0 - 1.7 get four days out of eight.  Biplanes are incredibly fun, and dirt cheap.  Great for blowing off steam.


Hats off to you snail.  I think you nailed it. o7



PS: I still wish we were scored by the old individual actions system for player air kills (earn per kill), in tandem with the time system for other actions.  Pretty please?

medal medal

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please lower the Comet BR, to perhaps 5.3 or even 5.0. The recent changes with APDS seriously nerfed the tank to the point where it is not really viable to play at 5.7 anymore.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, VonarianTheGreat said:


Feedback ==> Should stay at 11.0

Description ==> Considering the increase of maximum ground BRs, it wouldn't be a good idea to move this vehicle back to once again compress vehicles. Currently, Roland systems (Roland 1, XM975, FlaRakPz 1) are at 10.3, making 2S6 Tunguska a 10.7 SAM system isn't only lowering the point in existence of the mentioned SAM systems, but puts all CAS (especially helicopters) at a serious disadvantage.

No. And by 'No' I mean Hell No. after the SACLOS nerf, SAM SPAAs feel much worse, and by no means need another BR increase.


CAS (especially in midtier and toptier) is quite problomatic already, and the main counter to it had been nerfed into hell. IMO, many SPAAs actually need to go down in BR.


Edit: Only the FlaRakPz1 Roland 2 and XM975 are at 10.3, the french AMX-30 Roland 1 is at 10.0 due to the French Roland having an abysmal elevation of 35° in comparison to the German and American Rolands having an amazing elevation of 80°.


IMO, all Rolands should go to 10.0, where they were originaly located.

Edited by ofekk213
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't the Leopard 2A4s stay at 10.0? Their armor and firepower does not really justify them being moved up.


Its nice to see the 2S38 going up but what about the BMP-2M? That thing is better than the 2S38 and is incredibly OP when used by people who are even slightly competent.


Mi-35 I can understand for the reason gave but its missiles really aren't that good for an increase.


Nice to see the M4A3 (105) finally having a light cast on it and being (rightfully) moved up.


T-64B makes sense seeing stuff around it is going up, still a old reliable.


I don't entirely agree with the T-80B being moved up.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Char 25t  


It should stay where it is at 7.3 or possibly moved down to 7.0. 


While it did get a nice armor piercing high explosive round a few patches ago which helped it work as a flanker more effectively. It has no capability of facing higher tier early Cold War mbt or post  ww2 super heavy tanks. It struggles to go through thick armor with no access to a HEAT round. 

While at the same br of 7.3 lies the object 906 access to a APHE with similar performance. Access to HEAT and a two plane stabilizer. Albeit it has worse armor, both vehicles can be still be neutralized by aircraft cannons for the top and hmg fire from the side. 

To move the Char 25t from 7.3 to 7.7 while other light tanks at the same br of 7.3 have similar or more efficient performance. This change should be reconsidered. 

Edited by zzmuffin2@live
  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

OTOMATIC should go down to 10.3 or even 10.0

I rather take SIDAM (mistral) to top tier than OTOMATIC if I want a vehicle that can try to shoot down planes. PLEASE look at the vehicle itself instead of statistiks. It's horrible and outdated in this meta of beyond visual range CAS. Your tracer and muzzle flash can be seen from the moon and even the slightest adjustment by the pilot makes all rounds miss. Also 5 second ready rack reload.......... damn its so bad vehicle


Mistral is a good change *claps* :goodsnail: 9.3 would be even better because the lack of search radar and NVD


VCC 80/30 should go down to 9.3

Slower rate of fire than dardo. 30mm dart does same damage anyways.

Only positive it has is the tandem missile, but BMP-2M is at 9.3 with better rate of fire, tandem ATGM can fire on the move and darts pen the same.

