I am once again suggesting the Kfir Gderot (known as “Kfir Canard” in game) to have their BR reduced to 10.7
Vehicle: Kfir Gderot (Kfir Canard in game)
Suggested change: 11.0 BR to 10.7 BR
Why: This aircraft is worse than a number of 10.7 BR aircraft. Especially the J-7D with double the missiles, with vastly improved missile performance, defensive capabilities and avionics.
Doesn’t change that the Su-30MK2 absolutely shouldn’t be moved to 12.0.
Game mode: GRB
Vehicle: CLAWS/NASAMS
Change: up BR from 12.7 to 12.0
Reason: The NASAMS and CLAWS are currently ineffective SAM systems in the game. They are unable to reliably intercept incoming missiles or engage helicopters equipped with DIRCM (Directional Infrared Countermeasures).
The AIM-9X loses lock too easily, while the AIM-120 and AMRAAM-ER are easily decoyed by chaff, making both systems significantly less effective than they should be.
Yea I’m not even gonna argue anymore… It’s pointless to argue to a rock…
To Grondolf:
Your argument that the Su‑30MK2 and MiG‑29M should be above 12.0 because they have “better quality ordnance” completely ignores the actual BR placement of US aircraft with the same class of weapons .
Let’s look at the facts, not your subjective opinion:
All US TV‑guided CAS platforms sit at 12.0 – the F‑16A (early), F‑15A, and F/A‑18 (early) all carry TV‑guided AGM‑65A/B Mavericks and GBU‑series bombs, yet they are at 12.0 . Meanwhile, the US aircraft that get infrared (IIR) seekers – such as the F‑16CM and F‑15C MSIP II – are placed at 12.7 , precisely because thermal imaging gives a massive advantage in target acquisition and all‑weather employment.The Su‑30MK2 and MiG‑29M are strictly restricted to TV‑guided AGMs (KH‑29T, KH‑25ML? Actually KH‑29T is TV, KH‑25ML is laser? But essentially they lack any thermal seeker for air‑to‑ground). So by that exact same logic, they belong at 12.0 , not higher. You cannot demand a higher BR for aircraft that are inferior in seeker technology to those already at 12.0.
Even more damning: the A‑10C sits at 11.7 and carries AGM‑65G/H with infrared imaging – fire‑and‑forget, day/night capable. The AV‑8B+ at 12.0 also has AGM‑65G (IIR) and the AN/AAS‑38 targeting pod with thermal. The F‑14, though at 11.7, gets the LANTIRN pod with thermal imaging (though its ordnance is not fire‑and‑forget). So we have US platforms at lower or equal BRs equipped with IR seekers , while the Russian TV‑only jets are being pushed up? That is the opposite of balanced.
Your claim that Su‑30’s loadout “puts them miles above” is hollow when you compare the actual engagement effectiveness – a TV seeker is useless in real battle (Once you tried them in test flight) while a thermal seeker works perfectly. A 12.0 F/A‑18 with TV is already a peer; the Su‑30 with the same limitation should be at the same BR , not artificially inflated because you compare it to the over‑tiered Su‑27SM.
So, Grondolf, bring actual BR comparisons, not rhetoric. The numbers are clear for fire and forget missiles: TV = 12.0, IR = 12.7. Su‑30 and MiG‑29 are TV – therefore 12.0 is exactly where they belong.
To MiGoon_Fox-3:
your logic is backwards. The Su‑27SM is itself over‑tiered at 12.7 – you don’t use an inflated BR as a benchmark to raise others. I’ve already replied to Grondolf with a detailed BR strength discussion – go check that thread. By the way, mig29smt has better radar so its br is higher.
Let’s be honest, you only want it at 12.0 so you can pair with your T-80U-E1 on your main account or on this alt account with the next sale.
why?
Fox 3, IRRCM IR missiles, a wide range of advanced A2G weapons, decent flight performance.
Vehicle: Kfir C.7
Suggested change: 12.0 BR to 11.7 BR and/or implement missing countermeasure dispensers
Why: Kfir C.7 struggles against the many extremely capable SARH missile slingers and lacks IRCCM to back up the good close-in flight performance. Other aircraft can very easily bleed it dry of hyper-limited countermeasures and it can do very little against the top aircraft of 12.0 (F-4S) even with a positional advantage. Python 3 has decent flight performance but the seeker is terrible with extreme flare vulnerability. Very clearly struggling to compete with current specs.
