I_Am_Bob224

Restructuring Swedish Vehicle Progression

Opinions  

33 members have voted

  1. 1. What Option Do You Prefer?

    • Option 1 [5 Lines]
      17
    • Option 2 [4 Lines]
      5
    • Option 3 [4 Lines]
      3
    • Option 4 [4 Lines]
      1
    • Other Option [Put In A Comment]
      3
    • The Tree Is Fine As Is
      4


Progression Issue?

Well currently I feel that the Swedish Tech Trees Tank Progression is a bit of a mess, and the previous vehicle you driven sometimes has no correlation on gameplay or tactics for the next vehicle. This can be fine if its a one off occasion, but there are several key issues I have a problem with. 
Issues:

1. Strv m/31 Reserve Light Tank Leads To Ikv 72, A Hull Based Tank Destroyer, Then That Leads To The Strvm/41 S-II, A Light Tank

2. Pvkv II Turret Based Tank Destroyer Leads To The Ikv 103, A Hull Based Tank Destroyer, And That Again Leads To A Light Tank

3. The Strv 81 MBT Leads To Two Strv 103's, Hull Based MBT, And Those Lead To The Strv 121, A Turret Based MBT
4. Questionable IFV Placements
5. The ATGM Carriers Are A Mess
 

As you can see I have an issue with this, and i'm sure a lot of new or casual players would too. For example it would be like putting ME-410's randomly throughout the German Fighter Line. Lets say you worked hard to get the Strv 103, and you hope you get some new vehicle to replace your Strv 81, but your gameplay style has to be drastically altered to play it, making all the skills you learned throughout the entire main tank line useless. Or those random Hull Based Tank Destroyers in the Light Tank/Turret Based Tank Destroyer line. The skills you learn in the previous vehicle, should attempt to be correlated onto the next whenever possible.

I personally came up with 5 Options for how to restructure the tree. I ONLY am using vehicle's already in the game, and drew great inspiration from Taeblamees Restructuring German Tank Destroyer/Light Tank Vehicle Progression. On top of this there are many advantages each of these options have. Basing the tree off of Role of the vehicle, rather then just random placement, allows them to fit in more designs per that role, rather then trying to fit it wherever possible. My personal pick is Option 1 for reasons I will list below.

 

Current Swedish Ground Forces Tree

 

Option 1 5 Lines

Light Tanks/IFV's -- Medium/MBT -- SPAA -- Hull Based TD's/Tanks -- Turret Based TD's

Spoiler

697928924_Option1Cropped.thumb.PNG.4c206

Advantages:

-Similar Gameplay Roles Per Line

-Room For Future Tank Development
Disadvantages:

-Massive Gaps Currently For 5 Lines

 

Why?
I would personally choose this if you prefer to have a complete separation of gameplay variety per line, and you want each lines progression to teach you how to play the next vehicle. On top of this there is a lot of room for future development like Artillery Based Howitzers in the Turreted Tank Destroyer Line, or brand new Light Tanks just being some examples. I wanted to include the Strf 9056 could be in the Turreted Tank Destroyer Line if necessary.

 

Option 2 4 Lines

Light Tanks/Turret Based TD's/IFV's -- Medium/MBT -- SPAA -- Hull Based TD's/Tanks

Spoiler

1339993373_Option2Cropped.thumb.PNG.f878

Advantages:

-Most Similar Gameplay Roles In Each Line

-More Vehicles In Each Tier/Line
Disadvantages:

-Far Left Line Is Contested By 2 Gameplay Types

-ATGM Carriers Are In The Way Of Strv 103's

 

Why?
I would choose this line if you would like the gameplay to be separate in each line, but you feel that 5 lines is far to much for the amount of tanks we have. Allowing a good middle ground between gameplay styles and amount of content per line.

 

Option 3 4 Lines

Light Tanks/Turret Based TD's/IFV's/ATGM Carriers -- Medium Tanks/MBT's -- SPAA -- Hull Based TD's

Spoiler

1707821580_Option3Cropped.thumb.PNG.ba03

Advantages:

-Most Similar Gameplay Roles In Each Line [Same As OP 2]

-More Vehicles In Each Tier/Line

-ATGM Carriers In Main Line Rather Not Blocking Strv 103's
Disadvantages:

-Far Left Line Is Even More Congested

-ATGM Carriers Could Be Annoying To Grind Through

 

Why?
I would choose this line if you would like the gameplay to be separate in each line like in Option 2, but you dont want the ATGM Carriers to be blocking the Strv 103's, and you want them in the Main Tree.

 

Option 4 4 Lines

Light Tanks/Turret Based TD's/IFV's -- Medium Tanks/MBT's -- SPAA -- Hull Based TD's/ATGM Carriers/Hull Based MBT's

Spoiler

2122295600_Option4Cropped.thumb.PNG.08ec

Advantages:

-Most Similar Gameplay Roles In Each Line [Same As OP 2 & 3]

-More Vehicles In Each Tier/Line

-Left Line Is Significantly Less Congested

-ATGM Carriers In The Main Line
Disadvantages:

-Far Left Line Is Contested By 2 Gameplay Types

-ATGM Carriers Making Progression To Strv 103 Longer

 

Why?
I would choose this line if you dont like the placement of the ATGM Carriers in the previous 2 Options. This would allow them to be in the main tree, and not block the end of the Strv 103 line. Even though you have to grind it to get the Strv 103, this is my personal choice out of all the 4 line variants.