Funny thing that the tandem is earlier unlock than TOW-2B which you have broken since 2021 and refuse to model it correctly. This is the bug report that made you "fix" it. While the modeling stuff is correct, the penetration value was false information from some random magazine which devs believed face value for some reason. :dntknw:




Is it possible to add some useful armaments to this thing? UMTAS hellfires are so slow that you can't kill ANYONE with them. 180m/s for a 10.0 is ridiculous. Also you can't play the PvE effectively because everyone else have fast missiles but you dont. CIRIT rockets are decent but it's really hard to use close and you need to launch half of your ammo to kill a tank because they dont pen much.

I wouldn't use this thing as a ground attacker in 9.0 or 8.0 :lol2:It's so bad

  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

All for AB at least:




Worst 7.3 in the game, compared with actual 7.3 vehicles:

vs leo1 -> far worse rounds, worse armor, mobility, gun depression

vs object906 -> no stabilizer/autoloader. worse aphe,mobility, cant flank and hit&run like the 906
vs bmp1 -> you lose access to the 800mm atgm, gain a 200mm apfsds

vs any of the centurions -> worse shell, worse depression, no stabilizer, far worse armor




Another LT with a trash apfsds which is the only difference between it and the lekpz41 at 6.7. Apfsds has poor postpen and is only worth using over the heatfs for shooting through trees etc


QF3.7 ram


Was only put up to 5.3 from its original 5.0 because it came out before overpressure was a thing. Now it dies in 1 hit too easily plus in AB you have fighters strafing you 1min into a game. I am pretty sure devs forgot this thing even exists, I have never seen another player besides myself bring it out in the past year of playing


M60A3TTS (Chinese version only)


Compared to the american M60A3TTS, the chinese one is missing the top round (M774) and ERA which is a huge downgrade

Edited by kcns
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

M1 Abrams

With the M1 being only 1 step away from both the IPM1 and M1A1, it should at least recieve M833 to help justify the placement since there is currently a big gap in both firepower and survivability between the M1 and M1A1 & IPM1.



AH-6M 10.0 ==> 9.3

The armament of the AH-6 is very limited, only being able to carry 4 AGM-114s, not enough to take out the spaa spawning in the frontline. The 7.62 minigun is only useful in destroying the recoilless rifles that spawn otherwise it is dead weight. There is no reason to take 12.7 machine guns in place of the Hellfires or Hydra-70s. If you want to kill convoys as fast as possible, it is a requirement to carry both rockets and hellfires, which leads to the loadout being used in Heli PvE to be only 19 rockets and 2 Hellfires (and maybe 2 7.62 miniguns) at 10.0. If you compare the AH-6 to other helicopters in the same br bracket, it is very lacking since the 8km missiles can only go so far and kill so much when there is only 2 available in most circumstances. In a lower bracket the only advantage the AH-6 has over the other helicopters is range while every other helicopter have more missiles, even if the range is short in comparison, and guns that have a far better chance of actually penetrating a MBT's top armor and more useful in taking out convoys.

TLDR: 4 Hellfires or 19 rockets and 2 Hellfires is not enough for Heli PvE, especially at 10.0 (9.7+ br bracket), it would fair better in the 9.3 and below br bracket.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ground Realistic Battle Feedback :


- United Kingdom -

Churchill mk.1: Down BR, 3.3 to 3.0

Reason: The Churchill Mk.III has just been downgraded to 4.0! This is good news and an affirmation that you are listening to your UK community players, thank you. However, there is still a lot of change to be made! First of all, the Churchill mk.I, with decent armor but a 2pdr gun, has no place in 3.3, exposing itself too much to vehicles that are too powerful for it, without forgetting that the 3.3/3.7 constantly gets played in 4.0/4.3. The battle rating reduction would do it a lot of good.


Olifant mk.1A: Down BR, 8.3 to 8.0

Reason: This vehicle needs love, neglected for wheeled vehicles like the Rookiat at the same level, due to its cruel lack of mobility and protection unlike similar Israeli and Swedish vehicles (variant of Centurion tanks). lowering the battle rating of the vehicle could help it make its place on the battlefield.


