Is it really that hard to improve the game and give players what they’ve been asking for?
2 Likes
Speaking of duplicates, another change they could have made to differentiate a vehicle is, for example, giving this new M60A1 RISE Passive Premium the ability to carry the shovel. This would give it some difference compared to the Tech Tree model, apart from carrying bags and boxes (which is something all tanks should carry, based on historical photos).
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fwyz7tal5xrf61.jpg
1 Like
Into Germany :3 my phantoms should grow
is the F-4F KWS LV better then the F-4E AUP ?
I’ll give you the F-16AJ, that just shouldn’t exist. The closest real world equivalents are also both US aircraft:
- YF-16A Sparrow testbed; This one only did launch tests and had no radar for guidance, so it couldn’t be added. But it’s still the closest to a “real” F-16AJ since this is the prototype project the later F-16J proposal was based on. The F-16J was never built, so the alleged prototype Gaijin mentioned is this testbed.
- Initial F-16A ADF; Initially these were armed with AIM-7 Sparrow missiles. Essentially they are like the AJ in game except with a Block 15 airframe and without air to ground weapons. This could just be added.
For the F-4 it’s not in the US tree because it’s a specific Japanese variant that’s upgraded by Japan, not the US. It’s only used by Japan. The US still has F-4s with later missiles though like the F-4J and F-4S, they could also maybe get a later F-4E than the one in game right now with newer weapons if they wanted.
But mirroring that, that’s exactly what smaller nations would need to go through if this didn’t happen. For example a Greek player would have to play the entire American techtree just to get the F-4 that the Greek air force operates.
Personally I also tried my hand at a solution to improve the admittedly very flawed subtree system. Maybe you want to check that out and leave some feedback, criticism or ideas for improvement.
1 Like
Sales must’ve been not up to standard it seems
*operates
1 Like
I also don’t get the idea how people seem to think every vehicle of the same family is the same. Just because a vehicle is called Leopard doesn’t make it the same as any other with that name.
Nobody would argue the Leopard 2A5 and Leopard 2A7V are the same, and there have even been big complaints that the Strv 122s were better than the German Leopard tanks back in the day, so people clearly understand they are different. Copy paste is in many cases really only said because it’s more catchy than simply saying that people don’t like an addition.
2 Likes
Truke
2 Likes
My man, all m60s should get that option
Of course they could, but if that’s at least used to differentiate between standard and premium models, I’d accept it. They could also give the premium version the mine-clearing tool instead of the shovel.
Bruh. The mine plow doesn’t work like that.
Also there’s 3 M1A1 HC’s and only the tt one gets a dozer, m728 on an m60a1 hull gets a dozer and the spotlight but no tt one gets it too
1 Like
If the addition of duplicate vehicles is to fill gaps while more unique designs are being worked on, then why has this lead to a decrease in unique/indigenous vehicles being added?
The year prior to the addition of the BeNeLux subtree, France got 14 unique designs (excluding naval). From the first addition of BeNeLux vehicles to one year later, that number shrank down to 9 (again excluding naval), of which 3 were shared with Germany (DF105, CLOVIS, AMD 35 PAK).
Now don’t get me wrong, I have absolutely 0 issue co-developped vehicles being present in both tree, quite the opposite in fact. I think this is one form of duplicate vehicle that’s completely acceptable and perfectly justified in terms of fairness.
But in terms of counting vehicles, I can’t exclude this fact as they’re not technically unique as they went to both tree.
And things have only gotten worse since then:
Duplicate vehicles aren’t being added on top of unique vehicles, but in their stead and at their expense.
Okay so:
- Why not add the AMX-30C2 now and the Leopard 1A5BE later?
- We heard the exact same argument back when the DF105 was added to Germany and not France, saying that indigenous designs could fill the same role and were planned (the main candidate for this being the AMX-13 105). Fast forward 3 years later and the AMX-13 105 is nowhere to be found and you just copy pasted the DF105 to the French tree. Why should we trust you this time?
And as far as the Leopard 1A5BE in particular is concerned:
- Why not add the Leo A15BE variant with MEXAS armor on the turret instead? If the C2A1 can be 9.3 with the full MEXAS package, then the Leo 1A5BE MEXAS can absolutely be at the same BR with only the added turret protection and would at least have been unique.
