the only thing i dont like is for example the AJS37 (Early)
its identical, nothing early about it
why not make it a specific number version or squadron version
that would be more interesting and make more sense
First I don’t agree with your “minor changes”, the armor, thermal image, weapons are all important improvements. Second, tell me what is a copy and paste? Vehicles with “minor changes” or only camouflage changes like:
its the exact same
wow better thermals such a big difference
both of them and copy paste is the best for premiums
Both are reskins, wdym?
And also it has 4 more kh25mpu with wide array of available bands. While su25t is stuck to 2 kh58 (so its impossible to cover all bands with one loadout) despite having mpu in nuclear thunder event.
If 0.3 BR difference is not big, I don’t see any point that our conversation should continue
edit:
You must think they are all copy and pastes
In my opinion C&P are the camo changes.
Now the “minor changes” , depends how they affect gameplay. If for example they have different thermals , but of the same level , yes that’s practically C&P. If the thermals of the premium are better and affect your gameplay because it gives you better capabilities, it’s not C&P exactly…It’s " i give you a better vehicle for money" .
And the " i give you better vehicle for money" is not a good thing, even for “minor” things , because you open a whole new can of worms.
2 Likes
The camouflage reskin is much worse.
That’s actually a decent point. Maybe it should be that you can still do regular progression through the minor tree. So you can just research Greece by fully researching all vehicles (for full RP price) through the Greek tree. But once you already own an F-4, you can research the small modifications of the planes and in other trees for a much smaller RP cost since you already have researched the vehicle somewhere else.
I just think copy-paste vehicles should be linked somehow, and not have people researching (and re-spading!!) the same vehicle over and over.
AND split off minor nations from major nations into their own trees. And then somehow fix the ‘gap’ / ‘no-lineup’ issue in other ways: gamemodes with respawns like EC, creating lineups from ‘coalitions’ of nations, etc.
That would solve major complaints people have with copy-paste vehicles I think.
No more F-16 and leopards in French tree (but a much smaller BeNeLux tree), less grind of copy-paste planes again and again.
1 Like
In fact, I completely understand why “Duplicate Vehicles” are added to the game; many of them are actually quite helpful for filling out the TT. However, I think most critics are simply tired of seeing identical vehicles scattered across multiple tech trees and being forced to repeat the exact same experience during the grind—even when buying premium vehicles now, with prime examples being the M60s, Centurions, Abramses, and Leopard 2s. On top of that, you don’t benefit at all from repeating the same grind; the only thing waiting in the foreseeable future is endless torment or exorbitant pack prices.
I believe that to truly address this issue, the focus should perhaps be on reducing player suffering. For instance, if a vehicle has copies across four different tech trees, researching one could grant a 25%(or less) RP discount on the remaining three. Researching two would increase the discount to 50%, and if three are unlocked, the final one would only require 25% of the original RP to obtain. Similarly, if you purchase a premium version of a duplicate vehicle, it could provide a 5% research discount for all related duplicates. That’s far more appealing than just getting a decal, isn’t it? At the same time, because players still need to research the preceding vehicles in the line to make the final purchase, actual playtime wouldn’t be drastically shortened. This model would also align better with real-world military R&D logic, as most nations don’t need to reinvent the wheel from scratch.
Of course, I realize this idea is highly idealized and might not perfectly align with the game’s live-service monetization logic. But what I’m trying to say is that players are probably looking for substantial, meaningful changes rather than PR explanations for things everyone already sees right through.
1 Like
Israel has not gotten a useful tech tree vehicle in forever. This update we got the hunter, which while being a lower br is just another of the 4 bushmaster spike bricks that we already have enough of, there is plenty of vehicles that could be added. I think Israel is the 1 tree that could benefit from C&P to actually fill some gaps
And in air all we’ve gotten is a MiG-21 squadron vehicle that nobody will touch, and many updates ago a gimped F-16I Sufa, without many of its trademark weapons, and what uniqueness it did have (spice 250) was added afterwards to pretty much every other nation with a need.
