still goated it grinded me the rank 1-3 in the air tree
Shouldn’t their be a 38 cm Sturmmörser/Ersatz M10/losat in the tech tree or even a premium or squadron vehicle
Yeah I’m pretty sure they complain about the Senrai Maidens vehicles or the other packs that have camo nets as they literally only have a camo that’s different than both tech tree or premium versions if you gonna sell camos than sell camos by it self don’t resell the vehicle it self as that’s literally greed (only justification I see reselling it would be if the nation could use it to fill a gap or could use a extra vehicle like the m1/m1 kvt) and I don’t think they’re complaining about stuff like jas39Di/f21 , f2a adtw/f2 , A10A early / late , f/a18C early/late, bmpt72, cobra/m4a3e2 , m1/m1 kvt…etc
2 Likes
Those make gaijin money so no
They would make more if they had a premium version or possibly even as a squadron vehicle I doubt gajin store makes them that much money especially since console players don’t have access to it not to mention these vehicles are unique/interesting
“we know that some players would prefer effective and interesting premium vehicles, but at the same time, do not want important or unique vehicles outside of the research tree.”
1 Like
That’s a smart idea and this is gaijin and I have argued that with Smin but the devs are against it
This brought me straight to The Cod Mine Man’s latest video…
Gaijin, this is great.
1 Like
Staying silent is better than lying.
3 Likes
That’s the problem. Three trees lead the pack in terms of non domestic and copy-paste additions: Japan, France, and Sweden.
Japan, and to a lesser extent, Sweden, Make sense, because they have a smaller pool (though not none) of domestic designs left.
France is missing hundreds of domestic designs, so it’s silly that we see that minor tree options, and especially copy-paste ones, that explicitly don’t address gaps in the French tree are being added under the guise of filling gaps.
Subtrees should, first and foremost, augment trees by filling their weaknesses and being a way to showcase truly unique designs from minor trees. If subtrees are just an excuse for every country on the planet to be able to field all other vehicles, then we might as well not have trees to begin with.
You’re also ignoring the fact that a majority of people play trees in order to play the vehicles from said tree. The truth is, once subtrees are added in, the rate of domestic designs getting added plummets which is why this topic was made to begin with: because people are tired of unique trees getting diluted by F-16s/Leopard 2s/M44s/M109s and other vehicles that aren’t being put there to fill gaps and show off what makes the tree unique, but instead as additions of expediency.
2 Likes
So is a nation like the UK, which’s primary sub-tree brought one addition, that wasn’t a Churchill on wheels (the Gripen C). A sub-tree, once you take off the rose-tinted glasses, only existed to nerf the UK, as seen with vehicles like the Fox.
The one piece of advice for ZA vehicles I got: if you have no more crew slots for the line-up, it’s the first to go.
And this is the biggest issue with sub-trees. They aren’t allowed to be a nation; by others, they should never have representation. At that point, why have sub-trees, if they are to only exist for one, maybe two additions, heck, why take advantage of the only thing War Thunder does best, compared to every other game that is the same 3 nations (US, Germany, USSR).
A vehicle with historic importance to the nation, if not the host nation, should never come to the game, prototypes only. And this rejection of vehicles with historic importance to the operator can be seen in this update clearly, with the desire to have a nation’s last MBT be replaced with a one-off or a private prototype.
The big reason people celebrated the sub-tree systium as becuse it let more nations, with fewer vehclies could, be added, giving them representation.
And your skiping the fact that there are just as many playing a nation just because of a sub-nation. But I guess I must stop grinding France, or buying premiums for the tree, just because I shouldn’t only play it for the sub-tree (as the only reason I started to grind the Franch tree was for BeNeLux).
And it’s not just me, I’ve talked to those who only did the UK tree, because India & South Africa became subtrees
Yet people celebrated when the US got 2 Skinks despite not being connected to the project. Rejecting it without testing, it entered service with Canada & the UK only.