Chieftain Mk.3 : Down BR, 8.3 to 8.0

Reason:  As with with the case above, the Chieftain mk.3 is  very slow, hyper slow and it doesn't have APFSDS ammo like most of its competitors at the same level, without to mention the silent nerf it suffered in the latest update (see spoiler below) . The vehicle would be the equivalent of the M60A1 (AOS) or the T-55A whose combat rating was reduced some time ago. It would be great if the Chieftain Mk.3 followed the move.


New one :


Old one :


Chieftain mk.5: Down BR, 8.7 to 8.3

Reason: As in the case of the Mk3. It only has a slight engine performance that can "help" with acceleration, but this remains its limit. To see him among the 8.3 like in the good old days would be perfect for it.


Chieftain mk.10:  Down BR, 9.0 to 8.7 or ADD L23A1 and Mk.11 modification (TOGS)

Reason: As in the case of the Chieftain mk.3, it's very slow. Follow the reduction such as these predecessors or offer it a new model modification as some Russian vehicles have (The T-64B which has the BV modification or the T-80B which has the NVD improvement example). These changes would do the vehicle a lot of good.


Tortoise: Down BR, 6.7 to 6.3 or ADD its historical 32pdr APDS 

Reason: The unloved mastodon loses its colleague, the Fv4005 which is reduced to 6.3, it could follow it. However, it could stay in 6.7 if the latter receives its missing APDS shell once.


Black Prince: Down BR, 6.0 to 5.7

Reason: The old forgotten, for years. It only has good armor which can be very solid, but this remains his limit since there are many opponents for it who are between 5.3 and 6.7, without forgetting that, it's largely handicapped by his mobility mediocre. Offering it its place among the 5.7 like it would be perfect.


Challenger mk.3 DS: ADD L26 first and Raise BR, 10.0 to 10.3

Reason: The reason for the request to receive the L26 ammo is that it is a Challenger mk.3 and like all other premium MBT vehicles at this level, its place is in 10.3 (Leopard 2 prem) if it receives the L26 shell

Centurion Action X:  Down BR, 7.3 to 7.0

Reason: The famous Action X! This centurion holds the worst turret, such as the Fv4202. It could do better in 7.0, having no advantage of being in 7.3 like its peers.

- URSS -


T-55AM: Raise BR, 8.3 to 8.7

Reason: The T-55AMD went to 8.7. The T-55AM stayed at 8.3 and with the BR change of several vehicles to 9.7,  it would be necessary to mount it in 8.7.

T-72AV:  Raise BR 9.7/10.0 to 10.3

Reason: T-72AV. This one has caused a lot of ink to flow for far too long. Its imposing performances are in part too important for 8.7/9.0. Upgrading it to 10.3 would do it good and thus join its fellow premium MBT 10.3 (Leopard 2, challenger DS, etc.)


T-54 1947 / T-54 1949: Change thier position (1947 to 7.3 and 1949 7.7)

Reason: With the volumetric change, the 1947 model T-54 took a big hit and seeing a newer T-54 perform way too much at a lower rating is a bit insulting. The T-54 performs way too much from the buff of APDS shells over 100mm caliber. Changing their place would be right.


Object 120:  Raise BR, 7.3 to 8.0 minimum

Reason: Another vehicle that has been its misfortune for too long. This vehicle has a powerful arrow shell, the only one at this level with such a caliber. It would be fine in 8.0 at least.


T-34-85(D-5T):   Raise BR, 5.0 to 5.3

Reason: The Tournament Player Line has banned it from vehicle selection at tournament events and that's for a reason: since remodeling in addition to volumetric change, this T-34-85 has become turret invulnerable, exposing characteristics far too high. This is a known bug and several players are currently taking advantage of it. It is necessary to correct the problem or upgrade it to Battle Rating.


Bmp-1:  Raise BR, 7.3 to 7.7

Reason: IFV with high performance ATGMs. Vehicles below 6.7 should not encounter it and only rarely.


