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
Okay my bad ^^’
For my point of view it was disrespectful but if everything is okay I’m sorry
if it was I’m just oblivious :P but I didn’t read it in that way.
I’m probably going to do a revision of it later today. Will add a heavier balance of in-service vehicles, even if they’re things we’ve already seen.
Even if some vehicles are not operated by the CAF, I still wanted to have the Canadian defence industry as a big part of the tree – like Thyssen-Henschell is for the German tree. Felt that the LAV is a big part of the military identity, and it added new variety.
I’m progressively working on posts in that vein, and have 5 on pending with like 10-12 more on the way 🤠
Speaking of which, Roshel might have just solved the 7.0-8.0 Gun AA gap, with 2x23mm and modern computer fire control, though the system is marked for Ukraine. (Mostly in jest, but this is still cool and I might make use of it).
1 Like
Oh, here is a neat video
This comment on the video is neat insight on the Shermans that were bought (and was the primary force) for the Korean war.
Heck, the Tank Encyclopedia has articles about these, too: “Easy 8,” the primary tanks of the Korean War/until the Centurion Mk IIIs came in for Canada.
Don’t ask me why I went down the Canada Easy 8 rabbit hole; I just did it to quickly check some information.
What about the MZDR with TOW?
This one? Or are you talking about the other tree? That had been just posted a few days ago.