Surely Trees should be based on what the Defence Forces used not exclusively what the countries manufactured. (excluding prototypes/projects).
‘Copy Paste’ is thrown around too often as an excuse not to add vehicles.
the excepted end result of this line of logic is : every single tech tree looking almost the exact same, with the parts that aren’t, likely not showing up in the matchmaker because they aren’t “meta”
at that point, you might as well not bother with ARB’s matchmaker as a concept, and the only time you’ll ever get a historical/realistic/immersive matchmaker is special events
i already see this as an issue that we have in war thunder, in large part because it wasn’t built around this concept and certainly wasn’t what drew me to WT, and i’d genuinely hate to make it worse.
If that’s what real life is then that’s should be represented.
This isn’t about a niche vehicle in small numbers that would be a prone candidate for premium or event status. 139 airframes is not a small scale servce. Denying a country a vehicle that saw widespread multi year service is nonsensical, and frankly a ship long sailed.
If that’s what real life is then that’s should be represented.
in a game like Wargame, it works well enough, in a game like War Thunder, its doesn’t.
if every single one of your “factions” is the same, what was the point of dividing them in the first place?
This isn’t about a niche vehicle in small numbers that would be a prone candidate for premium or event status
that’s not the point, and i frankly couldn’t care less if france had used 2 or 2000
the point is : i don’t play france to fly british aircraft, and vice-versa
Denying a country a vehicle that saw widespread multi year service is nonsensical
then so be it, i’ll stop making sense, lords above and below know WT already doesn’t.
Large number and decent service length? Should be here. War Thunder has always been a game of who used it. And in this case, the French use it; the French should get it.
Personal opinion aside, this argument appears to focus primarily on personal preference rather than the broader historical context of the French Air Force’s aircraft inventory. The French Air Force operated hundreds of foreign-designed aircraft throughout its history, and it has been stated multiple times that tech trees are not limited solely to domestically produced vehicles. Imported, leased, and otherwise foreign-produced aircraft operated in national service are also valid additions where they contribute to the overall identity and historical representation of a tree.
It is my personal opinion that many notable and lesser-known French pilots flew these aircraft while serving under the French flag, meaning these vehicles still hold historical significance and a place within the French tech tree beyond their country of origin. Their inclusion is therefore not simply about adding “foreign planes”, but about accurately representing the aircraft that formed part of French aviation history.
Not every vehicle added to a tech tree has to exist solely to fill a capability gap. Historical relevance, variety, and representation of a nation’s actual aircraft inventory are also valid reasons for inclusion. A vehicle does not become unsuitable simply because another aircraft could already fulfil a similar gameplay role.
Some lend-lease or niche aircraft like this one may be better suited as a skin, foldered vehicle, or Battle Pass/event rewards, especially when they offer little distinction from an already existing aircraft.
Anyway, +1, could be nice to folder behind some of the other heavy attackers around 3.7.
The only other 3.7 attacker is the British (Dutch) Firefly…another imported design, double whammy of being in a sub-tree. Having flown both types they are certainly not identical in operation as you trade speed for loadout.
And it’s not a Heavy Fighter so comparing it to the VB.10 is irrelevant.
i know, but i recognize now that this is precisely the logic behind why we have so many copies of the exact same vehicle, in every single tech tree.
if this is what we should be asking for, then there isn’t a single valid reason to complain about the belgian and dutch F-16s and Leopards, save, maybe, for the complaint of them not getting their own TT.
I personally wouldn’t say “exact same vehicle” in most cases (most have slight differences in playstyle, or IRL often a lot of different components), but indeed, many vehicles of such nature that were added before, were, like in real life, often very historically significant vehicles for that nation, even if it might not have been domestically designed.
I’m of course only a suggestion mod and not a developer, so the exact choices will always be as good as a guess as yours, but since the start of this game it was never about solely domestic design.
That is a whole other discussion, but not for this thread. These kind of discussions are best held here:
IMHO, the only valid argument against the Mosquito in the French TT is the one where you may be compelled to grind the aircraft in order to continue within that branch of the tree. Otherwise, I don’t have a stand on this fight.
Something I would like to see is a tiny bit more realism concerning the specifics of the aircraft. The one specifically is the comment about the Mosquito used by the French against the Viet Minh. The Mosquito had legendary service in Europe but its performance in the Pacific was dismal. I have not found any evidence that a verified cause had been identified but it appears to have been the glue used in the Mosquito manufacturing was well suited to the colder European climate but came undone in the high heat and high humidity of the Pacific. There are recorded instances of Pacific Mosquitoes literally coming apart in flight. If you are flying realistic mode and you are fighting Port Moresby or Midway Island or any other Pacific location, random self destruction would be reasonable.
If a French domestic alternative comparable to this suggestion exists, then that aircraft should be given priority for implementation. Then, the French-operated Mosquito FB Mk. VI can be implemented later and folded with it, so no space in the TT is wasted.
Otherwise, fill the gap as suggested. Simple as.
I am the kind of person who revels in the history of Lend-Lease vehicles, so I personally aspire to see all vehicles historically operated by multiple operators get represented in the game as much as possible.