Fair enough. I’m glad you’re not suffering. :D
So basically you don’t want them, but you use them and benefit from them.
1 Like
correct… as i said: i can’t do anything about them let’s at least not let everything go to waste
I see it that way too. Since Gaijin already introduced this system, why not use it. Honestly, I would prefer to see every vehicle where it should realistically belong, but we are where we are.
4 Likes
This is your personal experience. Someone else’s experience is completely different. Therefore, you can only speak for yourself.
2 Likes
Yes the standars changed and are changing in the time.
When i was asked to build a “only Italian TT” the hungarians where taken away, because at that time it was needed a stand alone nation and this was done. But the project was just putted in a drawer waiting for a new life. When the sub-TT nations started to come out, like South Africa, the Hungarian stuff were ready. I know that many people don’t agree with this but, right now, it’s a good choice. It can be changed in future like it was done with China and Israel for example that were part of the USSR and USA TT.
3 Likes
Bold of you to assume I approve of those additions.
Surprised this post isn’t locked yet tbh
1 Like
Why should it be locked?
2 Likes
no no
1 Like
I just don’t really see anything truly productive, it’s a back and forth between “why should we drop a fully Italian vehicle into a USSR lineup” and “If other nations have our vehicles due to trial and exports, then we should too”.
It creates interesting discussion, closing threads simply because someone doesn’t agree with it is ridiculous.
3 Likes
It’s not because I disagree, it’s because it’s a simple back and forth, I in hindsight think my comment was incorrect before.
Personally the major issue with these sort of suggestions is how far should gajin go with these trialed/captured/sold equipment with no differences. Do we go and give every nation every viable vehicle under the aforementioned group or do we remove them, even if it deprives a nation at said tier.
Its more of an issue as well when people’s definition of copy and paste varies widely.
1 Like
If this were the case, majority of the threads on this forum would be locked, it’s best to let people discuss and not have it policed so much, that will create a negative environment and people won’t feel so inclined to share their thoughts on things.
2 Likes
I realised that a bit ago
Considering Italy and Hungary were both axis powers in WW2 (as the Kingdom of Hungary and Fascist Italy), the Triple Alliance in the late 1800s, and still close to this day. In modern day, sure it doesn’t make much sense as Hungary has better relations with other countries. With such a deep and shared history and Hungary’s only other possibility being Germany… I can see why it went to Italy.
Mainly operated by an Italian crew? If we added every tested vehicle, Japan would have the F-14, USSR would have the F-5E. Norway could give a boatload of vehicles to Sweden if added.
Giving USSR an Italian vehicle because Italy received Hungary- while saying that Hungary has no place in the Italian tree, is cutting off someone’s leg because they stubbed their toe.
I in no way support other countries getting trialed vehicles unless needed. Sweden, with the best ground tree, did not need the T 80 U. Russia does NOT need the Centauro either. Russia can receive the Kurganets-25, K-17 Bumerang, or BMPT-2, maybe some more light that I’m missing. In the future, T-15 Armata (Heavy IFV).
4 Likes
This basically sums up my thoughts
Do we give Japan the defecting Mig 25?
How about the Israeli trialed Mig 29?
Should the USA receive the T-90A?
Do we flood the UK with every ww2 axis aircraft evaluated by the RAF or RAE?
Should Germany and Italy get all the captured vehicles they got from every front?
Does the USSR need every vehicle they captured from the axis?
In my opinion, the answer to all of these should be NO
unless:
A:Its the only available option for that nation
B: It’s at least slightly different to all in-game variants
The centauro suggested for the USSR and the USA meet neither caveat.
It’s unlikely that the “pandoras box” will fully close, so it’s better to prevent it from fully opening.
4 Likes
Perfect example is the Thai Subtree for Japan. Gave them much needed CAS Capabilities in the form of the Harriers, Alpha Jets, F-5s, Gripen/F-16 and A-7E. Alpha Jet A and TH should have different engines, but also have slightly diff armament AV-8S Early is identical, but -8S Late is not. F-5T gives a unique tech tree equivalent to F-5E + Multirole. F-16A OCU gave us an AMRAAM slinging Maverick platform (while ahistoric) and JAS39C gave a competitive dogfighter and Maverick user. Every vehicle (arguably besides F-84G) gave nothing but value to the tree, where their best CAS was a F-16 with 9Ls or a carpet bombing Non-Agile F-4EJ Kai.
-though not trial vehicles, it is an example of how they can be implemented.
1 Like
I’d like to add a bit here as well, because Sweden is the most controversial tech tree when it comes to trialed vehicles. Obviously, Sweden never needed the T-80 U, they have plenty of options both domestically and with Finland (not to mention potential future vehicles with Norway and Denmark), however it’s a bit different when it comes to the helicopters.
Sweden bought neither the Mi-28A nor the Apache, but if not for those additions, Sweden wouldn’t have any top tier alternatives for helicopters. None of the aforementioned countries use dedicated attack helicopters either. Then it’s a question of if these trialed vehicles should be added since there are no alternatives, or if the tech tree should be cut short instead.
In my personal opinion, the helicopter additions are justified, the T-80 U is not.
there is no requirement that a tech tree needs to have a top tier helicopter
not all trees have naval either. so thats not an excuse
Pretty different… Even if Naval in general wasn’t a WIP- there is a big difference between lacking a high-top tier vehicle while every nation has multiple, and completely lacking Naval. Sweden Ground lineups would be the only one without a helicopter, while other nations could run multiple in a single lineup. There’d be an imbalance. Lacking naval is a non-issue, as there is no imbalance.
Britain (technically) - 12.0
JPN - 11.7
China - 11.7
Italy - 12.3
FRA - 2x 12.3
Israel - 12.3
Seems a bit unfair for every nation with helicopters to have atleast one heli at 11.7-12.3, but not Sweden. As soon as there is a replacement, I’m all open for them removing the Apache (Similar to R2Y2s)
2 Likes