- United-States -


M56 Scorpion:  Down BR, 6.7 to 6.3 or 6.0

Reason: The panzerJager 4-5 is in 6.3. Same gun, same ammunition, same game technique. The difference is that the M56 is lighter, but too exposed, being able to be neutralized by the Coax of the vehicles, which makes it a big obstacle. Note that there is the M50 Ontos in 6.7 which is already a tank destroyer and the T92 as a light tank. Downgrading him to 6.3 or 6.0 would help it in its fragile situation.


T14:  Down BR, 4.7 to 4.3

Reason: It's a heavy tank that needs love. It was fine in 4.3, like its Russian sibling; the Kv-1 Zis-5. The rating reduction will do the T14 good


T25 Down BR, 6.3 to 6.0

Reason: The T25 has lost what made it powerful for the 6.3: its stabilizer. Downgrading it to 6.0 would make an interesting backup for the M41 Walker Bulldog


T20:  Down BR, 6.0 to 5.7

Reason: The T20 received an armor fix that made it durable against opponents, so this vehicle no longer has a place in 6.0. Downgrading him to 5.7 would do it good


T26E1-1:  Down BR, 6.7 to 6.3

Reason: With the arrival of the T26E5 and the number of American heavy tanks in 6.7, the T26E1-1 no longer has its place and it would be better to put it back in 6.3 as before. It is the competitor of the IS-2 1944 and the Tiger II (P) which are already in 6.3.


M4A3E8(76w):  Down BR, 6.3 to 6.0

Reason: With the replacement of the T26E1-1 in 6.3, it would also have no place and its return to 6.0 would make it possible to stop encountering vehicles that are far too powerful for the latter (Aka centurion/Leopard/Marder/Bmp)


- Germany -


Leopard 1A0: Raise BR , 7.3 to 7.7

Reason: MBT with a good 105mm gun. It was a big mistake to lower it in 7.3, its place is in 7.7, put it back.


Ferdinand/Elephant:  Down BR, 6.7 to 6.3

Reason: The Jagdpanther is in 6.0 and the Jagdtiger in 6.7, The Ferdinant/Elephant must be in 6.3 in order to follow the level diagram correctly. They have big frontal weak points (particularly against APDS shells) and they are the same as their British tank destroyer partner; the Tortoise. Take them down in battle rating.


SPz Bmp-1:  Raise BR , 7.3 to 7.7

Reason: like its Russian counterpart, IFV with very powerful ATGMs. Vehicles below 6.7 should not encounter it and only rarely.


KugelBlitz:  Down BR, 7.0 to 6.7

Reason: I don't understand its rise to 7.0 in the Planned Battle Rating changes of September 2022. The Wiesel 1A4 is already present as SPAAG in 7.0 and the Kugel did no harm in 6.7, so give its rating back (it was fine in the 6.7 Lineup)


Panzer IV G/H : Raise BR , 3.3 and 3.7 to 3.7 and 4.0 + RANK III for them

Reason: Panzer IVs are powerful vehicles, great for new players, their battle rating in 3.7 and 4.0 was perfect, bring them back to those ratings and upgrade them to Tier III. 


Jadgtiger: Change the reload time of the vehicule

Reason: It's a big tank destroyer that needs a little more attention. he would be too powerful in 6.3, so 6.7 is made for it. What this hunter hunter needs is an adjustment to the gun reload time, having two loaders inside the vehicles, whereas the Sturer Emile only has one loader for a good amount of time. lower than the Jadgtiger. it needs this fix to be a good hunter.


- China -


ZBD86: Raise BR , 7.3 to 8.0*

Reason: like its Russian counterpart, IFV with very powerful ATGMs. Vehicles below 6.7 should not encounter it and only rarely. (*= has better ATGMs hence why its +0.3)


- Bonus -


Stug III in Germany, M24 from USA and Italy  : Put them in rank III. 

Reason: These vehicles have copies in other nations (Japanese M24 and the Italian Stug III) at Tier III, so they need to be placed correctly.

