so, as someone who plays this game primarily as a tanker I can quite fairly claim that the BRs need adjustments. Here my opinion:
- No US vehicle deserves to be put into BR5
76mm Shermans, Firefly and Hellcats are in no single way better than Panther and Tiger tanks, to make them compete with Tiger IIs is ridiculous.
if a player would choose 76mm Shermans over Jumbos - then that player would be trading Protection for firepower, this goes hand in hand and is in no way enough to put those vehicles into different BRs. Also, the Hellcat M18 has nothing that benefits the tank into being worth more than those vehicles - actually its the other way around, being open top without offering benefits should justify it being put into LOWER BRs instead of higher.
1 Like
- No vehicle in this game can match the Tiger II H
Germany is completely dominating BR 5 at the moment, for obvious reasons.
Not only has this vehicle the best gun in the game - it also has the best armor in the game, the US has no where near enough firepower to deal with this tank, while the Soviets has the IS 2 - which has potential but lack power in general while having to struggle with a terribly slow reload time. Both Soviets and US need something that can effectively fight Tiger IIs.
Murrica relies on par to none cas they have, doesnt really require more than 1 or 2 players with cas selected and tanks as well as inf gets obliterated in matter of seconds.
While this is absolutely retarded.
- SPGs are ranked too high
all tank hunters and SPGs trade their overall effectiveness as a vehicle for either more firepower or better protection. A tank that loses its ability to rotate your gun because of having no turret is a downside - and should be absolutely put into consideration when deciding a vehicles BRs.
Also the lack of a MG is a massive downside and should be considered for this as well.
A regular Jagdpanzer IV with the short L48 gun is basically a well armored (60mm) Panzer IV without turret, is it better than a Panzer IV in terms of anti tank power? Same gun, but better armor - so arguably yes, however lacking utility in terms of not having a turret is still a downside, its got a MG, but still performs much worse in terms of anti infantry power. It doesn’t make sense to put a vehicle that is overall performing “worse” than its medium tank base form into HIGHER BRs.
Same logic applies to the Jagdpanzer IV with the long L70 gun. Better armor (80mm) than a Panther tank because it is all sloped, while using the same gun.
So better armor, same gun, worse anti infantry power, worse utility.
Why would this vehicle have a higher BR than Panthers?
Again same logic for SU-85 and T34 85, why has it a higher BR? Its worse in every single aspect besides armor.
1 Like
- Infantry support vehicles are too good at fighting infantry to be put super low.
super fast reloading HE guns can completely dominate the Battlefield and wipe entire teams. All these kinds of vehicles have a super low BR, the ability to kill infantry is the single most important purpose of a vehicle and this should be also a consideration when it comes to BR placement.
until they meet something that actually has armor… so there is counterplay but if your team does not bring tanks themselfs its kinda their own fault. Its still a game about combined arms.
You dont even need to be in a downtier for your tank to have a massive advantage over them.
So thinking about these 4 points, I will now present changes I would personally make:
-
SU-85M from BR V → BR IV
super bad at fighting infantry, having the same gun as T34 85s while having rather strong armor. The SU 85M should be replaced with the regular SU 85 (less armor) and then be put into BR III
-
SU 76 M from BR III → BR II
no armor, no turret, no MG, open top - but a good gun.
-
SU 100 from BR V → BR IV
besides that fact that its gun needs a buff it still has no useful anti infantry power, it doesn’t seem fair to face Tiger IIs, since even Panthers can deal with it.
-
KV 1
its got 75mms of armor that resist 100mm of penetration.
it needs a nerf / fix, then it should stay in BR 3.
-
M10 GMC “Wolverine” from BR IV → BR III
Better gun than regular 75mm Sherman but open top and worse anti infantry power
-
M18 GMC “Hellcat” from BR V → BR III
much better gun than regular 75mm Sherman but open top and bad anti infantry power, however unlike the M10 it has literally no armor. BR 1 vehicles will easily take it out. The mobility is nice, but doesn’t justify it being in bloody BR5 lol.
-
M4A2 (76) W from BR V → BR IV
pretty much the same tank as the other 76mm Sherman, it being in BR5 is a bad joke.
-
Sherman IC “Firefly” from BR V → BR IV
a bit better gun than the other 76mm Shermans - but is a bit clunky, overall comparable performance tho.
-
Chi-Nu from BR IV → BR III
armor and gun are not great enough to put this one into the same BR as Panthers and Jumbos.
-
Panzer III N from BR II → BR III
yes its gun sucks against vehicles, but makes Panzer IV F1 and such obsolete, not only has it much better armor, it also has a top mounted MG. I can see myself picking it over Panzer IV F2s because of its massive anti infantry power.
would be nice for Panzer III N to get HE and HEAT rounds for BR3.
