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
You want to remove some vehicules that Canada use for premium
The tree that Thatz did Is already unique, you don’t need to post your own tree for walking on the hard job they do…
1 Like
To be honest I don’t mind them sharing their ideas and I see some of there points but I do not agree with some of the other points. As that is the point of the suggestions area to discuss and talk about it.
My personal Pro’s
- Includes a few vehicles I missed
- Slimmed down and streamline
- Easier to read
My personal Con’s:
- Many of the vehicles were not operated by Canada or in Canadian inventory. To be fair I also included a few in my list, however this I’d say rank 4+ would have a lot of vehicles that would not valid for Canada as a operating nation. But if Canada was added as a stand-alone tree it would just have a different flag behind it, similar to other vehicles in game currently. So it’s not really a problem. (Mostly I placed them in the premium/event area)
- Missing some vehicles like LAV 6.0 I agree it’s similar to LAV III however it’s an improved LAV III with better engine, armour, fire & control systems etc.
Personal Preference:
- C2A1 isn’t the real name of the tank.
My tree also just lists vehicles based on what I thought at the time would work.
I choose to include what people deem as “Copy/Paste” vehicles as I wanted to make sure to represent vehicles that Canada historically used. And I wanted to best represent Canadian use of ground vehicles. I agree potentially some of the vehicles can be removed like 4 Churchill’s (could also group etc.) but my tree is just my personal representation of vehicles that Canada used that I would like to see if the tree was added as stand-alone into the game. And everybody may have their own representation and is free to share it. (as long as the discussion stays civil)
Side Note:
Congrats to Canada for winning the 2024 Canadian Army Trophy: (Video from NATO Multinational Brigade & Battle Group Latvia)
Last time it was held was in 1991 when Canada pulled it’s tanks out of Europe, but has been revived since Canada is stationing tank crews in Europe.
3 Likes