It looks like a Type VII U-boat.
Don’t play those BRs to tank queue times until they undo the changes.
@Smin1080p_WT hey Smin, will the Mosquito changes apply to the mosquitoes in other tech trees? Or just the British ones?
Mosquito wing bomb racks and Martlet Rockets: Major updates always feature lots of new weaponry choices and expansions for existing vehicles of all ranks. This one won’t be any exception to that. The fighter bomber series of Mosquitos will be receiving a new wing mounted bomb rack, allowing for the installation of 250lb and 500lb bombs. This is a different rack to that found on the Mosquito B Mk XVI currently and required a new visual pylon model. Additionally the Martlet Mk IV, the British version of the Wildcat will receive its RP-3 rocket racks, allowing for enhanced CAS possibilities with these aircraft!
No, because you’re completely misrepresenting my point by oversimplifying and turning it into a straw man again.
The Cheetah has the same turret as the Gepard. It has the same chassis as the Gepard.
It has the same mobility as a Gepard, the same armor as a Gepard, the same firepower as a Gepard.
The only difference is the radars, which won’t make much difference in WT’s context.
It functionally is a Gepard.
The Type 87, ItPsV Leopard or XM-246 (for example) aren’t because they don’t use the same hulls or same turrets, which means that they don’t have the same strength or weaknesses despite all of them using the same 35mm Oerlikons as the Gepard.
And that jet example is just… absurd to a baffling level. The Rafale, Eurofighter, Su-30SM2, Gripen, F-18, F-15E… are all multirole jet with ARH and with vastly different flight performance and payloads.
Sorry but gaijin’s actions absolutely do not match this claim. It’s been 12 months since we last got a new fully indigenous ground French vehicle.
Every high tier premium and squadron vehicle is a BeNeLux one. In the French tree.
And when a subtree continually comes at the expense of the existing main tree it’s in, that’s an issue.
Not only that, but there at least 2 instances were gaijin explicitely told us that they would do something an straight up didn’t:
-
We initially didn’t get the DF105 and were told that it was because France had its own vehicle that could be added instead (hinting at the AMX-13 105) and would come later.
3 years later, that vehicle still is nowhere to be seen and gaijin just gave France the DF105.
Now to be clear, I have no problem with the DF105 being added to France, the problem I have is that it took 3 years to do so when it should’ve come at the same time and that promised vehicle never came.
Ironically the addition of the BeNeLux subtree would’ve been the perfect time to add the AMX-13 105 as the Dutch operated it, but nope. -
When the AMX-40 was added we were told that it wouldn’t have to face T-80s… Only for it to change the very next patch. And the answer we got at the time? “Plan changes”.
So what reason do we have to think that plans won’t change again?
BeNeLux vehicles are amongst the least played of the entire French tree. The Leopard 2A6 and 2A5 combined are barely over the least played variant of the Leclerc (a single vehicle), and this is only since september and the addition of the EMBT because before that they couldn’t even reach that level.
Generally speaking, the only ones that have good numbers are the premiums (especially high tiers ones), because there’s no alternative for them.
Why don’t you make a poll to see if people who play the French tree are satisfied with how it’s handled if you’re that confident?
But hey if I’m wrong and they’re that popular, then surely they could have their own tree. That way BeNeLux players would have even better representation!
I unironically support this BTW, I have nothing against Belgian and Dutch players and can completely understand their desire for representation.
Having it be a standalone tree would allow for much better representation as it would need full BeNeLux vehicles lineups to be viable as it wouldn’t be able to rely on the vehicle of the main tree it’s attached to anymore.
It absolutely should. The French 6.3-8.7 and 9.7-12.0 gap as well as the British 5.3-8.3 are just awful, and additions should be bridging the biggest gaps first and then progressively reducing them.
Adding something like the AMX-13 DCA would’ve allowed to bolster France’s 8.3 and 8.0 lineups with a single “actual functionally practical vehicle”.
But again, actual new vehicles require more work to balance than implementing a vehicle that’s already in game in another tree.
4 Likes
Hopefully this one and not just Gepard copypaste:
Talking about Gepard I would love to see Romanian modified with missiles, especially if Gaijin is serious with Romania placed in the Italian TT:
3 Likes
I think the best way would be to put them into Hungarian line, as even with more Hungarian stuff added there would be still a lot of empty space.
Romania can also bring interesting helicopters, a few destroyers and multiple coastal vessels.
1 Like
Nothing about it is a “strawman”. Stating the facts as they are that this vehicle is not a copy paste is simply clarifying that its a variant of an existing vehicle. One that happens to be a unique Dutch modification rightly finding its home in the tree BeNeLux is placed within.
Degrading everything down to calling what is a unique variant vehicle “copy paste” further promotes factually incorrect information for others, so we will always correct this when such claims are made.
Something being a variant of and thus having “similar gameplay” does not make it a “copy paste” in any serious sense. This degradation of labels sadly causes others to simply write of unique variants of vehicles now under the same “copy paste” banner without even properly looking at the vehicle.
We added the vehicle after it was consistently asked for by members of the French community. Not adding it was causing negative feedback, so its very strange to also be negative about it being added still.
Everything is subject to change. Thats why we now stress that so much in all of our blogs and WIP news. Sadly precisely because people take plans and information that are provided ahead of time in good faith and understanding that they are the current plans directly as they are in the moment, only for them later to be spun around and claimed as “lies” when plans change. Which they do. That is the very nature of game development. Sadly its things like this that also mean we simply cant say everything or answer everything ahead of time now. Or without a significant warning that everything is subject to change.
We sadly cant make a poll for every subject people have differing opinions on. Raw numbers (which you would not have access to in order to make such claims) are not the full picture for everything on a blanket level.