-
Panzer III M from BR II → BR III
this one got the Pumas 50mm L60 gun which is much weaker against infantry than its Panzer III N version, but is good enough to fight mid BR vehicles with a somewhat decent chance - however this Premium vehicle has a very strong gunshield that makes it tank shots against many BR3 vehicles. I can fight both Jumbos and KV1 tanks with this baby.
-
Stug III A from BR II → BR I
This tank is a sad pile of scrap, its HEATs are nice, but still not strong enough compensate for its lack of anti infantry power.
early Stugs were supposed to be infantry support vehicles, it should get its HEAT removed and get HE instead and then be put into BR I
-
Stug III F from BR III → BR II
no MG and no turret, same armor as Panzer III J but the Panzer IV F2 gun.
why would you ever pick it in BR III ?
-
Panzer IV H from BR IV - BR III
yes it has sideskirts, does that make it better than the other Panzer IVs?
If you ask me, it should get its top mounted MG removed just like the Panzer IV J to bring it in line with the other Panzer IVs.
-
Dicker Max from BR IV - BR III
yes it has a better gun than most vehicles, but it has no MG and no turret and is open top, it is in no way comparable to BR IV tanks.
-
Jagdpanzer IV
its got the Panzer IV H gun, no turret, surprisingly a MG with lots of ammo and unlike its older brother only 60mm of sloped armor.
why would anyone in BR IV pick this vehicle tho? its basically a Stug G but with a MG. It should stay in BR IV but get its armor increased to 80mm. Or maybe its MG removed and be put into BR 3.
-
Jagdpanzer IV L70 from BR V → BR IV
the real Jagdpanzer IV with the longer Panther gun and 80mms of armor. Its MG only carry a very low amount of ammo with it and in general sucks out side of having good sloped armor. There is no point in it having a higher BR than Panthers.
-
Panther G / A and Tiger E → BR IV
first thing, it makes zero sense for regular Tigers to be in BR 5, they have a less powerful anti tank gun than Panthers and worse overall armor.
However if we now compare those vehicles against Allied BR4 counterparts, one might say that the Tiger seems rather fair, but the Panther tanks outperform both T34 85s and 76mm Shermans AND even frontally penetrate Jumbos.
My proposal for this is that the Panther tank should get its top mounted MGs removed as well as receive a slight mobility nerf. This would differentiate both Tigers and Panthers better.
-
Tiger II H from BR V to BR VI / remove this vehicle
While the Tiger II P fits well into BR 5 since it has rather weak turret armor that can easily be destroyed even by BR 4 vehicles, the Tiger II H on the other hand does not have this problem. Infact, 185mm of turret armor and 150mm of sloped frontal armor is simply too much for every vehicle in this game.
This can not possibly be balanced.
I would propose that the Tiger II H should be replaced with something that makes more sense, like another Tiger II P, or a prototype Tiger I P, a Ferdinand or a Panther II or some other tank with special ammo.
well that is the trade off, you can’t just get better stats at something that really matters for no reason and still consider it balanced. Some sort of trade off needs to exist.
You trade of AT power for anti infantry power? isnt this the very trade off you wanted?
Having the worse tank can severly hinder your ability to do what you should be doing as you will be severely limited by the enemy tank LOS.
to be fair, having NO anti tank power vs having NO anti infantry power is not part of the debate, rather I am talking about overall abilities.
They either need to remove the tiger II H or add the M26 Pershing/Super-Pershing and even the experimental T29 which I think would be the most fair competition to a Tiger II H.
Imo the current system of tier 1-2, 3 being mixed in and 4-5 is awful. Tier 3 mix in is just resulting in people leaving 4-5 matches to keep rolling to seal club 1-2’s
Imo best solution would be tier 1-2, tier 3-4, and tier 5-6, with the ridiculous crap like the tiger II and potential T29 being put at 6. Alternatively could just do 1-2, 3-4, 5 or something.
1 Like
Agree completely on this point
I think all Tank destroyers (especially ones without MGs) SHould be available a whole BR lower than their turreted counterparts (of the same gun)
Gives them some real value
While Some would be close to hard counters for tanks…they would suck for infantry support. And infantry is how the game is won so I think the tradeoff is fair.
You would have to decide. Do I pick:
Tank destroyer - High AT support, Low Anti infantry.
Light to medium Tanks - High Anti infantry, Low AT support
Heavy - Moderate Infantry support and Moderate AT support
1 Like
I mean, warthunder does it like that right? whats the point in putting SPGs higher than regular tanks? It makes no sense.
1 Like