Edited by Stona
red font removed
  • Confused 7
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The SU22M3 from 11.0 to 10.7 or 10.3

Because you will always get uptier to 12.0 and with the simple R60 it is really hard to get a kill and especially against F16 and Mig 29 rockets, you have only 12 flares maximum which makes it even worse in that BR and it can barely go with Mach 1.0 with a normal bombing setup against the Phantoms whiches can go easily over mach 1 and I think that this change would make that plane more useful and more valuable.


Hope this reply will help to improve others' gaming experience

Edited by AlexHunterHUN
  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly disagree with the OTOMATIC and Arietes going up. OTOMATIC is simply outclassed at 11.0 already and isnt capable of fighting long range threats like modern helicopters and laser guided bombs, it needs to be going down not up. The arietes are a little bit more forgivably as they can still accomplish their job albeit far more difficultly than any of their peers. Leaving them at 11.0 and 11.3 would add just a tiny bit of meaning to their existence. To be honest I would even advocate for the 11.0s to go down to 10.7 so that their penetration can actually be uniquely high, like they were initially balanced around.


If Char 25t is going up to 7.7, object 906 has to move up as well. There is no excuse for those two being the same BR. The object 906 is better in almost every way. Higher penning aphe, access to heat-fs, shorter reload, faster, better optics, fully stabilized, ect.


M1 Abrams needs M833. M774 is a pathetically weak round at 10.0. At the same BR the soviets have 3BM42 and the British have L26 on their MBTs. Everyone else has at least 120mm dm23 which is quite significantly better than M774


 LVRB 701 should go down to 9.7. Right now it is 10.0 with the french roland 1 while having the same downsides, worse missiles, longer reload, exposed crew, fewer total missiles, and no search radar

Sidam 25 should go down to 8.0 if not 7.7. It has a small ammo pool, a lower fire rate than either the VADS or ZSU-23-4 which are its closest competitors, no armor piercing in its stock belt and a pitifully low stock of apds ammo, no search radar, and its optical tracker is completely nonfunctional in night battles

And of course 2S38 should be going up at least another full br it is comparable to if not better than HSTV-L and OTOMATIC which are both going to 11.3

  • Upvote 4
medal medal

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the sim bracket changes. 9.7s fighting 12.0s even in one rotation wasnt great at all. Now more brs have a chance to be top dogs given correct variant.

I guess there are 2 main br changes are missing for me that i want to leave feedback on.

Mirage 5F going down to 10.0 while 3C stays at 10.3 isnt very fair for me. 3C Has also no countermeasures unlike 3E(same br) and much weaker anti ground capabilities than 5F and also lacks RWR. It makes up with being able to carry extra missile over 5F but it should be separated from 3E i feel like.

Nesher going down also helps the argument it wasn't really great at 10.3 either.

Also i think that with F8U-2 moving down F8E FN should go down as well. It lacks rwr, countermeasures, 2 missiles, and payload options over american F-8E. while magics are good missles the stuff it lacks is very very very detrimental. It also posses excellent dogfighting capabilities very slightly weaker than F8U that is now going down in br.

think most people who played both will agree that american one is a decent plane pleasant to fly while french one is just pain.


I think if you plan to move Mirage 5F/Nesher and F8U-2 down to 10.0 u should consider moving those 2 planes as well. 

Kinda puzzled by Terra Nova sudden jump to 4.0 just cause it was barely added to the game wouldnt call it an op boat that needs a fast br raise. Canada stronk i guess. :DD

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The proposed change of the Char-25T from 7.3 to 7.7 is quite frankly very silly.  It is nowhere near as good as the vehicles at 7.7.  Take for instance the Object 906 which has a 4.3 second reload compared to the Char's 6.7 second reload,  has a better APHE shell,  has access to a HEAT-FS shell which the Char-25T does not,  and has a full stabilizer unlike the Char-25T.  This really does seem to just be France getting punished for having good win-rates with subpar vehicles due to higher average player experience.


