+1, but I’m not sure how it should be added. Ideally it would end up in a united commonwealth tree alongside Australia, South Africa, and Indie, but I don’t think that’s probable.
As for the whole copy/paste thing, keep the stuff that provides a gameplay difference in any of the modes, a capability difference, or a non-minor visual difference. However, I do want to see RCAF skins for the aircraft we currently have in WT.
-1. It seems like a very well-researched tree, but the majority (if not vast majority) of vehicles — even if built in Canada/have slight modifications — will play very similarly to vehicles already in game. Being license-built doesn’t mean they’re going to be good additions if they’re still practically identical to existing ones. A good tech tree is one that is majority unique domestically designed vehicles, and where most non-domestic ones are heavily modified/upgraded, imho. Not just screaming “AHH C+P”, because I do like C+P in some scenarios.
I think Canada just has to be relegated to existing trees (UK, USA) because there simply isn’t enough here to justify a whole new nation.
Would make for a great subtree or a part of a combined tree! Lots of interesting vehicles, but they play similarly to pre-existing ones for the most part, and as such I don’t think this deserves an independent tech tree.
+1 from me. Got to think of it as an overall Canada addition with the ground and naval included etc. And Canada’s ground tree is definitely worth having. The air tree is solid even if it doesn’t bring as many vehicles that are “fully unique” where most are license built, sometimes not changing much from the original. Even so, I’m not here to deny the historical recognition aspect of it.
And it’s unlikely a Canadian tech tree would remain purely Canadian, so other nation/s would likely be added to it bring even more flavor.
The couple BR observations I noticed at first glance (irrelevant observations so no need to change the tree, I just wanted to say it), the FDB-1 I think would be higher than 1.0, it’s closer in performance to an I-153 than a Gladiator IMO. And the CF-105, possibly fine where it is, but could vary wildly in the game depending on the performance of the missiles. It does seem a little unlikely to me it would be a higher BR than a Starfighter since the Starfighters are generally faster, have a gun and the missiles are potentially more effective in game.
Thanks, Paulie, I’m going to use you for some of my own thoughts.
Indeed, as pointed out the ground has plenty but other areas need some help, like the air tree here you could use a bit more uniqueness and some extra help in the jet age. Well I’ve seen a number of things thrown around but I think fewer is better and only your ANZAC sub-trees would be all that is needed if you ask me.
(links of others)
hmmmm… It’s something I never could get the BR down for, but looking at other 1.0s you’re right 1.3 or 1.7 would likely be better.
??? I mean both at least in this tree are the same BR, but indeed I can’t see them being too high, they used to be 9.3-9.7 until I was talked into bringing them up a BR.
Some other of my other thoughts:
If I were to redo this indeed of a blanket tree to match the ground tree, I’d make an idealist tree by combining lines 1 and 2 for WW2 and redoing the jet age, and putting a few more of the C&P as premiums and events. As bar a few of the C&Ps the only line I’m 100% satisfied with is line 5.
Well, we had to remove a few things due to not being able to find photos, I’m just glad where are done as this has been worked on since August/October of '23.
I mean other Starfighters already in the game, the USA ones for example are 9.3. Even an AIM-9B could potentially be more useful than an AIM-4 if that’s all it gets, but I don’t know enough off the top of my head to say that with certainty. But the F-104 at least having the gun as option means it isn’t totally reliant on the missile’s performance either.
+1 from me. This would be a dream come true.
Best part is it gives way for a very solid and unique ground tree.
🤨
The only way a Canadian Air TT would work at all is if it’s paired with Australia to give it needed variety
Here’s what I picture a Canadian TT would look like if it’s paired with Australia
Note: Even though there’s a dedicated Australian and Canadian Fighter lines Both do operate some aircraft that are on the other line so they’ll be represented as a skin
Note: The main reason why the F-4E is classified as a “Strike” aircraft is that they lack any AAM’s due to Australia not equipping them with any other than AIM-9B’s. Not helped by the fact that the F-4E had a very short service life in the RAAF functioning as a stopgap until the first Aardvarks are put into service. The CF-101’s and CF-105’s are absent due to balancing concerns
Tier’s VII & VIII are sparse due to very few options. The CF-18A & CA-36A suppose to represent the very early variants
Make them skins instead of repeated aircraft when there is an identical model in the UK tree, jets could go here and there between gaps, the CF-188 could probably go to the end of the line behind Harriers or something.
Sub tree in UK or USA would be better -1
Hey why not, the company I work for does. Both use and abuse.
I sincerely believe that it would be more judicious to implement only the most original models among these proposals within a tech-tree of the Commonwealth. I think first of India and Australia, but the others are concerned too. This is also a bit what Gaijin started to do in the UK TT.
This way we would see more original designs in the same tree, avoiding adding more and more copies, even if they have minor modifications due to licensed productions as finely justified by OP.
We have the brits , just put them there, most of the stuff is theirs anyways
If you’re gonna suggest a Canadian Tree, at least spell “Sabre” right
AAAAAA! I see it now.
No matter how many times you check for errors something always gets through, and we even had a good group of people looking at it. I bet there are other errors I missed then…
Well, now that I’m here I might as well bring up some of the planes I had to remove:
We couldn’t find photos of these two, so we had to remove them.
What I’d say is this was looking to be the best Hurricane variant, as this Canadian-built one has better engines, with the 4 20mm, despite a number of websites saying it existed we couldn’t find photos so it was removed.
I don’t have much to say, just a Canadian-built mosquito with only two built so photos, we couldn’t find.
Honourable mentions:
A Lancaster equipped with the Orenda engines that were for the CF-100s. From what I found/heard it was lost in a fire.
A B-47 equipped with an Iroquois engine for the CF-105. It was given back to the US but had to be scrapped after no longer being air worthy after testing. Wither that was due to the power of the engine or how it was mounted I have no clue.
Both of these served as test beds for the engines and in turn were unarmed and not WT possible despite this being the only way Canada could have gotten a jet bomber without another nation(tho, out of the two the Lancaster, I find is more reasonable of the two.)
annnnnnd germany if you include ground