They are only sick of the US, and Germany have their mass exported vehicles represented as mass export vehicles. “Minor nations” can have there vehclie shared between 17 trees and no one cares. Or they have domestic vehicles claimed as C&P if they get them because another nation, like the US, used them.
2 Likes
This thread exists because the issue it two folded:
People are sick of Gaijin doing what they said after years of complaints on why these X operators get a vehicle, yet Y nation, who also used it, didn’t get it, so rather than having those complaints, they give all operators who used a vehicle (who have a home) it at the same time (or in a close time frame).
And at the same time, people have forgotten what variants are, despite 90% of War Thunder being made of them, as seen with vehicles who put side by side are clearly not a 1-1 C&P of each other.
M4A1:
75mm gun
Cast hull
Continental R-975
Crew 5
Ram II (75)
75mm gun
Cast hull
Continental R-975
Crew 5
Let’s put it this way: if you didn’t know what each tank was, this reads as if I just told you that same tank twice. This is the issue with playing the same = C&P route. Domestic vehicles to other nations, like the Canadian Ram II, will end up being called C&P, because they play as a more aggressive Sherman.
2 Likes
US mains celebrated actually having something at that BR finally after the community poo-pooed the idea of leaving the XM800T there without the APDS belts.
Id give the skink back if it meant we got something stronger, something like a Sub-I-II, BTR-ZD, or R3-T20. The skink is very mediocre.
There are plenty of options which i would fully support to replace the skink, for example:
5 Likes
???
The XM800T was nowhere near 5.3, nor is it an SPAA.
I find the Skink far usable(and like it as a far better AA than the Bosvark), but it really should have been one of the countless US SPAA options. Over one whose connection to it is weak. “It used US parts, or the blueprint of the vehicle it was mounted on was designed by the US first.” As the only connection it had to the US was that the US designed the Sherman. Built on a Canadian variant (Grizzly), for a Canadian-British requirement, using Polish guns.
Lots of lists from around the time (even those I can’t find one, tho to be fair it has been well over a year, nearly two years), since it was added.
Sadly, this was a case of misinformation, and a bit of “even the smallish connection means I should get it,” certain nations mainly believe. Even if everything else about the vehicle links to another nation. So people cried, and Gaijin listened.
1 Like
Capability gap discussion aside, South Africa is infinitely more unique than the BeNeLux subtree. Arguably the least unique addition is the Eland, as the elements that make it unique from the AML 90 don’t show their advantages (mostly just leading to a slight increase in weight).
If those fewer vehicles were unique I might agree with you, but, seeing the 20th F16/Hawker Hunter/Leopard 2/Spitfire/F-104 isn’t something to be celebrated.
I agree that the US should have gotten a domestic SPAA option, and I have extra thoughts on the Hell pack (BR mismatch was a poor decision) but you’re not acknowledging WHY people celebrated the skinks: They filled a longstanding gap in the US tree.
Should it have been a domestic US design? Yes, but the US was SPAA starved for SPAA options between the M42 and M163. Can you honestly point to a single BeNeLux addition that comes any where close to providing the same utility as the Skink does in the US tree?
1 Like
Im pretty sure that the R3-T20 was designed to be a troop transport, not an OP SPAA.
My philosophy is that even if a nation uses it, they should only have domestically produced vehicles unless there are no other options.
That said, as others have pointed out, the minor nations are receiving additions they didnt even need from major nations, so if we are going to go hard with the copy-paste, gaijin should spread the love to the major nations.
4 Likes
This is a disingenuous argument. You and I both know well that the Copy-Paste argument are raised at things like the M44, Leopard 1a5BE (especially in it’s current configuration without MECAR ammo), OSA, and Dutch Leopard 2a4
If the Dutch Ram II (75) was added it would be the most unique BeNeLux ground addition, and anyone with eyes is aware it’s not an M4a1.
1 Like
Uninrocially, it’s the first vehicle in the sub-tree I’d call fun. The “C&P” vehicles being the best in a sub-tree kinda show you there is more to just being unique.
