reason i say it there is cause it does have one other thing it reacts a bit a quicker the gun is a bit better at turning
I don’t see that. Aren’t its turret traverse and gun elevation speeds the same as those of the Panzer IV H and F2?
1 Like
SAV-20.12.48
Ground RB
4.0-> 4.7
zero reason to be its br genuinely insane tank above average filler same pen as a KV1 ZIS 5 and has a 1.2 second reload and is highly mobile can hold corners amazing well and can over pressure tanks up to 5.7 with its HE round its literally still broken its just a vehicle that encourages seal clubbing
3 Likes
If the above-mentioned changes are made, its classification should be changed to medium tank, and its BR lowered to 7.3. This doesn’t seem much different from the AMX‑50/100.
11.2 for F2 11.5 for chi nu and same vertical its kinda noticeble not really i noticed it but i think its closest equal is not the F2 but the G model which has a 80mm front plate but a 30mm turret face so its basically the oppistie so 3.7 could happen but i think we should go to 4.0 see how it does there then see if it can go lower
Unfortunately, when looking at vehicle performance from the big data perspective, the impact of player skill level is just too significant.
1 Like
Proposal for Reducing Reload Speed: Chi-To
Reload speed reduction:
- Ace Crew: 6.5 → 5.9 s
- Basic Crew: 8.4 → 7 s
Rationale:
According to testing, there is evidence of the 75 mm Type II Model II possessing a reload speed of at least 10 rounds per minute. Both the basic and aced crew reload times should be decreased, as a result. Additionally, similar vehicles like the Pz.IV J possess a lower reload, despite the Chi-To being 4.7
11 Likes
Proposal for Reducing Reload Speed: Chi-To Late
- Ace Crew: 6.5 → 5.9 s
- Basic Crew: 8.4 → 7 s
Rationale:
According to testing, there is evidence of the 75 mm Type II Model II possessing a reload speed of at least 10 rounds per minute. Both the basic and aced crew reload times should be decreased, as a result. Additionally, similar vehicles like the Pz.IV J possess a lower reload, despite the Chi-To Late being 4.7. At this BR, the Chi-Nu II, Chi-To, and Chi-To Late consistently see more thickly-armored vehicles like the Panther and Jumbo Sherman, so the reduced reload would be both beneficial and historical.
9 Likes
Imo player performance should be considered with nuance by Gaijin. Japanese tank mains tend to have more experience in the game
M15/42
2.7 → 2.3
Totally outclassed by its peers, it has neither the mobility nor armor to work around its low penetration like the AB 43 and Celere Sahariano are able to. Other 2.7 tanks like the T-50, Panzer III J1, and Crusader II totally dominate the M15/42 and leave it with no real niche to shine in.
The M14/41 (47/40) is incredibly similar in performance, yet sits at 2.3. Both could likely work fine at 2.0, but even just moving it to 2.3 would be a massive help as this would stop it from constantly facing T-34s, Shermans, and KV-1s that it is totally helpless against.
4 Likes
I’m in agreement. If we were to rigorously balance based off player stats, copy+paste vehicles in different trees would end up entire BR ranges apart from eachother.
I would phrase “Japanese mains are better” a bit differently though. Germany is going to have a larger volume of players, and will be a more common pick by new players due to their vehicles being more iconic. I’d imagine the fact that the Chi-Nu II is paywalled while the Panzer IV’s are free also affects things.
3 Likes
Italian RB Ground BR’s:
- M15/42: 2.7 down to 2.3. This is a very sad medium tank, and barely an improvement over the M14/41.
5 Likes
French RB Ground BR’s:
- M4A3 (105): 3.0 up to 3.3. This thing is a low tier menace. The stats might not show it, but it’s an instance of submarining.
9 Likes
French RB Ground BR’s:
- AMX-13-M24: No change, just make it Rank III. Seems like this was missed in the last BR thread.