In all honesty,  if the Char-25T was in the Russian/US/German tech trees I have no doubt it would sitting at a battle rating of 7.0, or even 6.7.  Continually failing to take into account actual vehicle capability and balancing solely by win-rate is going to keep generating bad vehicles going up in battle rating in nations with more experienced players.  It's not my fault I'm grinding the French tech tree after playing for 3,500 hours after all.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some (probably) not-so-contentious low tier Ground RB suggestions.





Panzer IV C - 1.3 → 1.7

The Panzer IV C completely outclasses its other 1.3 medium tank peers such as the T-28 1938 and M2 Medium due to its vastly superior firepower combined with solid mobility and survivability due to the large fighting compartment and crew size.


Panzer IV F1 - 2.0 → 2.3

The combination of armor, mobility, and a versatile maingun that can cut through everything it faces with HEAT is way too good for 2.0.


Panzer 38t (F) - 2.3 → 2.0 or 1.7

The only difference between this vehicle and the standard Panzer 38t A is 20mm of addition armor which absolutely does not justify it being at a BR where it can face Shermans and T-34s while using a mediocre reserve-tier 37mm gun.


StuG III A - 2.3 → 2.0

The StuG A is effectively just a worse Panzer IV F1 at a higher BR now that its lower hull is only 30mm thick. The lower silhouette is not an advantage since the gun prevents it from sniping like the later StuG variants.


Panzer IV G - 3.3 → 3.7

The Panzer IV J is a straight upgrade over the Panzer IV F2 yet sits at the same BR, giving Germany two highly capable 3.3 medium tanks while other nations only get one in their tech-tree.


Panzer IV J and Pz.Bef.Wg IV- 3.7 → 3.3

If the Panzer IV G has its BR raised, I think it would be fair for the Ausf. J to be reduced to 3.3 since it is a straight downgrade from the tech-tree Panzer IV Ausf. H.


Sturer Emil - 4.3 → 4.0

This change would do almost nothing for the performance of the tank since its strengths and weaknesses wouldn't at all change since the tank is so extreme in every aspect, but it would let it be used in 4.0 lineups which might make it a more appealing tank to use.







47/32 L40 - 1.3 → 1.0

No turret, no real armor, mediocre mobility, and a worse gun than most reserve LTs.


M13/40 (II) and (III) - 2.0 →1.7

These vehicles offer no meaningful changes over the M13/40 (I) yet sit at a higher BR bracket.


M15/42 : 2.7 → 2.3 or 2.0

Very underwhelming compared to other its other 2.7 peers such as the Panzer III J, T-50, and Crusader II due to its mediocre mobility. armor. and firepower.




L-62 ANTI II and Lvtdgb m/40 - 2.7 → 3.0

The 40mm SAPHEI that that these two vehicles get is a bit too strong for these two vehicles to face off against such low-tier opponents.


Pvkv III - 3.3 → 3.0

This tank has no lineup at 3.3 and isn't comparable to its closest peers such as the Panzer III L/M.



  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

(all RB)


Leo 2a4 - 10.3 ONLY with DM33, with DM23 it will struggle SO MUCH, even 9.0 tanks has 400mm or even more penetration to comparison.


PUMA - 9.7 ONLY with RESEARCHABLE MODIFICATION to S1 variant with SPIKE missiles and fixed bugs/missing things.


TAM-2C - ONLY with RESEARCHABLE MODIFICATION to IP (Tam2CIP - 2C + additional armour of IP).


Radkampfwagen 9.0 - 9.3 imho it's still too much, when 8.7 vehicles like Type 16 (FPS) has similar mobility, thermals, better protection, but worse rounds, so Rad90 should be 0.3 higher - so 9.0.


2s38 -  10.0 is a good first step, but still HE-VT rounds should be changed to AHEAD (as IRL - bc IRL 3ou8 are preprogrammable just as PMC308 of PUMA - bug reported a few months ago but ignored - ofc xd)


BMP-2M -  should go 10.3, bc it's still best IFV in game, even at 11.3 it's a monster, those Kornet ATGMs with UNIQUE option to fire in move are just too op at this BR.


