Why would we let people pay for a tank that was removed for not being real?
Same logic… why would we let people mantain a tank that was removed for not being real? XD
If it is removed then there should be adequate compensation.
Sure! I fully agree. For the exp and for the time spent on it
…And for not being able to use it anymore.
A parachute ^^
I mostly play it at 7.0 already, by the way, so I wouldn’t really care
This Churchill Mk7 change is frankly stupid. The addition of filler to its M61 shell is not enough to justify an increase. At its current BR the 75mm was sub-par and has been bumped too barely below adequate now. There is a reason these tanks best usage is as a bunker and an assist farmer.
As for the rest, The Ho-Ri Removal is tolerable. I do hope we will see something introduce to fill its gap, and hopefully sooner then we saw for the German removals. Which a few of still lack proper replacements. The t20 change is also not well thought out. This is a vehicle held high by its userbase, not necessarily its ability. The t26e5 Change also seems silly. The Short 90 at 6.7 is pathetic, forcing players to think instead of lol-pen it with HEAT-FS or APDS isn’t a bad thing. It shouldn’t be facing 8.0 MBTs ever. The howitzer changes across the board are nice however. Save for the moving of further vehicles out of Rank 3 into 2. Which, I see as nearly always a bad choice.
As for air, The changes to the Bucc s.1 and Vautours are good. It would be nice to see these adjustments extended to the standard Bucc S.2 as it also exists in a poor place.
Genuine question, what makes you think that moving these SPHs down in BR is a good thing?
1 Like
su 25t :
it should to be honest get the same love su 39 gets idk if its just some hate for russian tech tree variant for some reason or what su 25t could carry everything as su 39 since su 39 is just an export variant of su 25t plus mercury pod is useless and it should get its thermal pod that is already modeled in game files but somehow is still not in game
Not sure if mentioned already, but didnt see anything about this one in the spreadsheet.
Mode: Ground RB
Vehicle: Mirage F1 (all variants)
Suggested BR change: 11.3>10.7
Reason: Powerful IR AAM but extremely lackluster SARH, poor RWR suite on the F1C and F1C-2000, no guided air to ground weapons.
Its contemporaries (MiG-23MLD and Navy/UK Phantoms) have already been moved down. The F1’s would be at the same BR as the much superior early Mirage 2000s after these changes. Moving it down would also give a strong CAP aircraft to the French 11.0 lineup (which is lacking in both capable fighters and SPAA relative to other nations).
2 Likes
Vehicle: F-2A ADTW
Gamemode: Ground Realistic
BR Change: 12.3 —> 12.0
There is zero reason why this should be a higher BR than the Gripen A in ground reallistic battles.
1 Like
the Churchill nerf is horrible I would rather you remove the he filler than up its br and make its armour even less useful
4 Likes
Vehicle: Rooikat MTTD
Gamemode: GAB, GRB, GSB
Suggestion:
- Reload 6.7s > 6.0s-5.0s
- Add a placeholder autoloader to the internal model.
Reason: The MTTD has a standard NATO 105 reload rate of 6.7s, despite having a sophisticated turret bustle autoloader. The vehicle has low survivability, and potential defensive systems like smoke, APS, or LWS have not been added to the MTTD due to their prototype or cosmetic nature.
While primary sources for the MTTD are presumably still unavailable, the autoloader should at least match the recently-increased T-80 reload rate of 6.0s for balance. Alternatively (and especially considering the smaller 105 mm round) the reload rate could be matched to other modern autoloaders at 5.0s
In addition the autoloader should be modelled at least in a simplified fashion, in order for it to be able to be damaged in battles.
See also;
8 Likes
So, why does the balance statistically make no sense? Minor leopards have 1.25+ K/d, which is approximately comparable to the Japanese counterparts type74 (E,F,G) and French amx32(105). The AMX30 Super stands out, but I’m betting it’s the first one used in combat. So in this case, shouldn’t the Type 74 E and F be lowered to 8.7, G to 9.0 and also lower both Frenchmen to 9.0? Leopard, Type 74 and AMX are machines of extremely similar characteristics and lowering the combat rating of one of them purely because they mostly don’t know how to play it is nonsense
3 Likes
and?
sure it doesnt fill any gap, but why do you need every SPAA to be extremely OP?
i think it should go up to 8.3 and all gepard shits to 9.0 atleast.
im speaking as a itpsv & za 35 abuser.
those kind of vehicles are way too strong against ground vehicles.
For the love of god…
Make the Tu-95M a 8.0 in Simulator air please.
Obj. 248 6.7 → 6.3 all modes
2 Likes
Vehicle: A6M6c
BR: 5.7→5.0
Reason: Its a heavy and slow plane. At its current BR of 5.3 its already facing tough time, there’s no point of moving its BR to 5.7. If anything its BR should go down to 5.0 where it would be more balanced.
4 Likes
The F1s have a boatload of chaff (at least 216) and flares (up to 192), most of which are large caliber as well
For comparison, the Phantoms have 90 CMs total and the MiG-23 has 60 total, the only one coming remotely close is the Mirage 2000C S5 with 112 chaff and up to 50 flares
While the RWR is pretty bad, the CM count is more than enough to make up for that
11.0 could be okay for it, but 10.7 is a stretch