When something additional makes a tree worse and adds more reasons not to grind a tree to a tree, people tell you not to grind. It’s not a good addition.
This is the issue, C&P, even when it adds fuel to claims like all domestic Canadian vehicles are domestic to the US. It only furthers the US claim on stuff it has no claim on.
I can’t look at something as a good thing when it makes up history, fuels problematic claims, and is the only reason why my nation couldn’t get the one thing it’s been asking for, for years.
I can point to every sub-tree vehicle as it does the exact same thing.
The Ram II is in-game, and so is the OQF 75mm gun. So C&P, as it is a variant and variants are C&P, as seen with the 1A5BE.
It can’t be unique as every part of it exists in the game. This is the type of argument C&Ps are nowadays. I’ve seen people call the Mosquitoes the UK got a few updates ago, C&P, just because they are more Mosquitoes.
C&P doesn’t exist for 3 nations, the US, Germany, and Russia, despite 90% of their tree being C&P(varints).
At the end of the day, there is no one definition of what a C&P vehicle is, everything from being a true 1-1 C&P of the model, to vehicles of the same family. Yet at the same time, if Germany got a Leo that would be “C&P” in another tree, yet it isn’t in there, it is double standers. After all, if it’s a lazy add in one nation, it must be just as lazy in the other.
It’s why a vehicle can play the same and be a variant. As not every variant (even those used by the makers can have changes as small as MGs and side skirts) completely changes the vehicle.
3 Likes
I am honestly wondering
Why can’t we have P-51 Mustangs with a Merlin engine when we operated and did some parts of the development, since it might not have been born at all if we hadn’t asked North American Aviation to build a C&P Kittyhawk ripoff?
When Gaijin just gave American Tech Tree two Skink because of nothing but ‘Hull of Skink was Sherman’. But they didn’t operate at all.
When Gaijin gave American Spitty because the USAAF operated it.
When the American tech tree got the Ram II first.
When the community considers C&P is bad.
Sometimes I think the community is opposed to any C&P additions for minor nations when major nations already have the advantage of it.
Because they already got theirs.
The major problem of C&P is caused by Gaijin, that adding those in the worst way possible
But there are minor problems from the part of the community that act like rules are not applied to them, but only apply to minor nations.
2 Likes
I believe the community’s problem with C&P is more likely the grind. They (me included in some occasions) are just bored to grind for a third or fifth time the same vehicle (or practically same) .
I pretty sure that , if for example you grind F-84G in one nation could be available in all nations , or the F-16s get categorized by some standards and have the same effect (for example you take radar/airframe the same… armament is added in the mods anyway, they will have to grind it for every plane on its own) .
Then no one would even care about C&Ps , except maybe people that are too much into historical MMs which the game doesn’t really have here and years anyway. (That being said , i’d love a historical mode…but for now it isn’t really in game).
The main issue with the community is that C&Ps most likely work as roadblocks .
I don’t think it’s about uniqueness that much…
1 Like
I know that back in the day when subtrees were new I decided to focus on the Japanese tree in part because I liked the Thai subtree suggestion on the old forum and was excited to see Thai vehicles added in the future.
To be fair here, it’s also that Gaijin seems to prefer filling their trees with vehicles they know are exported to other nations. To some extent thins makes sense, they are generally the more notable vehicles in history, but it also leads people to feel like their tech isn’t unique enough.
But oftentimes unique prototypes and other non-exported vehicles will end up as premiums because “there’s enough to fill the tree already”, which seems like a massive mismanagement. For the events it makes them more desirable, sure, but it does the exact opposite to the techtrees themselves.
The only reason Gaijin probably don’t notice is because even with this it’s impossible to not have the most well known and popular militaries be the most played options for their name alone. Most casual players won’t even look at what’s in the techtrees, they want Abrams, that’s American, so they know what to play.
Also the grind for people that already played a vehicle, but that’s an easy fix:
2 Likes