This is 100% a valid suggestion, I’m not sure what people are saying really, but people have the right to agree or disagree with the suggestion and that is there choice.
Most people just see a few vehicles that are already in game and then say it’s invalid which is incorrect, if they look into the vehicles or look at the suggestions as a whole then I’m sure they would get a better understanding, or even if they asked questions I would be able to hopefully answer for them.
4 Likes
Ohhh you meant rules wise.
I thought you meant that nobody wanted such a tree. My bad!
1 Like
I’m sure those armchair moderators are right, and this isn’t a valid suggestion, which is why we haven’t removed it yet. /s
Staff don’t get any special treatment when it comes to their suggestions. The one here is fine.
1 Like
I was going to ask if the staff needed another mod to approve their suggestions and this just told me they do.
Thanks.
Would be better as sub tree for USA, and give USSR an ukranian sub tree for balance
1 Like
I don’t think either of those nations needs a subtree.
6 Likes
Give everyone sub tree, Austria for Germans, India for UK, South Korea for Japan, ROC for China, Belgium for France (Italy just got one so they don’t get any) (dutch for Germany also works) sweden get norway, or ignore cause they already have finland
1 Like
USA, Germany, USSR, France and even China by no means need a sub-tree and it is ridiculous that UK received one.
1 Like
Just wanting to balance if US and USDR get subtree
so, i have seen people argue this in the old forums, and i would say that canada could go to the US and britian. maybe just create 2 subtrees, 1 for each nation. the reason why is because alot of the vehicles like the adats and the lav are co developed between the US and canada through a joint project(correct me if im wrong by providing evidence)
1 Like
Me too, I want them for the US sub-tree
1 Like
What? Two of the largest trees in the game with the most potential for expansion out of any nation anywhere?
They absolutely least need a sub-tree, there is no balancing help that they need xd
2 Likes
people refer to the USSR as russia, and regarding the situation in ukraine at the moment, gaijin won’t be adding ukraine to the soviet TT for fear of political involvment
1 Like
This i like
1 Like
No just no.
once again no.
This right here.
The US doesn’t need a sub-tree. and on top of that, there is only one tree that Canada should ever be a sub-tree of is the UK.
but they already have a sub-tree.
5 Likes
But this a topic for an independent Canada in War Thunder so being on topic would be talking about that.
Things like vehicles that could be added or other things that could help the tree.
Thatz I have a question.
what exactly is this thing? It’s listed on the tree as a SPAA but this document here calls it an IFV.
Tho they added an IFV as an SPAA to France here not too long ago anyways so it shouldn’t be a problem.
Speaking of IFVs the “TH-495” wasn’t built and that’s why you didn’t include it right?
Tho if it was built Germany also has a clam. probably be one of those vehicles that belong in both trees…
Well, what seems to be listed for it Armment vs Armmor might be a problem too.
Because I thought it could fit as an SPAA because there was already a lot of light tanks and the armament isn’t the strongest but tbh it could be added as a light tank similar to the RCV just worse in mobility
I see. If it can shoot at planes it should be fine there.
makes one of this trees strong point strong (SPAAs)
Thatz, I’m assume that Canada is going to be added for both USA and UK tech trees. Gaijin added the 1st Canadian vehicle to the game which is the ‘M4A5 Ram’ tank (rank 2 premium) for the USA tech tree. Please note that USA shares the boarder with Canada.
Here is the Combined USA, UK, and Canada Flag
3 Likes