I think I found the “LAV roadrunner”
“LAV Chapfire”
But I can’t find who built it, but at the very least looks like the US tested it so they have a claim and not Canada.
3 Likes
Before you jump to ownership, this was a private venture by GM Defense in Canada. It’s also known as the LAV Roadrunner/CCSLEP.
I think the problem is there is substantial overlap in our two defence industries, something that rigid nation boundaries have difficulty containing. This is also true for European hardware; the Boxer, Eurofighter Typhoon, and others can’t be contained to a single country because multiple partners, cross-border subsidiaries, etc work on them. Welcome to trade liberalization.
To the point on the LAV-25, where do you think those are ultimately manufactured? It’s London, Ontario – including US Strykers. Additionally, do you know that the LAV-25 is also just called the LAV II, and is used by more than the US? The LAV the USMC operates is also used in very large quantity by the SANG and is by no means American only.
Ok, but was it untested? As vehicle rules have changed(for suggestions at least) Private or not if another nation tested or used it, Canada can no longer claim the vehicle for itself and it’s the nation the tested/used it who have full claim to it.
I had to remove a number of aircraft from the Canadian Air tree due to these rules.
I’m well aware who made the LAVs I’m constantly correcting people about misinformation about it and is my favorite modern vehicle family.
To point this out the LAV-AG you have on your tree, when I found it on the old from Thatz told me it wasn’t possible for Canada.
So in order to add to Canada you need to make sure either
A) Canada tested or used the thing
Or
B) A Canadian company made it but no one tested it.
If none tested this “LAV Roadrunner” go ahead, I’ll take it. More SPAA is always needed anyways.
What an excellent use of tax payer dollars lmfao
If that’s the rule, it is an unrealistic rule and I will ignore it for my purposes.
Nation of manufacture should exclusively trump trialing a thing. One requires substantial capital investment, and the other requires “bringing an example over via freight, and playing with it for a few afternoons.”
It also assumes the firm manufacturing the machine doesn’t trial it at the plant, and simply ships it off, which is unrealistic.
1 Like
Unfortunately its what in place. As seen here:
So if I’ve taken a stance if I can’t suggest it under Canada I can’t consider it a possible addition weather or not I wanted to keep it. (Heck I tried to keep those aircraft as long a possible)
But because you didn’t tell me if it’s untested or not, I’m going to assume the US tested it as they usually test all these things, and despite how nice it would be for Canada, I’ll have to consider it a none option.
1 Like
That’s fine. I’d also make the claim that Operator Nation, and the Tree that it’s part of do not have to be the same. I’m totally alright with American Operated, Canadian manufactured vehicles in the Canadian ground forces tree, similar to the TAM, and KV-IB.
The TAM is an Argentinian vehicle and it’s a nation without a home. It is in Germany as Germany helped make it.
The KV-1B is a vehicle that those who enjoy Finish stuff have been fighting for, as Gaijin won’t give it, as in a German event vehicle that makes them money.
Well I’d like the Canadian-built vehicle that where rejected by other nations under Canada myself, I don’t make the rules, nor do I want to piss off the American mains as do to them being one of the big three their more likely to get their way then not
1 Like
I think Gaijin is more interested in a steady stream of content that makes them money (new nations), than appeasing various parts of the fanbase with a token handful of vehicles. As you said, Gaijin likes the KV-IB because it makes them money.
Heck, if you want to encourage American players who have expended the US ground forces tree to play more, putting vehicles America also trialed or operated later in a Canadian tech tree is a fairly good idea. That’s a lot of premium time, and GE spent on modules you could have.
I guess the point is, what value does the new nation bring to the game? Players aren’t here to play 4 nearly identical Shermans and Leopards, things that are already in the game. They’re not here for PIATs on trucks or an Iltis with 3 total TOW missiles, nor will they pay money for that. If a Canadian tree is a way to include new tanks trialed by the US but made-in-Canada, then that’s a win.
The grizzly is made in Canada too, you removed a lot <<
1 Like
Eh, I wanted to go lean with it, all muscle-no fat. Grizzly felt like something that was represented in the game already, so put it in premium.
Thanks,
Hydroxideblue
Copy and past is not important at this point, every nation have c&p so I don’t see the problem
1 Like
It matters if I’m trying to present this as something marketable. Players aren’t coming for things they’ve already played. I wanted to reflect that by balancing unique and unrepresented vehicles in my tree. The fact that those depth items exist is great for future reference, but I wanted to make something that jumped off the page as “I’ve never seen that!”
No LAV 6.0 and LAV Coyote?
1 Like
Coyote is present, and the LAV 6.0 is effectively represented in the LAV III. They face the problem of the M242 in LAV-25 turret lacking much of an anti-armour punch, so I wanted to limit their presence. Could probably be a premium, but I don’t think many people would spend money on a system that struggles.
I also don’t think they would want to play a struggle-bus 3 times in a row, incurring the research costs of Rank VI. That would get very tiring, very quickly for the average player.
Players Aren’t coming for things they’ve already played ?
I would understand if the tree was like China but it’s not the case, some vehicles are c&p for doing some line
This tree is already fine, your tree remove a lot of fun
1 Like
You remove the vehicle that Canada use the most!
1 Like
LAV 25 is used by USA only
I don’t think people want to labour through 3 Shermans, 3 Covenantors, and the M242 Bushmaster on 3 separate LAV IIIs. There isn’t much of a value add to those beyond more fat, or a deeper lineup. This was principally about “what haven’t we seen,” as what we have seen can be added on later. I wanted to make a lean tree with unique material.
The tree that Thatz suggest have way more stuff in even if you can see some c&p that not important, every trees in game have c&p
Limiting the tree like you did is way less interesting
2 Likes