First of all, I understand that announcing everything in beforehand is sometimes not desirable to capitalise on that surprise and hype effect for updates. With that said it is still very unclear what your priorities are regarding what and when to add. You announce or state that you recognize that there is some issue or that you plan to add something, but then you maybe add something else first and then finally add something widely requested after years of radio silence about it. This feels confusing and frustrating, due to uncertainty, whether a feedback was heard or even desired and creates a feeling of disconnection between playerbase and dev team.
For example, right now there are few gaps in certain tech trees that are well known and sensible for people to desire their filling. You already made these efforts to fill gaps before, but then it felt like you stopped and started to focus on something else, which felt like priority to fill bigger gaps got lowered. It felt like feedback about that was not needed anymore as you were already focused on it, but then focus shifted anyway and we are just starring at these old gaps wondering, whether you want us to keep voicing our desire for that or if you want us to be patient and wait for your next step in this area, or whether you simply don’t care about these gaps anymore.
Recent improvements to Naval were very much appreciated and felt like you care about Naval and want to make it better, but it felt like it came out of the blue after years of radio silence instead of aknowledging you want to make it better and you are preparing it and when it came, it came without explanation which areas you improved and which you didn’t without explanation why (no time, no need, no priority?). So updates like these sometimes feel partly directionless or unfinished without obvious reason why.
I could go through more examples, but my ramble already seems to be way too long.
France literally has more F-16s now than the US tech tree, the nation that built the thing. You can’t simultaneously believe that nation identity somehow matters AND that duplicates are only intended to fill gaps. These things are clearly mutually exclusive in regards to how copy pasted vehicles are added.
In a way public roadmap was great due to having constant display of your intention and priorities for immediate future, however I understand that it probably felt too rigid and binding for your purposes, development process and schedule.
I feel like there is still a place for more permanently displayed intentions like a roadmap, but it could be modified to better fit your needs as a dev team. I could see something akin to Trello board with these articles instead, to make the roadmap more modular and flexible to assign different order of priorities without having to put specific date on it.
It would help us to assign feedback to specific parts of that as well instead of creating imaginary ones out of pure speculation due to various uncertainties.
Maybe being able to flag certain articles like these as major ones to highlight them as more fundamental, instead of just having them drowned in the list here that is dominated by a sheer number of activity in these, which makes it feel like community interest completely dominates your prioritisation.
So there needs to be better communication depending on wether you are adding a copy-paste vehicle as a “temporary until X/Y/Z gets added”
Either way, I hope this means that those implemented vehicles which were added as a stop-gap get put UNDER the more interesting/unique vehicle
Recently when the British TDs were shuffled around the M109 got put under the FV, which I think is okay in regards of having copy pasted vehicles.
If you want it, the option is there, but the more unique (and honestly more interesting) vehicle is prioritized and easily gotten to; I don’t have to grind the M109 for the 9th time just to get to the FV
Hello everyone, I’m the player known as Soldado38. I’d love to hear from the developers whether they are considering adding content from any South American country. As previously mentioned, delivering unique content to players can be challenging since such items take time to appear; however, in countries that are—so to speak—often overlooked, there are highly unique prototypes. These could be very appealing to the public and would greatly please certain “specific communities” (in very heavy quotation marks), making them feel acknowledged. The best example I can give is Brazil (since I am Brazilian): when the developers added the A1A and released that video about Brazil, it was the main topic of conversation on Brazilian channels for weeks. Now, with the addition of a nation in the Israeli line that purchased one of our armored vehicles produced in the 80s, I see no reason not to start focusing on these countries. It would offer something different and open the door to vehicles like the Osório, Cascavel, and Guarani, as well as modernized versions like the AMX A-1M and the upgraded Cascavel. If Brazil were added as a standalone nation in the game, it could serve as the “representative” for South American countries—potentially allowing for the inclusion of Chile, for instance, which is reportedly acquiring the K2 Black Panther (an excellent armored vehicle, let’s be honest). I apologize for the long text and for “venting,” but I would love to get a response—and I think other players would too. That’s all for now. Thanks for the game you’ve created; it is truly unique, though—like everything in life—there are a few things that could use some tweaking. 🌹🇧🇷🌹
I understand that modelling a vehicle then implementing it is a very time-consuming process, but it would be nice if vehicles like the M44/M55 that got pushed into loads of tech trees get removed as the nation’s own domestically-manufactured vehicles like the Hummel are added to the game. Whether the M44s in people’s lineups would become a Hummel or the M44 would just be removed from the tree like Panther IIs, I’m not sure.