 

Again, I completely took inspiration from others and especially Taeblammees Tank Destroyer/Light Vehicle Restructuring, I highly recommend you take a look at it. 

Again, I just wanted to make progression smoother in the Swedish Tank Tree, allowing gameplay types to stay as close to the same in every line, rather then being a mess like it is now. I hope you guys like the suggestion, and thanks to anyone who leaves a idea in the comments or votes on the poll. All new suggestions are welcome, feel free to comment below.

 

Edited by I_Am_Bob224
Formatting
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should incorporate a Nordic line with vehicles from Denmark, Norway and Finland. It's unlikely that there is going to be a separate tree for these nations and having them represented solely as premiums doesn't do justice for the community. There needs to be at least one line featuring some of their most unique vehicles.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Sp15 said:

never gonna support a strv 103 in the td line

But the reason being is the Gameplay between the two are near identical. Putting it in a Medium Tank line just as a stopgap between 2 tanks means you have to completely have 2 different play styles between all the MBT's.

If you know how to drive Hull Based Tank Destroyers, you can drive the 103. But if you know how to drive Medium Tanks its nothing close to the 103.

Edited by I_Am_Bob224
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/05/2020 at 19:55, I_Am_Bob224 said:

But the reason being is the Gameplay between the two are near identical. Putting it in a Medium Tank line just as a stopgap between 2 tanks means you have to completely have 2 different play styles between all the MBT's.

If you know how to drive Hull Based Tank Destroyers, you can drive the 103. But if you know how to drive Medium Tanks its nothing close to the 103.

Only because the aiming is broken and the mobility is underperforming. It's clearly not a TD.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stridswombat said:

Only because the aiming is broken and the mobility is underperforming. It's clearly not a TD.

But what im saying is even though it is technically a MBT. In game play style for the Strv-103 is identical to any hull based tank destroyer, and you would usually plan them as such.

You generally should never rush in like a Medium Tank to contest capture points with it and engage in close quarters, and should usually play it more of a passive area denial/sniping role.

Edited by I_Am_Bob224
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, I_Am_Bob224 said:

But what im saying is even though it is technically a MBT. In game play style for the Strv-103 is identical to any hull based tank destroyer, and you would usually plan them as such.

You generally should never rush in like a Medium Tank to contest capture points with it and engage in close quarters, and should usually play it more of a passive area denial/sniping role.

That's what I'm disagreeing with. If it was modeled correctly you wouldn't have to play it that way. It's much slower and less accurate in its movements than irl.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/05/2020 at 19:55, I_Am_Bob224 said:

But the reason being is the Gameplay between the two are near identical. Putting it in a Medium Tank line just as a stopgap between 2 tanks means you have to completely have 2 different play styles between all the MBT's.

If you know how to drive Hull Based Tank Destroyers, you can drive the 103. But if you know how to drive Medium Tanks its nothing close to the 103.

 

9 hours ago, I_Am_Bob224 said:

But what im saying is even though it is technically a MBT. In game play style for the Strv-103 is identical to any hull based tank destroyer, and you would usually plan them as such.

You generally should never rush in like a Medium Tank to contest capture points with it and engage in close quarters, and should usually play it more of a passive area denial/sniping role.

He has a point, putting it in the TD makes the most sense considering the fact that the Strv 103's cannot be played like any Average MBT.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/06/2020 at 16:58, Cpt_Jack_Irons said:

He has a point, putting it in the TD makes the most sense considering the fact that the Strv 103's cannot be played like any Average MBT.

Would you put the M3 in the TD line in the US tree? I wouldn't think so. Again, it only performs the way it does because it's incorrectly implemented. If it was correctly implemented it would be more comparable to other tanks.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Stridswombat said:

Would you put the M3 in the TD line in the US tree? I wouldn't think so. Again, it only performs the way it does because it's incorrectly implemented. If it was correctly implemented it would be more comparable to other tanks.

I mean to be fair the M3 Lee has a Turreted Gun to work with, it would be like saying the French B1 is a Tank Destroyer because its main gun is mounted in the hull. The M3 Lee has some way to work with being a turreted tank.

On the other side the Strv 103 cannot be played anywhere near the same style as a Leopard 2A4 and if you do you normally die really quickly trying to get that gun pointed at someone around the corner.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/06/2020 at 18:48, Stridswombat said:

Would you put the M3 in the TD line in the US tree? I wouldn't think so. Again, it only performs the way it does because it's incorrectly implemented. If it was correctly implemented it would be more comparable to other tanks.

You compared an Swedish "MBT" with a Fixed gun to an American WW2 Medium Tank just because it has an weird gun setup...

 

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cpt_Jack_Irons said:

You compared an Swedish "MBT" with a Fixed gun to an American WW2 Medium Tank just because it has an weird gun setup...

