You mean the reasoning of the swiss sub tree being their close military ties with Germany their close cultures and them sharing a language…
Its up to gajin really where they want to put it but that’s goes for quite a few tanks
1 Like
This comment of mine applies to a number of subtrees.
If you want to discuss close military ties, then the Netherlands are far closer tied to Germany, with The Dutch army integrated into German command, and vice versa for air defense. S1.
There’s also the complimentary aspects of trees and subtrees to consider. For Example, BeNeLux’s unique domestic designs are, by and large, light tanks and armored cars which France has in spades, so it’s not like the subtree is actually augmenting a large weakness in the French tree.
If sharing a language was the justification, then Italy and France would have as much a claim, ditto on culture.
Its not really the air defense part but yes Germany is a huge part of dutch defense currently with them providing all their mbts
They are not going to make a bunch of “minor” nation trees, they have said that.
They admitted to making a mistake with the Israeli tree and are not going to repeat
that mistake again. So, your entire idea of what, 180 different tech tress?, one for EVERY nation . . just ain’t gonna happen.
While the player base represents segments from all over the globe, it simply isn’t
feasible to have the same amount/level or representation of vehicles in the game.
It just won’t work. It is unreasonable and not practical. And any attempt to do such
a thing would surely increase “copy/pasting” 10 fold. Which clearly seems to be the
bane of many players already. So in essence this idea would inherently just . . .
make things so much worse. . . .
Just because someone’s Dad, Uncle or Grandpa flew, drove or sailed a certain
vehicle in some military conflict 10, 20, 50 or 80 years ago does not mean that
it should be put into this game, sorry . . .
Same goes for every nation that has military vehicles, not a good enough reason
that they would be required representation here . … again, sorry.
It’s a video game . . . it is not 100% accurate, realistic or simulated in every aspect.
Being reasonable, asking for things in a reasonable manner, is not a sign of weakness.
It’s common sense and courteous(which goes a LONG way when asking for something) . . .
pro tip
1 Like
Yeah, at the end of the day they do what they want anyways. But I do agree with your point, you can’t really point at all turrets or all hulls and go “that’s where it’s added”, when reality is more complicated.
For example like you said the Boxer MGS is a Rheinmetall (German) product, even if it uses a Cockerill (Belgian) turret. It’s not a co-development. In the same way the Crotale 5000 is a Thompson-CSF (French) product, even if it uses a Mowag (Swiss) hull.
And of course there’s always who it’s made/modified for, which is another really important thing. Many export products aren’t made for any specific nation, so being offered to them doesn’t mean anything, but if they are made for a nation that should take a priority next to the company.
So when a vehicle is partly German it’s okay to ask for it to be added to both tree, but it’s not okay to ask the same thing for partly French vehicles?
Cool double standards.
I never said that they should be exclusively French or German based on their turrets (or hull) alone, just that they should be added to both tree for fairness’ sake, just like how you believe that the Vickers Mk.7 should have gone to both trees.
You seriously believe that when it comes to SAM systems, the vehicles they’re attached to is the most important thing?
Seriously?
And the ADATS comparison doesn’t really work because Oerlikon, a Swiss company, played a massive role in its design. It makes perfect sense for it to go to the Swiss tree.
Switzerland wasn’t involved with the Crotale however.
No need since France has its own equivalent that served in its military for decades:
Flash news for you: French and Italians are also official languages of Switzerland and they also have cultural and military ties with them.
Here are pictures of a Franco-Swiss military exercise in Hinterrhein in Switzerland from november last year:
4 Likes
Affirm!!
1 Like
No because it was a joint program for export lmao
Way less but yes they are still important for all nations in the region also there’s a small thing called the DACH area
Sam’s without mobility is quite awful
Why does Sweden get T-80U and Mi-28? They never used them, never bought them
Just test driving once isn’t a reason to add it.
2 Likes
“Moreover, these Belgian and Dutch F-16’s are not straight duplicates, although they play very similar to other F-16’s.”
As several other people have pointed out, a slightly different radar and a LITENING pod does not make a vehicle unique. It’s still the same aircraft, it’s just a (hardly) different armament. If the standard for “unique” additions is that the targeting pod is different, the standard needs to be raised as that’s frankly absurd to be charging upwards of $50 for such a frankly insignificant change.
“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.”
Let’s be real here, this isn’t the Benelux tree it’s the Benelux subtree. The main tree is FRANCE. There’s zero reason why the French subtree should be closer to the American Air Force than the literal American tech tree. I’m not “just looking at the bare bones ground additions”, I’m looking at a suggestion manager (someone who literally works with gaijin and signs off on questionable vehicle additions like these) try and tell me that these additions fill gaps in the French tree while also admitting that there are too many F-16s in the tree even for your own preference. Which do you honestly believe, that these are necessary and that they fill gaps or that they weren’t needed? These statements are contradictory. Benelux is a subtree, not a main tree and it’s absurd that a subtree has more of an airframe than the main tree that produced the aircraft. National identity is fine, but not when it begins to compromise the integrity and identity of other tech trees. I’m not even touching on the fact that you think France should have gotten at least one premium F-16 when no such thing exists in the tech tree that literally designed and built the airframe, as that’s it’s own comically absurd can of worms.
2 Likes
Both were official trials and since Sweden at the time had nothing else they were added
Keep defending copy paste slop with very garbage reasons to add them
1 Like
Didn’t say I agree with them especially not the t80 but the mi28 makes sense. Sweden has nothing
So it should have nothing, makes nations more interesting and different with unique challenges. This is bullshit reasoning
5 Likes
Yes let’s just remove one of their few competitive helicopters surely that’s okay. AND JUST DON’T BUY IT
I’m of the belief that nations should have gaps and lack of capabilities, as that’s what gives you a reason to grind the other tech trees beyond wanting a new shiny toy. With the current grind I just don’t find that feasible. It takes hundreds if not thousands of hours to grind through a tree, and with the current state of the grind I can understand the aversion to having large gaps in capabilities. That being said, it’s purely because the grind is so absurdly long not because it’s a good idea.
So was the Shark Crotale. So were the Shark FLs. So was the Piranha TML105.
Surface to-Air-Missile without the “missile” part are even worse.
2 Likes
Yes, just remove it. It has no place in swedish tree. Why must everyone have everything?
Are you swedish by chance?
5 Likes
Nope