10 Likes
That’s definitely true. More experienced players would buy something like the Chi-Nu II, is what I should say. Or at the very least, be willing to grind through Japan, in comparison to the Big Three nations
1 Like
M13/40 (I)
it_m13_40_serie_1
-
Arcade Battle BR: 1.7 → 1.3
-
Realistic Battle BR: 1.7 → 1.3
-
8 mm Reload Speed: 8.0 s → 3.0 s
-
Add Granata mod.35 (HE)
Rationale
The M13/40 (I) has some armor, but the mobility is on the slower side, and the gun is very underwhelming in all regards except post-pen damage. There’s no reason this couldn’t be 1.3. The Pz.III F is at 1.3 and already smokes it in basically every single aspect (though I would also argue the Pz.III F stands to go up).
The short mg magazines make them unreliable for dispatching unarmored or open-topped vehicles. The HE round already found on the Semovente L40 would be a more reliable measure.
15 Likes
I am glad that the Japanese Community and, hopefully, the Japanese mainland Community are going to reach out once they hear about how Japan is treated outside of their country. Cause quite frankly, it is tiring seeing Japanese vehicles get placed higher and higher and barely lower.
Simply because we Japan mains can actually perform competitively at our relative BR, but instead of it being rewarded, we get punished for being better than a majority of the community.
1 Like
M13/40 (II) & (III)
it_m13_40_serie_2
it_m13_40_serie_3
-
Arcade Battle BR: 2.0 → 1.7
-
Realistic Battle BR: 2.0 → 1.7
-
47 mm Reload Speed: 2.9 s → 3.1 s
-
8 mm Reload Speed: 8.0 s → 3.0 s
-
Add Granata mod.35 (HE)
Rationale
These two vehicles are nearly identical to the M13/40 (I) apart from slightly nicer elevation limits and better fire rates. These modest improvements over the M13/40 (II) & (III) don’t make 2.0 worthy vehicles when other nations get overall better tanks as reserves.
I propose a very slight reload nerf because a combination of high post-pen damage and fire rate could make them a bit too proficient at massacring reserve tanks under the right circumstances. Just 3.1 seconds is still very fast, but gives 37 mm armed vehicles a better fighting chance against it.
12 Likes
well I havent actually requested a change, I know it’ll fall on deaf ears but here we go:
All Air Realistic Battles
A6M5 Ko/Otsu 5.7 → 5.3.
Reason: They are already over tiered. 6.0 is asinine. The actual performance of these airframes is far removed from the performance level of aircraft at the BRs Gaijin has put them at. For example the Spitfire F Mk IX is at worst equal in performance, and realistically higher in performance, and is only just now going from 4.3 to 4.7. This Spitfire is also a turn fighter that fits almost an identical playstyle to the A6M5, while being generally faster. I dont see a reason why Spitfires are fairly balanced but Zeros are not.
A6M5 Hei/A6M6: 5.3 → 5.0.
Reason: Same as above. They are both slower and heavier than the Ko/Otsu. they struggled to be relevant at 4.7, let alone 5.0.
A6M3, A6M3 Mod 22: Cancel suggested changes.
Reason: Again, same as A6M5s. except the A6M3s are all even slower in all areas. These two only have the Type 99 Mod 1 cannons which are much worse.
A6M3 Mod 22 Ko: 5.0 → 4.7.
Reason: Climbs, dives, rolls worse than the A6M5 also at 5.0. Less powerful engine, shouldn’t be at the same BR as the A6M5 due to clear lack of performance.
Yak-3U: 5.7 → 6.3.
Reason: This is easily the strongest plane at 5.7 and will remain strong at 6.3. Its criminally undertiered and there is absolutely no justification for it to be 0.3 below Gaijins suggested BR for the A6M5 Ko/Otsu.
10 Likes
M14/41
it_m14_41
-
Arcade Battle BR: 2.3 → 1.7
-
Realistic Battle BR: 2.0 → 1.7
-
47 mm Reload Speed: 2.9 s → 3.1 s
-
8 mm Reload Speed: 8.0 s → 3.0 s
-
Add Granata mod.35 (HE)
Rationale
The M14/41 is, all things considered, not much of an upgrade over the M13/40 (I). Apart from the better p/w and fire rate, its still largely the same tank, now trying to make the already anemic gun work at 2.0, where it’s starting to face some tanks it can’t reliably pierce. Lowering the arcade battle BR would let it form a line-up with its Semovente counterpart without facing some of the exceptionally well armored howitzer vehicles at 3.3.
13 Likes