BeNeLux has provided opportunities for vehicles that otherwise would not be possible for the French tree, as well as allowing for representation in game for BeNeLux nations where they otherwise could not have a tree of their own.
Sadly no, they could not. As we made clear at the time of their introduction, they simply did not have a sufficient number of vehicles for a standalone tree by themselves that all could be practically introduced without themselves needing support from other nations to have a balanced tree.
A common misconception is “well you did it with Israel, why not again?” and its precisely because of direct feedback from the implementation of the Israeli tree we don’t have plans to introduce standalone nations that don’t have a sufficient number of unique vehicles or a balanced experience to support themselves.
So this sadly is not an option and precisely why (among other reasons) they were chosen to join the French tree.
Again, a very strange example when this vehicle you propose is less unique than the PRTL. Which has visual differences from the Gepard. Among other things that had to be worked on.
This vehicle did not come “instead of” the AMX-13 DCA. This is a new Dutch modification of a popular vehicle that many players have already expressed interest in. Its more than understandable it may not be for you or for others too. There will always be new vehicles in the future that can be more to your taste. And we will continue to expand further French options too.
6 Likes
Hello
All FB variants in all trees that had them.
2 Likes
When you say this, are you saying the vehicle did not replace any other vehicle in the same timeframe?
Because for instance if France had 3 domestic designs being added on average every patch for the past 4 years, and then Benelux is added and the amount of domestic designs being added every patch is significantly reduced over the period of a year or more, then is it hard for anyone to come to that conclusion?
2 Likes
Im saying the PTRL was not chosen over the AMX-13 DCA or “rather than”. It was chosen for its own individual reasons based on its gameplay merits, what it provides the tree, the expansion of more unique Dutch vehicles within the game and the popularity of similar systems in game already.
3 Likes
But that sidesteps the core argument a lot of players have. If for example 12 French domestic designs had been planned for the French tech tree for 4 years in a row, but then this planning model changes with the addition of a subtree which results in less amount of planned domestic designs, with additions of non-domestic designs, then one could come to the conclusion that certain vehicles have been replaced that otherwise would have been planned or programmed to come for the tech tree.
1 Like
If we are being realistic here complaining about stuff isnt going to change anything unless its on a scale of the review bombings in May 2023 due to the economy changes.
That’s an incorrect assessment. These vehicles being added to the plans did not “change” existing plans or remove options. They were developed into plans and the vehicles chosen each for their respective merits, needs and what they bring to the game.
Nothing has been “replaced”.
Equally, as we previously mentioned, feedback regarding French / BeNeLux additions this year has been very much assessed and worked into our future plans, particularly next year and ahead.
2 Likes
A simple question—setting aside the issue of whether the serious problems will be resolved: will the errors in some 3D models be fixed? Since achieving realistic statistics is likely unattainable, it would at least be good to review certain 3D models that are unrealistic—specifically those that appear to be a hodgepodge of features from the same vehicle across different years, resulting in a configuration that never actually existed.
Almost all Spitfire LF Mk IXs are inaccurate—whether due to the air intake under the nose, the tail rudder, or both—making it impossible to distinguish between the 1944 and 1945 versions.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/pU90MGMvWWH3
Again, I think this doesn’t address what I pointed out respectfully. I never said Benelux replaced anything that was planned, but that if Benelux wasn’t added to the French tech tree then other domestic designs could and likely would have been planned in its place for content additions.
It’s true that Benelux never replaced anything because certain domestic designs are already planned or never were in the plans in the first place.
But it’s hard to believe that if 12 domestic designs came every year for the past 4 years, just to give an example, and then we see a significant drop in the rate of domestic designs being added, that it did not mean a reduction in the number of domestic vehicles planned.
4 Likes
Vehicle model issues are fixed each major update. This includes everything from small detail corrections to entire model reworks.
This report only covers and was submitted on the Greek IX. So if you believe all models are wrong, its best to make a separate report on that.
Hopefully that includes the naval stuff; I know a lot of people were bummed that only Germany got the K4 (Ex- Artevelde).
1 Like
Im afraid this still isn’t correct. BeNeLux was chosen ahead of time in order to provide the vehicles that were chosen to the French tree, both to fill the roles and places they do now and further needed roles ahead of time. For example there is no domestic DIRCM + FnF equipped Helicopter for France that could have been added rather than the Dutch AH-64E. We have to consider such things long in advance as best possible when planning ahead in order to avoid those types of key gaps where it is possible. Not even just with this singular example, but others too. The sub tree also provided an expansion to some of the lower rank aircraft where France simply doesn’t have sufficient options that could have been introduced within the same timeframe. These vehicles significantly helped smooth the progression and choices available, with both functional and practical vehicles.
Remove the idea of the BeNeLux sub tree from reality and those ranks would not have seen the same number of domestic low - mid tier expansion. So the idea some people have of “if we cancel X, it means we get Y” isn’t a reasonable one. A whole manor of factors go into it, from available information, long term plans, current gameplay needs and more.
5 Likes
It’s just initial plan that is bad, looking how nations like France, Italy and Sweden continue to get updates with lower amount of vehicles than some other more popular nations, even with subtrees, not even talking about completely new models (they come sometimes, but not at the same rate).
2 Likes
The creator mentions below that, for instance, the error regarding the engine air intake affects both the Greek Spitfire and practically all LF Mk IX variants. I imagine this happened simply because the 3D models for the Spitfire Mk IX series were updated: the L Mk IX was assigned the existing 3D model, while the LF Mk IX received the updated, correct one. However, in the process, they made a mistake—assuming that the LF Mk IXc shared the same 3D model as the L Mk IX, even though they feature different engine versions and utilize different air intakes.