(Only difference irl is internal composite and idk if that’s modeled in the game since the dutch and the finnish ones should be on the level of 2a4s hull)
They are copies of the 2a6 because Gaijin was to lazy to change the composite
And still after one year qn506 still having infinite fire with out posibility to repair with so many reports GJ.
1 Like
Cough cough pantsir sm sv? Secret ridiculous reklit buff? Bmpt armour and survivability? Kh38s? Absolutely unnecessary cancer.
7 Likes
The reason is they like Russian vehicles and hate NATO ones.
1 Like
When are we getting the Indian BUK for the GB
I’m all for copy paste premiums, I wouldn’t want unique vehicles behind paywalls, but PLEASE, when there are unique and original vehicles to add to a tech tree, add THOSE, not copy paste… It makes the entire experience bland and boring.
4 Likes
Guys, this is for when Russia and China get the Leopard 2 since the captured a few from Ukraine, not a big deal, and don’t fret about the EF-2000 AESA going to Russia and China either, it’s fine guys, not like this is in light of any player dissatisfaction or something.
I think there are enough photos, both of the 105GSR itself and the B78, from all angles and in color. Dimensions are also included, even photos with people, giving an idea of the vehicle’s volume. Gun and shell data are all there, the engine and weight are known. I just don’t understand what else might be missing, considering that Ho-Ri tanks were introduced, for which there really is no data, as well as for many other paper tanks (for them, inventing details was no problem). Some ships in our navy are literally pure fiction; it’s not even clear what they would look like in reality.
3 Likes
So Why is F-14D as unique vehicle as a premium?
4 Likes
This post isn’t going to age well I don’t think; I’m surprised it was cleared to be released honestly. This reads like a grocery list of excuses for not investing time and resources into interesting unique vehicles, premium or other. We all know that premiums are put into the game to generate revenue and why not copy paste when the profit margin is so sweet. I’m disappointed at the mindset that this post seems to be displaying, if Gaijin really feels this way I don’t have much hope for the upcoming years.
4 Likes
not really, because they have F-15EX Eagle II which is a step up from F-15SG anyways and can be added in future.
1 Like
These comments are sad from the community.
Apart from all the unrelated nonsense being said. I think a lot of the fatigue comes from the strange decision making going on from Gaijin. Adding a Thai SB2C as a battlepass reward for Japan with already a few 3.7 CAS. M44s and M55s to every nation because they were missing a arty that probably didn’t need to be a M44/M55. Even the P-51C was a Battlepass vehicle a little too frequently.
Top tier Air and Ground are so stagnant that the community receives far more unique vehicles from the major 3 Nations than any smaller nations. Choosing duplicate Leo 2a4s for smaller nations should probably be a last resort that way Gaijin could try to find a more homegrown smaller nation vehicle. I’m sure France and Italy were creative enough to develop an alternative choice?
This also ties in with deciding to do a Leo 1 for France. The new Belgian Leo has an interesting look, but it plays like any other leo 1. I’ve seen discussions about the Leopard 1A5BE MEXAS and Belgium using a different round. Giving it a different ordinance keeps the identity of the BENILUX focus for France without making it a side clone of German equipment.
I hear you but I’ve playing too long to know when I’m being gas lighted. This game is the same as it was when I started playing back in 2014. The only changes are slightly better graphics and a few more maps and alot more vehicles. The gameplay is the same. I could care less about copy / paste vehicles.
Stona, you said “We want to keep adding vehicles to every nation for years and years to come, and hypothetically if we could add all of those remaining unique vehicles right now, there would be nothing left for the future, or forever, potentially.”
That statement is WHY were are in this position today. You’re lazy. Point blank period.
2 Likes
The issue is not communication. It is policy.
Players are not angry because Gaijin failed to explain duplicate vehicles clearly enough. Players are angry because the explanation confirms the problem.
Gaijin’s post admits that duplicate vehicles dilute national identity. It admits that unique vehicles are being rationed for the future. It admits that the studio wants to give every nation something every update. Put those points together and the logic is obvious. The release cadence creates pressure to add vehicles even when meaningful additions are not ready, and duplicate vehicles are the easiest way to satisfy that pressure.
That is not a natural limitation. That is a business choice.
The claim that duplicates do not replace unique vehicles is also too convenient. Development time, update space, player attention, premium slots, and balance work are all finite. A duplicate may be faster to make than a new vehicle, but it still consumes resources and still becomes the content players receive instead of something more meaningful. If Gaijin wants players to believe otherwise, it needs to show numbers, not reassurance.
The premium argument is even weaker. The complaint is not simply that premiums are not unique. The complaint is that expensive top rank premiums are being sold as major content while often being minor variants or familiar platforms. Saying “we do not want unique capability locked behind premiums” does not answer the value problem. It only reframes the complaint into a version Gaijin would rather answer.
The post also treats lineup gaps like unavoidable facts, when Gaijin controls the battle rating system, progression structure, vehicle placement, and update priorities. If a tree has gaps, those gaps are partly the result of Gaijin’s own design decisions. Using those gaps to justify repeated copy paste content does not solve the underlying issue. It normalizes it.
The clearest problem is that the post offers no measurable commitment. No limit on duplicates. No standard for when a clone is acceptable. No timeline for promised unique vehicles. No ratio between unique additions and filler. No change to the “something every nation every update” philosophy that causes this in the first place.
So the response should be simple:
We understand the rationale. We reject the policy.
Better explanations will not fix low value content. If Gaijin wants trust, it needs to reduce the dependency on duplicates, stop using premiums as expensive filler, publish clear standards for copy paste additions, and accept that some updates should have fewer vehicles if the alternative is hollow content.
Players are not confused. They are disagreeing.
9 Likes
100% agree.
The other issue with duplicate vehicles in minor trees is allowing minor trees to collect the best available vehicle from major trees that don’t get that benefit. There should be restrictions on what vehicles are added, even if they would be part of a sub tree.
Don’t add them. It makes nations too similar. Asymmetricality is a good thing.
4 Likes
Absolutely.
Given the game modes haven’t really evolved much in the past decade, part of the fun is playing to your nation and your enemy’s nation’s strengths and weaknesses.
I know that in lower tier matches where trees feel more unique, the team comps often impact my decisions on how I start a match. Putting F-16, M-109, M44, Leopard 2, Leopard 1 etc in every tree takes away that strategic layer to the game that added a nice bit of additional depth
4 Likes
You were literally just asking for Switzerland for France… What would make that issue even worse
2 Likes