Your points make a lotta sense and in a way it should be like that with national trees.
The problem is the national trees concept imo, ideally there should be “groups” or international trees. I guess the messy thing we have now is a byproduct of them starting with 5 large WW2 nations.
Seeing we got the mess i’d say continue with the mess or overhaul the entire tree concept. I do understand those that would wish more “clean” rules like you suggest.
1 Like
Up until the Swiss Hunter, the general criteria I provided is fairly accurate and what has been followed. As a reminder, this criteria was not “created” by me, it is an observation of how Gaijin has applied vehicles without a definitive nation. There has been precedence about vehicle moves to new nations, more below.
Sure, if the nation exists on its own, including sub trees. Just like the Israeli Vautour, it was hidden from France and instated in Israel.
You are taking my quote out of context to what I was responding to, basically a rebuttal to what Baum said of removing the F-4E from US because Israel has a modified version of it. There is precedence in game for a vehicle not going to the nation that created and tested it, which would be the A-35B.
While I do agree that some kind of rule should be introduced regarding the adding of vehciles to different nations (tired of fighting 5 different versions of the T-54 and BMP while the soviets are on my team), the rules that you suggest seem a bit too restrictive.
There is precedent for most anything in this game, precisely because, as I already said,
You can still get the US Merkavas on the market, for instance…
Internal consistency is a virtue we can debate when it comes to discussing our own proposed methods of allocation. When inferring Gaijin’s decision making, there is no reason to bother. The Lynx is in the Italian tree because Gaijin (imho mistakenly) believes it is the only way to make people play that tree, and they needed a top tier 'star" vehicle to headline the update. That’s it. The end. Every justification given afterwards is an exercise in public relations and nothing more. Just like the Indian T-90 did not come to Britain because of Commonwealth ties, but because they wanted a top tier squadron MBT for Britain and that option was available.
1 Like
Agreed. To be more specific: nations should exist in WT, trees should exist in WT, but the complete identity between the two has outlived its purpose and should be phased out in full.
2 Likes
This isn’t consistent with much of the rest of the point you want to make. Like if someone beside the main nations who invented them produces shermans or t-34s should be in their trees? No, hell no. Should at most be premiums and not in the normal tree.
Well, they didn’t like it, that’s why they moved away from it and started using German made tanks instead. infakt most of their t-72 (not all though) were bought from Germany.
Wrong company but otherwise correct. i actually didn’t know it was a joint venture.
BAE systems has HQ in both UK and the USA depending on the branches.
How do we then classify BAE system’s subsidiaries BAE systems-Hägglunds and BAE systems-Bofors? they only exists in Sweden and they are the only two parts of BAE that are working on the CV90. (Edit: correction, Bofors has operations in UK and USA as well.)
does this not create the problem of companies acquiring others from other countries mid development and/or post development? or even pre development? lets say company A in country 1 gets bought by company B in country 2. company A still exists and have their headquarters in country 1, but company B that gives them funding is in country 2. do designs from company A go to country 1,country 2 or both? and does it differ when those designs are pre, post or during production/prototyping?
I beg to differ
I go by logic that in order for nation to have certain vehicle, the first and foremost criteria that it has to satisfy is that the armed forces of said nation used it.
In my opinion, Gaijin handled some vehicles great (albeit, some others weren’t).
The ones I listed in post above are good example.
Japan, Germany, UK and Israel all have unique Phantoms.
Japan’s EJ doesn’t have Agile Eagle, but has slatted elevators. EJ Kai is truly Japanese upgraded beast of Phantom
German F-4Fs are lightweight turn fighting monsters, thanks to lack of 7th fuel cell and Agile Eagle slats (but they lack slatted elevators)
UK Phantoms are missile trucks with Pulse Doppler radar. They can’t turn but can sling Skyflashes.
Israeli base Phantom (Kurnass) isn’t much different than F-4E but you can’t deny uniqueness of Kurnass 2000. More countermeasures and Python 3 missiles along with improved radar.
Putting all these in US tech tree would make it overcrowded (since most of these are in BR range of 11.0 to 11.7) and other trees would lose uniqueness and incentive to research them.
Overall bad for players and Gaijin developers (if you know what I mean)
Just my two cents…
EDIT:
While I can understand the first table you posted
The second one makes no sense at all since some vehicle would be straight copies of native tech tree ones
That doesn’t really mean much considering that they are event coupons. You can’t obtain them normally anymore. You’d really have to make a compelling argument to tell players their coupons are invalid and unable to be sold.
I completely disagree with this statement. It has been stated well before Hungary appeared that the nation would go to Italy to help fill some gaps and supplement lineups. I doubt German Mains care enough to grind through Italy just to obtain what would essentially be a PUMA with Spikes and APS. Especially since they are due to get Spikes eventually, though I don’t know when.
Here is where I agree. Rather than an arbitrary system for vehicles that don’t fit into the mold, there should be a system that allows them to be used more fluidly across other established nations. Say you need a vehicle to cover a gap in your lineup, just take one from an “International” tree. The current system, as you mentioned, is outdated and needs to be updated.
yet again people find ways to disappoint me in ways i thought not possible.
