Belgian Ground Forces Sub-tree - Resist and Bite!

[Beeschurger]

@Thomas_Belgium

I presume you like to use the C&P argument for whole tech trees then?

To extent, yes.

@Thomas_Belgium

Gaijin certainly won’t be able to literally copy and paste a vehicle from one TT to the other

Im sorry are we playing the same game?
Gaijin does that.

Gaijin does that a lot.

@Thomas_Belgium

How do you view the addition of the M1A1 AIM or the M1A1 vs the M1A1 SEP? All of these tanks are (slight) modifications, sometimes not even visual ones, (read like C&P to some) of a base model already in game.

Not an issue actually, as they are all in US tech tree, a TT of nation that designed it and produced it. US could actually get every variant of abrams ever produced and i wouldnt bat an eye.

However if the australian abrams went to UK for example, i would have an issue with it.

@Thomas_Belgium

I could understand why adding another (1) M8 to a tech tree could upset players that already have such a vehicle

No you dont understand - the issue isnt that it would upset players that already have it.

It would upset US players that dont have event Greyhound but want it in the US tech tree.

[mr_boo]

@Beeschurger

No you dont understand - the issue isnt that it would upset players that already have it.

It would upset US players that dont have event Greyhound but want it in the US tech tree.

Dude the Greyhound isn’t that big of a deal, it’s not my fault if Gaijin didn’t put it in the main US TT and it won’t stop me from suggesting the modified M8 in a tree that’s not the US

[Thomas_Belgium]

@Beeschurger

Im sorry are we playing the same game?
Gaijin does that.

Gaijin does that a lot.

Indeed they do, but to stay in the context of this suggestion post they wouldn’t be able to, as it is NOT a literal copy-paste vehicle.

@Beeschurger

Not an issue actually, as they are all in US tech tree, a TT of nation that designed it and produced it. US could actually get every variant of abrams ever produced and i wouldnt bat an eye.

However if the australian abrams went to UK for example, i would have an issue with it.

I see, you want nation-based exclusivity for the origin-producer. This POV has the core property that it would make almost all nations in game unable to form any historical TTs, as almost any nation on the planet imports equipment from various producers, save for a select few, such as the US, USSR and France. Almost all other nations have only a minority native defensive industry on ALL fronts (like Germany, Sweden, Italy, China only since 2008 really self-sustaining).

You do see that there are only three nations in the game that would profit from this standpoint, right? The US, USSR and France would get tons of foreign equipment which they never used, that could be used in their already bloated tech tree. And almost all nations in the world would have their equipment spread out all over other nations, such as Canada(US, UK, GER), Turkey (US, IT), Romania(GER, IT, FRA), Australia(US, UK), Czech Republic (GER, USSR), etc.

@Beeschurger

It would upset US players that dont have event Greyhound but want it in the US tech tree.

This and the exact lazy chinese C&P is a Gaijin decision that isn’t even in this suggestion, so I naturally presumed it wouldn’t need to be discussed here. No vehicle in the suggestion could be literally C&P-ed, that’s what I was saying. I wasn’t talking about Gaijins lazy history with simply adding the first import vehicles they could find to a tech tree instead of the, most often, native modifications that would soon follow, such as ex.g. (laser) rangefinder modifications and their own tracks on USSR-bought tanks that the Chinese would often add.
We have seen Gaijin can be lazy (read: efficient in company terms) sometimes. This shouldn’t be the place to criticise that. We can’t decide for Gaijin, only suggest.

[WalletWorrier]

I quite like this as a traditional subtree for France, though I disagree with some of the BRs

[Beeschurger]

@mr_boo

Greyhound isn’t that big of a deal

Maybe to you, back when chinese TT greyhound was first announced, it caused quite the uproar.

@mr_boo

not my fault if Gaijin didn’t put it in the main US TT

Indeed, not your fault.

@mr_boo

won’t stop me from suggesting the modified M8 in a tree that’s not the US

Suggest it all you want, i just explained as to why some people might not like it.

@Thomas_Belgium

NOT a literal copy-paste vehicle.

I think we are stretching the definition of what is and what is not copy paste.

The suggested greyhound is literally greyhound but with one extra armored plate?

And you call that NOT copy paste?

@Thomas_Belgium

nation-based exclusivity for the origin-producer.

Not quite. Whenever possible, yes or whenever it makes sense.

@Thomas_Belgium

would make almost all nations in game unable to form any historical TTs, as almost any nation on the planet imports equipment from various producers, save for a select few

Whenever possible, domesticaly designed and produced equipment should be added before import.

Dont get me wrong im all for most of the unique vehicles from this suggestion to be added to game.

Just not 3/4 of the leopards as they do not differ that much from what is already present in game. As britain doesnt need canadian leopard 1s, so does france does not need belgian leo1s, especially when they have their own domestic equivalent of amx30, a tank that was the result of the same program as leo1 was before the split.

The cockerill leo? Sure, that IS unique and distinct from base leo 1 enough.

[mr_boo]

Hm, maybe you could share your opinion on some BRs?

[mr_boo]

@Beeschurger

I think we are stretching the definition of what is and what is not copy paste.

There’s really no single definition, it’s always up to personal interpretation and that’s unfortunately the source of many pointless arguments on the forum

[WalletWorrier]

Sure
The Servals are very undertiered, with excellent mobility and powerful albeit low-velocity cannons. They’re somewhat similar to the PT-76, but more mobile and I’d guess a BR of somewhere around 5.0, though with the low velocity and without more information on the vehicle’s automotive performance it’s somewhat nebulous.