J2M5(type5)
GRB 5.0-5.3
Add 20mm guns, issue report(accepted):Community Bug Reporting System
Currently, J2M5 only has 84 rounds which is not correct, and also it will be 5.3 so it is time to add 20mm guns which the report has been accpetd
B7A2 for Arcade, it’s a bad decision because now there’ll be no lineup for it. P-40Fs why are they going up to 2.7? They’re fine if a little weak at 2.3
IS-2 (all types)
No BR change
These tanks are balanced nicely where they sit. While limited in potential by slow rate of fire, the strong side armor, good mobility, and great reverse speed give you the tools and flexibility to work around this slow reload. You can simply tank enemy hits through good positioning or back into cover, then nuke another enemy once your reload time is over. They are well-balanced currently and do not need to move up or down.
By moving these tanks down, especially the late model IS-2, you throw this balance off. The Late IS-2 with its strong lower plate would leave most 5.3 tanks hopeless against it unless they can hit the cupola with a good APHE shell.
Tiger II (Nr. 1-50), Kungstiger
No BR Change
This tank is fine where it is. While it is weaker than the later Tiger II, the Tiger II is a very effective tank. If there must be a separation, it would be better to move the Tiger II and other strong 6.7 tanks up to 7.0 than to move the weaker 6.7 tanks down. The game needs less compression, not more. Most 5.3 tanks have no business facing something like a Tiger II
M44 (all nations)
4.0 → 4.0 or 4.3
I was genuinely surprised to see this buffed of all things. The M44 is already extremely popular and a common sight in every battle where it can show up. It combines excellent firepower and excellent mobility into a very potent ambush vehicle. It has enough crew to survive poorly aimed shots without becoming crippled and a very wide gun arc as well. I personally cannot think of what justifies a buff to this already-strong vehicle.
Honestly, yes. Otherwise i won’t post it. But it does not change that what i said is true. Even the premium F/A‑18C (Early) got the same treatment – and it even has thermal imaging and fire‑and‑forget ordnance！
Vehicle: Type 74 (G)
Gamemode: Realistic
BR Change: 9.3 —> 9.0
Reason: All Leopard A1s are receiving a BR reduction. The Type 74 is very similar. Similar protection, the same gun, and a similar shell. In other respects, the Type 74 is even worse than its inspiration. Its speed is worse then on the Leopards, and its depression angle is significantly worse, both upward and downward (Japanese MBTs are very limited in this regard, more reminiscent of Soviet tanks). These are identical tanks, and the Type 74 should follow the Leopard’s reduction.
T20
No nerfs
This tank is suffering from the exact same problem as minor nations. It is too out-of-the-way and over-BR to attract most players but has a playstyle that attracts highly skilled players.
Fundamentally, it will always be a potent vehicle in the right hands no matter where it is placed. Good mobility and gun handling with APHE will always be potent in the right hands. It is rare that I ever see one and in the cases where I do, it’s almost always a skilled player abusing its ability to fire first over ridgelines hulldown. If you aren’t arbitrarily nerfing low BR event vehicles for balance, the T20 should not be nerfed either.
As a more general comment, I don’t know if I like these reload buffs. Some, like most of the rank 1 tanks or the Pz.Slf.Ic, feel fine. Those very low BR tanks listed are all either fairly weak or have overly long reloads and could use some help there.
However, the more sweeping changes to stuff like the Pz IV and IS-1 I am less sure on. Part of the appeal of the WW2 tanks is the slower, more committal style of play. Slashing reload rates on tanks that are generally performing fine strikes me as unnecessary and potentially damaging. Maybe these changes are fine, but I am wary of them.
The A-6E TRAM going to 11.0 makes no absolute sense. No FnF ordnance only laser guided, no ARMs, no internal gun, and its subsonic. Who the hell made this decision?
AMX-50 (TO90/930)
8.0 → 7.7
This is just a slower and larger Char 25t without scouting but still at the same BR. While the frontal hull can still bounce cannon fire, the turret is the same as the Char 25t’s, so you can never truly rely on your armor ever. Dropping this to 7.7 would give you a reason to pick it over the Char 25t and it would fit in nicely with the existing 7.7 France lineup. Alternatively, it’s a Lorraine 40t at a higher BR with some useless hull armor and a APHE shell with anemic penetration and less depression. It’s a Lorraine sidegrade, not an upgrade. It’s a AMX-50 (TOA100) sidegrade, not an upgrade.