Then blame every other source on the internet as that is the story they tell.
2 Likes
@Jεcka @Toxindragon It’s right here in the tree itself. I was in the wrong. my bad.
Ask Thatz why it was in there, as a suggetion mod and maker they’ll know what rules allowed it. Because even they are subject to the suggestion rules.
2 Likes
I could also blame y’all (not just you, so don’t take this personally) for doing only a cursory level of research but I’ll spare both myself and you, and besides I’d rather avoid spreading the concept of tribalism more than it already has on this forum since it does nobody no good.
1 Like
The problem is, after like 3 websites(one of them being the 2A6M CAN suggestion) and the Squid Wiki, all that shows up are model-making websites when googling the 2A6M CAN. So said “cursory level of research” as all that really exists on the web.
1 Like
I don’t see why it would be ‘too much’ to fit into a TT. The only real hang up I can see is that the UI isn’t built for it, but saying that ‘the UI can’t handle it’ feels like a silly reason to say no to additional subtrees and TT lines.
You didn’t look the tree for sure
1 Like
People look this post without trying to really look at the tree, say “meh” and then complain that the tree is not big enough or too much c&p while it have enough to be a good tree
People will never change
1 Like
Hey everyone,
Here’s my rendition, wanted to go with something more conservative, and unique. Maple leaves indicate foreign vehicles.
Here are the rough guidelines I followed, in order of importance:
Included:
-
Made in Canada, used in Canada
-
Made in Canada, trialed in Canada
-
Made in Canada from license, used in Canada
-
Made elsewhere, used exclusively in Canada, not presently in-game
-
Made in Canada, trialed elsewhere
-
Made in Canada, used elsewhere
-
Made elsewhere, used in Canada, presently in-game
-
Modified in Canada from elsewhere, trialed in Canada
Not included:
-
Impromtu field mods
-
Made elsewhere, trialed in Canada
-
Open top M150, M38A1, CMP 15cwt, or Iltis missile carriers
Variety Guidelines:
-
Avoid unnecessary duplications, beyond adding necessary depth to a lineup.
-
Lineups with depth at roughly 1.3, 2.3, 4.0, 5.3, 6.3, 7.7, 8.0, 8.7, 9.0, 10.0, 11.0
-
Prioritize vehicles not present in-game
-
Prefer lineup variety, vehicles should serve a fairly unique role in lineups (exception being the Rams)
-
Balanced towards wheeled vehicles, like Italy in-game
Despite a large contingent being based on the LAV, the weapon systems, optics, and LAV generations are varied. A good number of those systems are built in Canada, but operated by Saudi Arabia. I thought this was acceptable for variety’s sake, as the LAV is the Canadian APC.
The CMP was leaned on for SPAA, as Canada motorized various light AA elements on this platform; 20mm in multiple arrangements, and 40mm. There was even an armoured cab quadruple Bren arrangement referenced on MIKAN, but I could not find photos.
Let me know what you think.
Thanks!
Hydroxideblue
4 Likes
I forgot to include the AVGP Wolverine in my original suggestion.
And I’ve never heard of the LAV Roadrunner before.
2 Likes
I thought we hadn’t added as we could prove it was really or not. Because all that existed was one image and we needed more info.
I got sent to the LAV-25 page when I googled it. So it’s probably an American variant. So it can’t be added to Canada.
1 Like
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