SIBMAS Rarden is just a BTR-80A equivalent, it should be the same BR.

SIMBAS 120 is just a Type 87 RCV without APFSDS, 8.3ish

DF30 is VBCI-2 equivalent, 9.0
*Note I think the VBCI is overtiered ATM but balancing new vehicles should be based on the game’s current state, not the ideal one

C3030 is a direct upgrade, and the LGR just sounds like a discount ATGM
9.3/9.7 depending on ammo count

DF30l
Vilkas. 10.3.

AEC III
AEC II is 3.0 with the better, stabilized 6pndr. 2.7.

USH M20
The M20 only has 100mm pen, a number beaten by most armoured cars by 2.7. 3.3

Switch the Valkyr and SIBMAS 90, the SIBMAS is just straight up more mobile

Valkyr CSE 90
Less mobile and protected than the SIBMAS at the same BR, 7.7

Boxer
Really doesn’t offer a huge amount other comparable vehicles such as the M1128, ZLT-11, CT-CV, Centauro, etc. Heck, the Centauro 120 is 11.3 with 626mm penetration and better mobility. 10.7.

M113 CM90
Feels more 6.7 than 6.3 but idk

Scorpion 90
The Scorpion is literally the fastest tank ever and decently low profile. 7.3. Later versions also had LRF, 8.0 if the Belgian trial vehicle had that

Cobra 90
At 8.3 you’ve got the MARS 15 which is largely identical, though with much less penetration. 8.7. M41 LTS 90 is likely similar though without ammo info it’s impossible to say for sure.

Leo 1A5 C3105, K21-105, K-21 XC-8
Similar to the Boxer, these don’t offer that much over comparable vehicles. Look at the CV90120. 10.3/10.7. I’d then say add the 120mm variant for the top tier.

JPK-90
LRF and excellent mobility at 7.0??? 7.3/7.7
*I personally think the JPz 4-5 should be 7.0 itself

FN-4
See Serval, 4.3/4.7

Cobra 25
It’s basically a Falcon with LRF, 8.3

M113 LCTS 90
LRF and powerful gun, 8.7

[mr_boo]

@WalletWorrier

The Servals are very undertiered, with excellent mobility and powerful albeit low-velocity cannons. They’re somewhat similar to the PT-76, but more mobile and I’d guess a BR of somewhere around 5.0, though with the low velocity and without more information on the vehicle’s automotive performance it’s somewhat nebulous.

That seems a bit high with the very low muzzle velocity and mediocre hull

(All the autocannon ones i can’t argue with bc i am very unfamiliar with their playstyle so i won’t comment)

@WalletWorrier

Switch the Valkyr and SIBMAS 90, the SIBMAS is just straight up more mobile

Valkyr CSE 90
Less mobile and protected than the SIBMAS at the same BR, 7.7

I’m not sure if the SIBMAS is that much more mobile but it is a bigger target.

@WalletWorrier

Leo 1A5 C3105, K21-105, K-21 XC-8
Similar to the Boxer, these don’t offer that much over comparable vehicles. Look at the CV90120. 10.3/10.7. I’d then say add the 120mm variant for the top tier.

Not sure why they would get a lower BR than the CV 90120? The M1060CV rounds they use penetrate 560 mm at 2000 m and 60°, though yes with Gaijin’s own calculator those figures would surely go down but it would still be a very, very punchy round

@WalletWorrier

JPK-90
LRF and excellent mobility at 7.0??? 7.3/7.7

Idk i can’t see it performing well at those high BRs, it’ll probably suffer more than anything with most maps being short range

@WalletWorrier

M113 LCTS 90
LRF and powerful gun, 8.7

Fair but the M113 chassis is trash

[WalletWorrier]

@mr_boo

The M1060CV rounds they use penetrate 560 mm at 2000 m and 60

The CV90120 has the same 5s autoloader, better mobility at least than the 1A5 (can’t say the K-21 for sure), incredible sights, and a 120mm APFSDS with 640mm penetration at 2km 60deg. This shell also naturally has more spalling due to its larger size.

Even the Abrams have superior mobility, armour, and firepower with the same 5s reload, though of course that’s manual.

[mr_boo]

Hm, we’ll have to see i guess
I could still put the K21 XC-8 120 at 11.3 then

[bbbdddaaa]

+1 as a sub tree
keep the line format though. much easier to use(or maybe because i got used to it)

[mr_boo]

Well there’s an issue with a 6th line like i said and it’s that it’s simply impossible for now, and a possible alternative (tab trees) happens to solve many problems regarding a lot of new nations (no top tier, no low tier, too few vehicles, etc for example)

[mr_boo]

Would you guys like to see an air subtree suggestion? (that one can be a single line)

[bbbdddaaa]

Ok, but i don’t think belgium has enough native planes to be a sub-tree.

[Thomas_Belgium]

Is there currently a nation in game that has a native planes subtree?

[bbbdddaaa]

Add it if you want

[Thomas_Belgium]

I was asking you for an example. If Belgium (a nation that had an active aviation industry untill the 50s) and the Netherlands (that had FOKKER) don’t count as good subtrees, which nations that aren’t established in game already would fit your criteria?

[bbbdddaaa]

fine. you have convinced me that belgium can have an air sub tree

[Chilean_Thunder]

I really liked the idea of ​​it being a sub tree for France, I also saw that it has several indigenous vehicles which is always better, I have no problems with some copy/paste tanks as long as they fill some gaps, +1