Should do iirc, also newer GPS bombs and new brimstones
1 Like
Change T2 B10 currently Using BS 3 → BS 2
T3A → BS 3
I dare you to produce a 3D model of a vintage tea kettle that was actually produced.
Prior to 1960.
Your post talks mad nonsense, demeaning the work of others.
If I dismissed your work hours in the field you actually work in you’d be furious if you’re American, and agitated for other countries.
The Finnish T-72M1 was added as an entirely new model.
T-72A still is its original 3D model from when it was added as well as its textures.
All but the Italian T-72M1s were new models newly researched. Added with the new standard.
3 Likes
On top of the Brimstone change, they could gave it the HOPE and HOSBO too )))))
1 Like
The same applies for our T-55M, BMP-2D, Leopard 2A6FIN, CV9030FIN, ItPsv 90 and so on, the only maavoimat vehicles belonging to copy/paste are the low tier ones from winter war
1 Like
I would be very excited for HOSBO glide bomb, would give us a bomb with similar flight performance as a GBU-39 (able to turn sharply down to hit target if dropped from above)
1 Like
They still look 99% the same.
They still play the same.
They are copy/paste vehicles used as a filler.
T-72A was a known entity and those copies inherited all of it’s stats. This leads to a much easier balance and way less research needed, thus saving many hours of work in those fields.
2 Likes
Hungary and Romania in Italy kinda ruin that, so I suggest giving modern Czechia+Slovakia to Israel, which turned out to be their BFF. Poland is too complicated, and should be individually decided for each single vehicle to which main nation it would go. Vehicles made with Israel, like the Rosomak IFV, should go to Israel, while Leo 2PL to Germany and their American-related equipment to USA and so on.
And there’s the reasoning that can be used to say M1A1 and Leclerc are copy-paste.
I of course oppose that argument because it so easily causes ridiculous takes to occur.
Please argue with yourself constantly, pick at your own thoughts, do not succumb to rooted.
As for looking the same. Jumbo and M4A1W in China look 99% the same despite one being 3.7, and the other two being 5.3 and 6.x along with the armor difference, but that’s irrelevant to the looks.
There was a time where copying a book took days of hand writing on new pages.
While it’s fair to dislike copy-paste, it is not fair to lump in things that are not copy-paste.
1 Like
Why do it like that? It’s just complicating a lot of things?
The F/A-259 is a paper vehicle, also with the logic that you use, any nation that uses SPIKE missiles should be added to Israel
They might be played in a similar fashion but turret traverse speed and reload (in best case scenario) are the only two things equal on those two. Looks are far different as well.
Now compare it to the T-72s, they look 99% the same, have the same mobility, gun handling, reload, shells… Literally everything is the same except a few visuals.
The only game-impacting change for Benelux Leopards are the smoke shells.
They are pretty similar, but even those two have more differences than T-72s where Gaijin had to put decals on the side of the turret to help the people playing sim lol.
WW2 China in the game is mostly just USSR/US pastes which is honestly comical.
Good thing that’s far gone as Gaijin is happily using copy/paste to deliver “new” content cheaper and easier.
2 Likes
Give me your way of doing that.
Not for long. But I only brought it as an example to show the close military relationship between modern Czechia and Israel. Besides, there is already a technology demonstrator of it on the basis of a L-159 or L-39.
No, only those who are it’s closest allies, such as Colombia, Chile, Czechia etc.
For Poland, I only said that specific vehicles that were built with Israeli aid and Israeli technology should go to Israel, just as vehicles that were built with German/American/Russian/whatever aid and German/American/Russian/whatever technology should go to German/American/Russian/whatever.
So in your perfect world there would be no subtrees or satellite states since they have similar vehicles? All this sounds is like elitist ranting to keep tanks exclusive to their own tech trees, at the cost of anything interesting to minor nations
Because even a company as big as gaijin and using outsourcing simply cannot meet the demands of players when it comes to completely unique models and vehicles, you would have to be insane to think that gaijin can sustainnit’s current rate of addition while delivering entirely new and unique models each time without heavy sacrifices in quality and design.
What you are demanding fundamentally opposes the current state of world arms trading, a field represented through subtrees and independent vehicles to justify additions through designating it to another nation
There is no technological demonstrater, the project has seen a lot of delay’s due to geo-politcal reasons, and there have been talks of developing the aircraft with Ukraine.
Czechia’s closest allies are mostly the Visegrad Group nations, Germany is an even closer ally than Israel.
The only Israeli equipment that Poland uses are SPIKE missile’s, that’s it.
Combine the idea of Hungary kind of ruining Italy in your opinion, take Hungary out of Italy, take the Czeck Republic and Slovakia and Poland to combine these nations into a Visegrad Group tech tree.
Because it was irl? There are extremely limited options for both ROC and communist chinese throughout and after ww2 until they reached a stage in technological development to start producing domestic options
Not to mention that China is starting to producing a lot of their own modern equipment now.
China has surpassed russia in domestic vehicle and aircraft development and will only get better as their industry evolves, china is currently THE worlds fastest developing nation and is set to catch the US in tech within the next 10 years if they don’t match output (won’t happen in a decade)
1 Like