- Why is it not using its Belgian ammo?
You’re missing the forest for the tree. The biggest reason for the backlash wasn’t that it was a Belgian F-16, but that it was simply not a French vehicle at all. Yes there were request from the Dutch playerbase to have more representation in the BeNeLux air tree by making the premium F-16 Dutch instead, and I completely understand where they’re coming from and I’m glad for them that they got the representation they were asking for, but that was not the main complaint.
If people who play France wanted to play American planes or German tanks, they’d be playing those trees instead.
When Jean Bart and Clemenceau were leaked, I made a thread begging you to make Clemenceau the premium instead of Jean Bart as Jean Bart was a straight upgrade to both Richelieu and Clemenceau and wouldn’t be able to fit at 8.3 without ahistorical and artificial nerfs, while Clemenceau could fit at 8.3 with no such issues. This would have allowed Jean Bart to be added at a later date and at a higher BR without nerfs. The thread received plenty of support from France players.
Fast forward to now, Jean Bart has just been implemented as a premium in a gimped state with ahistorical nerfs to its accuracy (Jean Bart had delay coils installed that drastically reduced its dispersion) and peacetime crew counts (which makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever).
Explain me how you’re keeping notes here.
10 Likes
YEAHHHHH.
300 Unique shitboxes will make this game peak!
1 Like
Yeah, we have the same thing in Air Arcade. Except there are points you guys have just seriously made it worse with no fix for seemingly no reason. Case in point - Japan. You guys removed the R2Y how long ago now, and all these months later there is still no replacement, that line dead ends at 3.7 in Rank 3. Sure - you finally got the bomber line past Rank 4 and 6.0 - with a jump to 13.0 and rank 8 with nothing in between. At the very least - the R2Y’s should have stayed so players could get them to have at least something better at 7.3+ in their lineups until you actually had replacements ready to go in the line where they went, and then have the period of ‘get them now before they’re gone’. And I say this as someone that has the R2Y’s, not someone going ‘I didn’t get this that’s not fair’. Though - vehicles should not be totally removed they should come back in the Warbonds shop as premiums (and players who have them already get that upgrade) or something not tied to the Marketplace so we don’t have have and have not’s issues, especially regarding balance.
What would be better is consistency in the decision process. Case in point - your guys have shot down constantly since the F-14D was announced a variant with AMRAAM’s in the tech tree, and all we get is a bunch of excuses on why they won’t. And they are just that, excuses. The Yak-141 is a thing - your guys claim ‘but it had provisions for them’ - F-14D had provisions for AMRAAM’s, cause it had the ability to carry AIM-7’s, it’s even listed in paper work that it was approved for the AIM-120, it just needed the software upgrade, that was funded, which puts it well ahead of the Yak-141 considering it was a used production aircraft that had everything but a bloody patch in place. The F-15C GE exists, even if you haven’t given it the full 16x missiles since it’s supposed to be a C model brought up to EX standards - but was passed on before it ever got to funding cause cost vs use. The Japanese F-16, which was never actually a thing. I don’t know about Realistic - but Arcade in that line were missile 13.0-13.7 aircraft. That F-14A that tested AMRAAM’s at 13.0 as a squadron/event vehicle, an early F-14D with 6x AMRAAM’s, and a later F-14D with at least 8x newer AMRAAM’s up through the C series (as double rails were developed for the wing racks - with mock-up pictures at least) can fill 13.0, 13.3, and 13.7 respectively.
Which on a similar note to both, the naval/general strike line has a gap between 11.7 and 13.3 that needs to be filled, and no aircraft after that 13.3. Why no missionized B model, or early/late D variants of the F/A-18 to fill those gaps, why is it an F/A-18F gets added, but not to the US tree at all? I get it, you guys wanted to appease the people that wanted newer and newer stuff - but there should have been a point where y’all looked and went ‘okay, lets get an actual line up in a BR range, then move on to the next’.
2 Likes
Japan, France and Italy are really sad, there are piles upon piles of domestic aircraft from interwar/WW2
And even the dutch are left barebones with literally none of their bombers implemented in their subtree yet.