FYI this is the third or 4th time i am mentioning this, but please READ MY POST.
i am not advocating for vehicle removal from Tech trees except the smaller image in the post.
the larger image shows the vehicles that should be added into their original trees AS WELL AS keeping them in their current ones.
castration lol. please read it i cant believe i, a person who has english as their second language, needs to explain this
understandable. but in all fairness, are they justified in your opinion? like do they promote right of origin?
Fair enough exact implementation as to whether the vehicle should be an event, research or premium vehicle can be debated as that is a subjective matter.
But if a nation did produce a vehicle it should get it because they put their own resources into the production
Indeed, my fault. I have misread under the assumption the tables were the same. However, I still disagree that national modified vehicles should be also added to the nation that made the base model. It would make nations ridiculously bloated.
apologies, it seems my sources were inaccurate
it literally stands for British aerospace and macaroni electronics systems (BA bought ME hence the priority goes to the british founders). since at its inception, every company of the genre was a national one, it is logical to place its nationality to its original nation.
im not too acquainted with those subsidiaries, (its actually my first time hearing of Hagglunds), bofors is a subsidiary located primarily in sweden, it used to be an independent company but got bought by BA. hence its operations, being limited to sweden for most intents and purposes, grant it swedish status.
i shall have to develop some more accurate guidelines for such cases, but rn i lean towards treating subsidiaries as independent companies
i completely understand tbh, which is why im not saying everything from list 2 should be enacted but merely the ones that the players think they would like to see in the new tech trees. as to address the issue of grinding, they should be implemented as foldered vehicles so they dont impede.
as for devs, (speaking as a software engineer), its not going to be difficult. code is easily copy pasted and if my assumptions of WT’s state of code rn are correct, it wont be an issue. given 7 hours a single developer can do it (7 is maybe too much)
obviously not adding the copies, but those that offer something the players want
this is the best thing you have said, but now apply that to nearly everyone. because it is a ‘social’ trend
i agree with this statement though.
if a nations modifications are unique to it (meaning that nation modified those vehicles themselves without the exporter nations involvement in the mods) then only the modifying nation should get those specific mods.
case 1:
iranian F14 tomcat could use Hawk surface to air missile but the USA had no part in its modification or development (since yk there was an embargo going on at the time)
The main reason i bring this up is to point out the massive web of possibilities that can arise when dealing with these things. and ultimately i think a set of blanket rules intended to apply to all cases wont always work. you’ll inevitably encounter cases where some vehicles fits multiple rules or none at all.
Absolutely there should be some sort of main guidelines. but i also think that to many rules might cause problems and it would be better to have case by case decision on weirder cases.
you also (sadly) have to think about politics in some cases. imagine if Ukraine develop a vehicle based on a captured Russian one. Ukraine is not a nation in WT, where would you put that vehicle? Russian tree? even if that is the most logical place for it, it would piss off most (if not all) of the western players.
this also sort of applies to the idea of not having sub-trees. Finland for example, if you were to move all of their vehicles from the Swedish tree and spread them out in their respective places according to your idea, then a Finish player might not want to play because they would have to grind 4-5 different tech-trees to get all of the Finish vehicles. On top of that they would not be able to play them in a single lineup until they are added as a separate nation. (which btw they probably never would be because they would not have the amount of vehicles required to fill out an entire tech-tree by themselves).
i think in general you are on the right track but i also think that you are taking it to far and are trying to put rules to a thing that has to many variables to be entirely controlled in that way. looking at it purely objectively sadly has a high likelihood of not working in practise. humans are not machines, we have subjective feelings. so just because its a logical choice doesn’t mean its the best one.
That being said, i like what you are trying to do, and it creates a discussion that hopefully could lead to something better than what we have now.
2 Likes
well fitting multiple rules wont be an issue as the rules are not mutually exclusive but yes i agree that there will be exceptions as there are for any law ever made.
well, russia by itself will hold no right to that specific version and id highly challenge the devs decision to add it in the first place
this is an intresting point to note.
keeping in mind we are reaching a slow but inevitable halt in the amount of vehicles gaijin can possibly add for the current nations, i think the only way forward would be to slow the advance, focus on balance and introducing minor nations. obviously there are many things to keep mind of but i think this is a possible way forward.
i actually must object here, when you get down to it, (speaking from experience as i just recently finished making the entire ground, heli, air and naval tech tree for pakistan), you find a lot more vehicles than you thought, even for relatively young nations.
i must agree. its a… bittersweet realisation.
You’re one of the few who have actually attempted and engaged in respectful debate/discussion. for that you have my thanks.
2 Likes
I think they are justified, for example I find weird the fact that UK now has a T-90.
However, for some nations such as Germany, it is essential for it to have foreign vehicles in order to be competitive at high tiers, even though I personnallt stopped grinding them as they didn’t feel “local” enough to me.
1 Like