 

? No I would never compare the MBT [103] to the Lee, i'm just saying it because the comment above mentioned the Lee not being in the TD line because it has a Hull Based Gun but its playstyle is not close to a Hull Based Tank Destroyer at all.

My point is purely the playstyle for why I put the tanks in that line.

Edited by I_Am_Bob224
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, I_Am_Bob224 said:

? No I would never compare the MBT [103] to the Lee, i'm just saying it because the comment above mentioned the Lee not being in the TD line because it has a Hull Based Gun but its playstyle is not close to a Hull Based Tank Destroyer at all.

My point is purely the playstyle for why I put the tanks in that line.

no i'm agreeing with you @I_Am_Bob224, i was responding to @Stridswombat

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cpt_Jack_Irons said:

You compared an Swedish "MBT" with a Fixed gun to an American WW2 Medium Tank just because it has an weird gun setup...

 

The M3's primary gun is the 75mm. In that it is no different to strv 103. What they both also have in common is they were designed and built for an intended role and that determines what they are. To say the 103 isn't a MBT and shouldn't be treated as one is no different than treating the M3 as a TD which it is also not.

 

On 06/06/2020 at 05:40, I_Am_Bob224 said:

I mean to be fair the M3 Lee has a Turreted Gun to work with, it would be like saying the French B1 is a Tank Destroyer because its main gun is mounted in the hull. The M3 Lee has some way to work with being a turreted tank.

On the other side the Strv 103 cannot be played anywhere near the same style as a Leopard 2A4 and if you do you normally die really quickly trying to get that gun pointed at someone around the corner.

The 37mm gun is far from its primary armament and is quite underwhelming at the BR. It's main firepower still comes from the 75mm which is mounted in the hull. The M3 is also nowhere near as mobile as strv 103. The 103 right now can't be played like anything because it is fundamentally a broken implementation of a tank. Something I've said twice now and which you haven't responded to is that if it was properly implemented it would be able to play as a MBT.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Stridswombat said:

The M3's primary gun is the 75mm. In that it is no different to strv 103. What they both also have in common is they were designed and built for an intended role and that determines what they are. To say the 103 isn't a MBT and shouldn't be treated as one is no different than treating the M3 as a TD which it is also not.

 

The 37mm gun is far from its primary armament and is quite underwhelming at the BR. It's main firepower still comes from the 75mm which is mounted in the hull. The M3 is also nowhere near as mobile as strv 103. The 103 right now can't be played like anything because it is fundamentally a broken implementation of a tank. Something I've said twice now and which you haven't responded to is that if it was properly implemented it would be able to play as a MBT.

My point is you can't play the 103's like any other MBT's at the same Battle Rating.

Gameplay wise it makes more sense to put the Strv 103's in the Armored TD line since it behaves like one rather than an MBT

Edited by Cpt_Jack_Irons
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unrelated i recently made this and i thought it might be relevant to this discussion. It is my idea of what an expanded and reshuffled Swedish tank tt could look like.
https://live.warthunder.com/post/910312/en/
swedish+tt+expanded.png

If we just consider the in game vehicles atm.

image.thumb.png.2af00dfb2918508926561ecd
 

Edited by blockhaj
added pic
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, blockhaj said:

Unrelated i recently made this and i thought it might be relevant to this discussion.

I personnally more agree with your work.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sternjager said:

I personally more agree with your work.

Ty

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, blockhaj said:

Unrelated i recently made this and i thought it might be relevant to this discussion. It is my idea of what an expanded and reshuffled Swedish tank tt could look like.
https://live.warthunder.com/post/910312/en/
[image]


If we just consider the in game vehicles atm.

[image]
 

In the more populated tree, the Strv 105 appears twice in the line, did you mean to write one of them as Strv 106 or 104?

 

It'll be interesting to see how many of those gets added in the future.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arne7 said:

In the more populated tree, the Strv 105 appears twice in the line, did you mean to write one of them as Strv 106 or 104?

 

It'll be interesting to see how many of those gets added in the future.

Its an error. Its meant to be 104 > 105.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, blockhaj said:

Unrelated i recently made this and i thought it might be relevant to this discussion. It is my idea of what an expanded and reshuffled Swedish tank tt could look like.
https://live.warthunder.com/post/910312/en/
swedish+tt+expanded.png

Would it not be better to move lvakan 4501, the late pvkv m/43 and pvkv IV earlier in the tree? In the case of the pvkv, it has worse performance than the 1954 version and in the case of the lvakan I feel it's more needed as a tank destroyer (like the flak truck) to fill the 5.0-6.0 gap. Pvkv IV could probably do with being moved down aswell since it's just a worse version of Pvkv III, neither of which have the performance of strv m/42 imo. It would probably be more like a 2.0 or 2.3 TD. Maybe put stormpjäs fm/43-44 after stormpjäs fm/43 aswell since it is the natural successor to it.

Is stormpjäs fm/43 with the 10.5cm gun the same as this?

SPG_version_of_the_Tk_fm49_with_10,5cm_H

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.