4 Likes
Bigger change, more additional RP compared to the base vehicle. Basically copy paste export vehicle (just different skin with different bomb loadout?): 50-100k RP.
Bigger change like actual modernization program: 100-200k RP
etc.
Same should go for in-line tech tree vehicles.
Hell, I said before, load-out should impact BR rating.
Maybe block upgrades like F-16 block-5 → block 10 → F-16A ADF with sparrow should be like ‘upgrades’ / modules just like export vehicles / modernization of those exports should start from the base vehicle in the original nation
You have a Base F-16A block 5
For 50k RP you get Aim 9M turns it into a block 10
For 50k RP you get Aim 7F turns it into an ADF
For 50k RP you get it for Belgium with Belgian skin to play it in your Belgian minor nation tree
For 100k RP you get the Belgian OCU update which adds AN/APG66(V2)
For 100k RP you get the Belgian MLU update which adds AMRAAM and turns it into a F-16AM
ETC ETC.
There could be just a little ‘research tree’ of the evolution of the vehicle, including all the export variants. But ultimately, its the SAME vehicle (F-16A). Depending on configuration/loadout you get a BR rating.
Different export variants. Copy paste in different trees. Small block upgrades. Export nations with small weapon loadout differences. Its all such utter BS. Give these as small re-searchable upgrades on the base vehicle…
Why do I have researched a Rafale in the French tree and have I research the EXACT SAME Rafale in the French tree as well? (wow one has a landing hook for aircraft carriers). Same in UK tree, there are 2 EXACT same Phantoms. Like actually what the hell man. And those are in the same tree. Let alone keep researching the same vehicle over and over in different trees again. Such utter nonsense.
You say this but, when comes down to the Senrai series, instead of reusing a TT or event vehicle, you reused a premium one that was already widely available.
The additions were lazy and were basically another way to sell something with little to no work behind it.
You can still do it but offering something more valuable to the players:
Spoiler
USSR: Instead of the T-80U-E1 why not try a T-72B3A with 3BM46.
Germany: Instead of the Leopard 2A4M why not a Leopard 2A5 with KE-W or DM43.
USA: Instead of the M1A1 HC do the M1A2 or even better the AGS (I do have it and I’m totally fine in more people playing it).
UK: Instead of the Challenger 2 OES why not the standard Challenger 2 to have a somewhat faster option.
Japan: Instead of the FOURTH Type 90, the TKX (P) could’ve been a more interesting choice.
With China you used the MBT-2000 at least instead of the Al-Khalid and unfortunately all the other possibilities were already used up for other prems or squadron.
So for the next batch I propose:
Spoiler
Italy: Either the Centauro I 120 or the Centauro II (P) but with CL3143 only
France: Either a Leclerc Series 1 with OFL 120 G1 only or the MSC
Sweden: I think the only solution is the CV90120-T
Israel: Well… Merkava ig
Mind you that I sticked to really high BRs.
Few way more interesting ideas could be:
T-72M2 Moderna, Boxer MGS or PT-16, CCVL or M60 AMBT, Vickers Mk 7, ZTZ99-III, Ariete(P), AMX-40 or Vextra, Strf 9040 BILL, Sabra Mk1.
Overall please experiment more, especially ordnance wise.
Not sure where you got that list from, but it’s plain wrong. Or at least made by someone that can’t tell their ass from their elbow and claims vehicles as copies because they’re variants of the same family.
Taking Japan for example (because that’s what I mostly play), the only copies of the past five updates are the Me-210, AH-64DJP AT, Type 61 (B), AH-64E, M163, M60A3 TTS, Mi-35 and the F/A-18D (arguing the twin seat configuration doesn’t actually do much in terms of gameplay). That might sound like a lot, but out of 29 vehicles this is only 8, or 27.5%. Add to that that some of these would be unique if they were added right (mainly the Thai M163A1 and Mi-35 that’s supposed to have Indonesian modifications) while three of these are intentionally copied premiums that’s really not that much, and obviously nowhere near the 60% this chart claims.
2 Likes
Gaijin… WHY ARE YOU LYING?!
2 Likes