Su-25K -  should go 10.3, Great loadout, VERY GOOD survivability (bugged hitbox), frontal aspect AAMs, mach 1, tons of flares. It's just a faster A-10, but with worse loadout which is still great.




KPZ-70/MBT-70/XM-803 - should be 8.7 or even 8.3 with hugely nerfed APFSDS rounds, ATGM missiles are VERY rarely useful because of VERY long reload. also 20mm Rh202 got huge nerfs so forget to destroy the barrel at angle higher than about 20-30deg.



Leo 2k - should be 9.3/9.0, in CURRENT "Meta" is definitely too much for it, no thermals and weak protection - despite the angle is the biggest problem also Rh202 after huge nerfs, the only pros are 410mm penetration not bad, but still worse than other tanks on this BR - like T-64B, ZTZ-96A ,CM-11 or Strv105 which is even 9.0 and mobility, those are the only 2 things on Leo 2k.


Strv 105 - should be 9.7, quite similar to 2k, but it has apfsds in stock, much better ammo, thermals, the cons are average mobility and low protection (so it has only worse mobility than 2k, but better apfsds and it has thermals)


German "old" P-47D - should be 3.7, comparing to "new" one which is 3.7 and have better RP/SL bonuses, but it's slightly slower (only 60hp less) it's not fair so much. Russian P-47D-27 is 4.3 with 3 bombs and USA P-47D-22-RE at 3.7 has 2x 1000lb + 1x 500lb. EVEN if those bombs are "unhistorical" german P-47Ds should get bombs because of "balance decision".

G-91 R3 - should be 8.3/8.0, comparing to A-4E early which is 8.7 as well, but it has AAM, guided bombs, more and better MACLOS missiles, tons of bombs, flares, additional gunpods and custom loadout. Literally EVERYTHING better than G.91 R/3 - totally NO REASON to let then stay at same BR, so G.91 R3 should go down or A-4E early up.


T-32/32E1 - should be 7.0/7.3, Comparing to IS-3 which is 7.0 and IS-4M which is 7.7 the USA guys can't even imagine to penetrate them frontally, when IS-3/4M could + overpressure works VERY often.


Object 120 - should be 8.7, glass cannon or glass death star, HUGE apfsds with 405mm penetration and also HUGE HE rounds which 1-shots EVERYTHING a few BR higher.


Su-122 - should be 3.3, great armour of t-34 at that low BR makes it frontally unpenetrable at 2.3 BR + 160mm HEAT with 2.7kg tnt or HE with 3.67kg tnt, VERY often overpressure or kill everything instantly.


M4A3 (105) - should be 3.3, great protection + quite good HEAT rounds, pure monster at 2.7.




Edited by Adamok2
  • Confused 8
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, thank you for the new planned battle ratings. I do have some suggestions that should be included in this planned battle rating changes. Please take a look and consider them.


My feedback and suggestions are based on Air RB.


F-84F (All): 8.3 → 8.0

F-84F suffers subpar performance. It cannot turn or accelerate quite fast and bleed airspeed in no time. It is currently struggling against capable fighters in that range of battle rating.



A-6E TRAM: 10.0 → 10.3

This aircraft is capable of equipping 4x AIM-9Ls and should not face subsonic aircraft that doesn't have countermeasures or sophisticated missiles. I proposed to increase its battle rating to the same of A-10A Late.


A-7D: Give its AIM-9Ls OR 10.3 → 10.0

A-7D cannot defend itself or perform well in Air RB with given battle rating. It should receive AIM-9Ls to stay competitive, or it should receive reduced battle rating. Additionally, A-7K Corsair II is confirmed and coming with AIM-9Ls, why does A-7D not have it yet?


A-7E: Give its AIM-9Ls OR 10.7 → 10.0

I understand the battle rating is 10.7 for A-7E because of Air-to-Ground capabilities, but it should at least receive AIM-9L to stay competitive in Air RB. It is unfair that A-10 Late which can equip 4x AIM-9Ls is at 10.3 versus A-7E at 10.7! Additionally, A-7K Corsair II is confirmed and coming with AIM-9Ls, why does A-7E not have it yet?