Can Gaijin just add the Greek subtree already? We all know it takes them no time to whip out some mirage and rafales with different skins and some leopards with camo nets or smth. They’ll probably just add the 30th M60 to the tree in the form of Greek ones and then forget about Israel once again. Just a reminder that Israel is the only country With only 14.0 air
1 Like
Good damage control but nothing changed, just a promise ªTM
Israel should not have been a tech tree, it starts at 6.0 and most of the vehicles are already copy paste. It should have been a sub-tree of the US
HAF Mirage with Saint Michael Archangel paint would go hard af
2 Likes
Its funny that they said they would improve communication, yet 99,99% of the comments are unanswered. And those who were, got only a witty snark at best.
1 Like
unfortunetly its photoshop but i wish someone make it a war thunder live skin
no they deserve their own TT they have a lot of stuff
Yeah I do kinda agree that the Israeli tree could’ve added a lot of variety to the US with the kfirs and such, especially since gaijin prefers adding copy and paste things more than they do to actual tech trees, maybe Israel would have gotten more unique things
Edit:
But on the other hand Israel has a little too much for a subtree, and has a lot of potential
there’s plenty of unique vehicles that could fill these gaps in battle ratings for many nations if these werent locked behind premium or event status, i think the whole premium/event stuff should be reworked so that players could still get these vehicles by farming but making these special vehicles very costly or able to be researched from squad points for example sturm tiger having a requeriment of 500.000~700.000 RP and 2.000.000 SL something around that so that players could still get these by hard work and having golden lions or gaijin coins be more of a tool to save time instead of being the only way to get them
Yeah, I really like this idea too. There’s two great suggestions for slightly different ways this can be done in game. I don’t think players should research vehicles they already played at full price, because that just makes them feel like roadblocks. Same thing for modifications too, I think these should also be cheaper, and maybe it would be fair to give at least some of the essentials for free like parts, FPE, NVD/TVD, certain ammo choices, etc.
But if they are cheaper the more you played, then you can (for example) research familiar vehicles to fill the lineup for the next BR step quicker. So that’d be less time spent at a new BR with only one vehicle of the BR, or less time waiting to research a lineup with the exciting new BR vehicle only sitting in the hangar depending on which of these you do.
I also think they can try foldering these, so the required progression is mostly unique vehicles and variants, while full on copies are placed mainly as optional vehicles for lineups and historical reasons. This won’t work all the time, sometimes there isn’t any alternatives, but where it’s possible this should be done.
Yeah nations deserve their own techtree space. Personally I think the basic subtree “coalitions” can stay as they are, so some nations can combine lineups (Italy, Hungary, Romania for example would be one), but each nation has an individual techtree. This way a player can choose to play all for the lineups, or choose to only play the nations they want without being forced to play the others like current subtrees do.
The irony is that Mobius calls their own definition garbage:
If you think your definition is garbage, don’t use it to begin with.
As I stated earlier, the issue is a majority of domestic Benelux vehicles are in a tough spot with respect to the French tree because most fill roles and capabilities that France can organically address with missing designs( armored cars, light tanks, and atgm carriers). I think a lot of people underestimate just how many light tanks and armored cars France is missing.
This means that nearly every Benelux addition is going to be put in a position where it’s a redundant addition to the French tree. Mind you, not all, but a large portion.
I want to see, first and foremost, France get more of its missing designs, but I also totally get the desire for Benelux to get their designs added, which is why they really should have been placed in a tree that lacked light tank and armored car options.
Biggest of these is obviously Germany (which also has ties via the German-Dutch army integration scheme), so if the hang up to some players is interwar/WW2 Benelux content touching German hands, then splitting the additions chronologically around 1948 or so addresses the issue
A lot of stuff from other countries with little to no variety, I.E you have 13 rebranded M60 Pattons and only 3 (if i remmember correctly) offer something different. Not to mention the endless bushmaster-with-spike boxtanks.
And with the planes the BR jumps are ridiculous.
Disolve this crap onto other tech tree, or crate a “Middle Eastern” tech tree with Iranian MiG-25s and F-14s, Saudi Arabian F-15S/SA, Pakistan’s JF-17 variants and so on. Then it would be a varied tech tree with interesting vehicles and not “F-15 with funny name”