yeah, but ground needs some help to, as overall (except toptier) in all BR there are some vehicles missing to boost the game play, like actual good medium tanks,
2 Likes
last December
Or maybe NOT because then we get a bazillion copy paste vehicles which apparently, believe it or not, many people think is a problem. Seeing all the outrage and 500 posts in this topic in half an hour.
13-15TT you keep researching the same vehicle over and over and over again which is just as big of a problem as the copy paste.
I think my issue is that it can be very inconsistent.
We will add vehicles because they fill gaps and other times they are added simply because “why not, it was used so let’s add it”
Some nations will get vehicles added that don’t really add anything to the tech tree while others are denied because people don’t want to see “copy paste added”
One example are the GDR vehicles, they haven’t need added even though they are historical and can help bolster the tech tree in areas it is lacking. They would be quick and easy to add and I don’t see any reason they haven’t been already.
how may TT have you grinted so far?
Why do you ask? 3 complete (US, UK and France). And 2 very far partial (Israel and Japan).
And then I grind Israel and Japan basically just for 2 or 3 interesting vehicles each. WHICH IS SO DUMB. I am so tired of grinding an Israeli F-4E while I already have the exact F-4E fully spaded. ITS SO DUMB
1 Like
I agree, more TT is nice, far better than less. We got to see more underrepresented nations/vehicles.
The issue with sub-trees is the limited space. So a nation struggles to see both its historically important “C&P” and unique vehicles, and it’s got to fight other nations for that space as well.
1 Like
How would Isarel get a 4th gen with an AESA without a subtree like ehh
actually the Israel one is better since it gets 9G
1 Like
They simply wouldn’t. Why do the need to? Israel doesn’t have AESA IRL? Why does it NEED to have that airplane if you can form coalitions of minor nations or whatever?
There literally does not exist an Israeli 4th gen with AESA. So. ummmm. hmmmmmm. ???
i don’t do that but i saw what you have played, you are an air player, you have done nothing from Japan and Israel, so you have played 3/10 TT and you still need some planes to complete this 3. so when they add like 3 more TT you will have to chose 1 TT from 10 to grind next, chose the one you like the most. C&P isn’t an excuse not to add more TT or identical aircrafts you chouse if you want to play them or not. Its not like you are running out of option to what to play
Just wait for the fifth generation to enter, and you’ll see the kind of screaming and crying that hasn’t happened before. Everyone is just waiting for a crazy disappointment from the F-35, which will be just everywhere.
i want 1 thing from gaijin for 5gen, the YF-23 a squadron plane so i can grind it
Just because a vehicle already exists in another tech tree doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be available to the nations that actually operated it.
Every nation has its own player base, especially players from those countries who want to play their air force, army or navy. An Israeli player shouldn’t have to grind the US tree to play an Israeli F-4E, just as a Japanese player shouldn’t be forced into another nation to use aircraft that Japan actually operated.
By your logic, half the game should disappear, for no reason. Many nations historically used the same equipment: F-4s, F-16s, Leopards, M48s, M109s, T-72s, MiG-21s and countless others. The fact that they are shared platforms doesn’t make them less relevant to those nations’ histories. War Thunder is built around national tech trees, not around ensuring every vehicle is unique. Historical operators deserve representation, even if that means some overlap between trees.
7 Likes
I get that you don’t want to lock unique vehicles behind a paywall, and this is good. But why do you need to make such copy-paste-premium then? At least slightly alter them (not with AI) or just don’t add said premium.
Like if you don’t want to add a unique premium (which, again, is good) then why add any in the first place?
Money?
yea thats why we see them with unique skins like the new Puma or Predator
I think the line has to be drawn at subtrees. The stated intent of subtrees should be to fill capability gaps that a tree can’t organically address with its own designs. The moment you use the operator argument for subtrees you end up with stuff like the Benelux Leopard 1a5, 2a4, 2a5, etc that don’t provide new capabilities that domestic vehicles can’t address and often don’t even have line ups
By your logic, half the game should disappear, for no reason.
Ohh noo, i am proposing the opposite actually. There should be many many minor nations. But you should only be able to access copy paste vehicles of those minor nations by researching it in the originating country. If you research F-16 in USA, for a small fee (SL or small RP in minor nation) you can also access it in your minor nation of choice.
F-16 is a unique and iconic American plane. You want F-16? You research it in USA. Then you export it or buy it in your minor nations.
2 Likes