Please go find something to replace the mi28s gap
To be fair sometimes the differences in game are less than they should be. In these cases the vehicles themselves aren’t at fault. There’s also very significant differences that won’t be noticed in game, for example anything to do with crew comfort, electronics or license production / replacement domestic parts, or ammunition/loadout selection that in game are changed for balance (like excluding AIM-9P-4 on the L-39ZA/ART) or even just mistakes like getting capabilities wrong, forgetting weapons or adding features that aren’t there in reality. All of this can result in a vehicle less unique in game than reality.
Not saying that is happening here though, I have no idea about Dutch F-16s, but it did happen to other F-16s like the Thai F-16A OCU that is less unique than it could’ve been if it was added right.
1 Like
China does not, in fact, operate the M1. Taiwan does. Taiwan will never be a part of China, not willingly. China should not have gotten it, but gaijin is lazy and has to keep giving China the first variant of new American/Russian stuff. The F-5A, the TOR, now the sepv3.
All of this can result in a vehicle less unique in game than reality.
So if a vehicle has unique stuff in real life, but they don’t have any meaningful impact on the game, that doesn’t mean anything. This is a discussion about the game, it’s gameplay and it’s balancing. Real life specs for these vehicles have zero impact on why I should be spending my money on them if those real life specs are essentially non-existent in game. On top of that, there are plenty of ways that these vehicles could be made unique by giving them more specific and unique weaponry and yet gaijin doesn’t do this. I don’t care of the F-16 block 69420 in the random subtree has a window unit AC for the pilot, if it’s not modeled or represented in game don’t try and charge me $50 and call it a “unique” vehicle as it’s not in game. IRL =/= in game, and people need to stop conflating IRL performance and specs with in game implementation.
Yes, the REPUBLIC OF CHINA and CHINA are TWO DIFFERENT COUNTRIES. Taiwan is NOT China. Taiwanese vehicles SHOULD NOT be going to the Chinese tree, and it’s absurd that the Taiwanese subtree went to China to begin with. These are two entirely separate adversarial nations, one should not be relegated to the other’s tech tree when the main tree has been threatening to invade the other in real life for decades. Taiwan is Taiwan, China is China. It’s like you only read the first sentence of my post and then your brain shut off.
No, I read the rest and it seems like you’re just trying to give another persons post a political meaning that it clearly doesn’t have, calm down
It was a joint project, but not Swiss. Instead it was jointly developed by Thomson-CSF (France) and General Motors Canada (Canada, unsurprisingly) to be used by the Canadian military. The hull would’ve been produced under license by General Motors Canada, not imported.
1 Like
There is literally nothing political about stating the FACT that China does not operate the M1, Taiwan does. These are two separate nations. If you think that’s a political statement and want to argue politics over it that’s on you for your own misunderstanding, and says more about you and your own beliefs than anything else. You’re the only one who brought politics into this.
Real life is a big part of why people want vehicles in game, so it does have an impact. But even then my focus was around things like not giving the Leopard 1A5BE the Belgian ammunition, which is Gaijins fault for not making it as unique as it could, not an issue with the vehicle itself.
1 Like
And I’m sure you can come to the conclusion the “China” they meant is the ROC, as the PRC doesn’t operate Abrams’.
Taiwan is China, specifically the Republic of China. What they are not is the People’s Republic of China.
So just like Germany has multiple separate German nations (German Empire, Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, German Democratic Republic, Federal Republic Germany) all in one techtree because they are still Germany even if they are not the same nation, the same is done for China when there is two Chinese nations to represent in the game.
2 Likes
Yes, you’re the one who accused me of making political statements. My original comment never said anything political, just stating facts. Once again, there is nothing inherently political about saying that two adversarial nations should be sharing a tech tree. It makes zero sense and it breaks immersion. In what world would you see a RoC and Chinese tank battalion fighting side by side in the same unit? Not to mention the fact that they both use wildly different tech and designs, and their doctrines vary greatly. As I said before, if you think this is a political thing to say that these two very different militaries shouldn’t be sharing a tech tree considering they are military adversaries that says more about you than me.
no its like if West and East Germany still existed today, but the TT was with the West Germany flag and the eastern Germany flag didn’t even exist in game, the TT isn’t a coalition as gaijin says, its Mainland China with the Democratic China as a subtree
Why? It helps fill low tiers of ground and air until the other nation’s equipment comes into play in majority, and stays there in a smaller quantity after that.
Yes, however the difference comes from the fact that the different German nations were not separate from each other in the same way as China and Taiwan. The German nations came subsequently and in succession of one another, China and Taiwan are not a case of predecessor and successor state. They exist at the same time. Your first line is quite literally my entire point. The PRC and RoC are two very different nations with two very different militaries, it’s almost criminal to lump them together in one tech tree and suddenly call it the “chinese combined tech tree” when it is very clearly just the PRC tech tree with RoC tech mixed in.
Sorry, but all this bickering . . . .
1 Like
Yeah, the flag issue is a problem I’ll give you that, both should be in game. I don’t even think it’d be an issue to default to PRC as they still have the majority of vehicles, but people should be able to select ROC the same way they can for other nations.
For a nation where both still exist, iirc they are planning a Korean techtree too, with both North and South Korea represented. It will probably default to South Korea, with North Korea being an option that can be selected.
4 Likes
I’m of the belief that tech trees should have gaps and lack of capabilities in order to give them varied experience and gameplay. The French tech tree should not play like the US tech tree, the Russian tree shouldn’t play like China, the Italian tree shouldn’t play like Germany, etc. etc. Different nations have different doctrines and focus on different aspects of their militaries more heavily. That all being said, these are TECH trees. These should be trees representing native technology, the entire premise of bringing in a non-native copy paste vehicle to fill that gap compromises the integrity of that tree’s gameplay experience and that’s why France now has more F-16s than the entire US tree despite France not using them for example.
Two of them were on entirely different sides of the cold war
2 Likes