With the move away from historical matchmaking and the inclusion of more subtrees and copy-paste vehicles, it feels like the identities of each nation’s trees are eroding. Matches are slowly becoming more and more of a homogeneous blob of vehicles with none of the really cool asymmetric matchups we used to get, where you had to understand the doctrine of nations at the time period you’re playing (eg WW2 US props focusing on speed and higher altitude performance whereas Soviets focused more on manoeuvrability and low altitude performance). Now everything is one big furball at low altitude with the same vehicles on each team, and though I don’t play mid or high tier ground, I imagine the same can be said there.
Cypriot armed forces use EE-9’s and EE-3’s, EE-9’s would be an especially useful addition to Israel via the Greek/Cypriot subtree as Israel is probably the only tree worse off on the light tank front than Germany
I’m not from a country with a major military industry like France or the United States, which many people here are mentioning. However, I’d still like to see my country’s military vehicle variants represented in the game.
Wouldn’t it be more practical, instead of adding them to an existing nation, to create a regional subtree, such as South America?
I understand the argument that adding more vehicles to existing nations helps avoid a huge increase in BRs. But at this point, the BRs already feel so compressed that I’m not sure how much of a difference that would actually make.
Especially since Brazil’s Gripen E is considered more advanced than the current Swedish variant, it would be really interesting to have it in the game.
“The reality is however that some nations such as Israel and Japan simply don’t have a large number of unique vehicles left to add.”
Israel absolutely does. Very filled out trees have been shown by the community many times, there are so many options for Israel even without a sub-tree. Especially with Chilé which was a way better addition than Greece would be but again even without that, there are SO many unique or semi-unique and not completely copy vehicles Israel has used or made. It was already stated that it’s largely because they wouldn’t have enough low tier CAS options like that’s really crucial to ground gameplay trees to exist.
It also feels like they ARE taking up the place of unique vehicles. We are waiting years and years for majorly requested additions. Hell even almost exact copies like the Washington took a decade somehow. All the famous UK lights were coming in a post in November 2022, a bunch are still missing.
China 11.7 is basically almost entirely event or premium. Other lineups too. They’re not assisted by prems, they’re reliant on them to even have a lineup so there is a clear deficiency of TT additions.
I agree, two F-16’s would have been more than enough. Maybe a third premium one for when France already had a top tier premium, but how it currently turned out is different.
Moreover, these Belgian and Dutch F-16’s are not straight duplicates, although they play very similar to other F-16’s.
Benelux has many unique vehicles to offer, that gaijin first chose for mostly variants that have an almost identical playstyle to other ones in other tech trees does not invalidate the Benelux. The ones they did add are very important for the Benelux identity. Most of them (all gamemodes, don’t just look at the very bare bones ground additions) did fill capability gaps or alternative playstyles to French vehicles.
It’s not always complimentary, but so far it’s somewhat been true. I do would like to see a shift towards more “unique” vehicles however. Especially French designs.
I don’t hate having duplicates in the tech tree of premiums, the main issue I’ve got is that the best variants are premiums in the case of the F-4S and F-14D, or even not having an equivalent in the F-20. The Su-30’s are a worse variant than what’s in the tech trees.
Premium vehicles is only one problem. How about you make new game modes that aren’t rip-offs from another game? @BVV_d “Players would play another game mode if they didn’t like Ground or Air battles” except there are no other game modes to play, genius.
@Stona_WT Are you aware you just released an F-14D as a premium?
We understand that as time goes on the unique vehicles to be added decreases, this is natural.
Why does the BMPT has a tech tree and premium version but the F-14D is premium?
Agreed. While I think the two major nations that are involved in collaborative designs should get the vehicle (DF-105, Clovis, MBT-70), captured and upgrade vehicles should go to the nation that captured them
If France were to get a 3.0-6.0 TD (from an ingame classification), things like AMX-13-105 Obussier, Lorraine 155 MLE 51, Franco-Swiss AMX-13-105 MK 62, M-10 SA50, and Bat-Chat 155 are probably better options
Instead of adding a Belgian Leopard 1, gaijin should have added the john cockerill defense leopard 1 with a Cockerill® 3105 that Ukraine is getting. (John Cockerill is based in belgium so either put it in france tree under belgium or ukraine)