F-8E : Give its AIM-9G

One way to make F-8E more unique than its predecessor, F8U-2, is giving its historical AIM-9G, and it will enjoy an upgrade with improved missile seeker.


F-4C: Give its AIM-9J and countermeasures and 10.0 → 10.3

F-4C is a struggle with outdated missiles and no countermeasures, so giving its historical AIM-9J and countermeasures will make itself competitive among its counterparts.


F-14A Early: 11.7 → 12.0 and give its AIM-9Ls too

F-14A Early is still performing exceeded expectations, and it is capable of carrying six radar missiles and has stronger radar. Meanwhile, F-16A ADF and MiG-29A can only carry 2 radar missiles! With sincere honesty, it should not face 10.7 aircraft that way.


F9F-5: 8.3 → 8.0

This variant has a very subpar performance, especially poor acceleration and top speed, making it vulnerable to common counterparts. It shares the same battle rating as F9F-8, which outclassed F9F-5 by a mile.



Phantom FGR.2: Give its AIM-9Ls and 11.3 → 11.7

The fact that the F-4EJ Kai equips AIM-9Ls, so why cannot FGR.2 has it too? Giving its AIM-9L is historical and benefitting it.


Phantom FG.1: Give its AIM-9Ls and 11.3 → 11.7

The fact that the F-4EJ Kai equips AIM-9Ls, so why cannot FG.1 has it too? Giving its AIM-9L is historical and benefiting it.


Phantom F-4J (UK): Give its AIM-9Ls and 11.3 → 11.7

The fact that the F-4EJ Kai equips AIM-9Ls, so why cannot F-4J (UK) has it too? Giving its AIM-9L is historical and benefiting it.


Japan :

Mitsubishi F-1: 10.3 → 10.0

The F-1, without countermeasures, is awfully struggling at this battle rating against the aircraft with all-aspect and Beyond-Visual-Range missiles.


F-104G (Japan): 10.7 → 10.3

This Starfighter doesn’t have its countermeasure capabilities to protect itself from the aircraft with formidable Air-to-Air capabilities and will fare poorly against certain aircraft like F-14A Early.


China :

F-104G (China): 10.7 → 10.3

This Starfighter doesn’t have its countermeasure capabilities to protect itself from the aircraft with formidable Air-to-Air capabilities and will fare poorly against certain aircraft like F-14A Early.


F-5A (China): 11.0 → 10.7

Since F-5Es will go down to 10.7, shouldn’t F-5A’s battle rating to be decreased as well?



CL-13 Mk.4: 8.7 → 8.3

This CL-13 Mk.4 suffers subpar performance and has awful acceleration. It is no different from F-86A-5.


G.91Y: 9.3 → 9.0

It lacks countermeasures & Air-to-Air missiles and is currently struggling against stronger aircraft that has good Air-to-Air capabilities.


G.91YS: 9.7 → 9.3

It lacks countermeasures and is currently struggling against stronger aircraft that has good Air-to-Air capabilities.



F-8E(FN)(France): 10.3 → 10.0

Since F8U-2 goes down, I think F-8E should go down as well. It woefully lacks countermeasures and is currently struggling against stronger aircraft with stronger Air-to-Air capabilities.


Mirage F1 (All variants): 11.3 → 11.0

Mirage F1 has a very mediocre or subpar performance and is currently struggling to compete against F-14A Early, F-16A, and MiG-29.

Edited by Nostalgistic
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 9
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tornado IDS is fine where it is at 10.7, it's not really capable of a dogfight like other planes below and above it once it fires off it's (now nerfed) 9Ls, essentially requiring it to third party peoples fights to score gun kills most of the time.

Base bombing is also pretty poor reason to raise it's BR with current map setup, bases are far too close to each other  currently and should be spread out instead, which would allow players to intercept them more easily before they can take out the second base.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...