Duplicate Vehicles: Why We Add Them

[Pipimer]

so?

[The_Omen17]

The fact that china gets an M1a2, and other western gear is enough for me to quit the game. stop adding nations to fill them with other stuff. if they never produced it domestically then dont add it. For example, Japan has basically nothing domestic right after ww2. so dont add anything. then start with jets and stuff they had. Its not like you dont have the time or knowledge of whats ahead.

[Pipimer]

@The_Omen17

For example, Japan has basically nothing domestic right after ww2

i guess this is nothing then


(without the m41,m47 and 2RI)

[Pheonix_RX01]

Tbf there’s literally only one 11.3 swedish vehicle so if you are there you’re probably gonna run into one until gaijin hopefully remove it. The majority of the actual Swedish tree fans don’t want it lmao

[Boris_The_Turtle]

@Stona_WT

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.

I think the focus is wrong here. Vehicles are limited because of the realistic nature of the game. Running out of vehicles once should not be a concern. We already have thousands of vehicles in-game, the quantity itself is essentially meaningless because there is nothing interesting we can do with them in gameplay.

I would much rather add all of the unique vehicles needed to fill gaps than add interim copy-paste slop that only exists to be in the way. Adding existing vehicles to other trees just for the sake of it adds no value to the game itself or its gameplay. It gets to a point where it just ruins the point of playing certain tech trees entirely.

Instead of delaying the inevitable reality that the game will run out of things to add, pivot. Gamemodes are severely lacking; it has been the same for a decade. We will get so much gameplay value out of the assets that already exist in the game if there were more depth and variety in gameplay.

New modes are needed, and have been needed for years. I cannot comprehend how we have gotten this far, yet the gameplay has only deteriorated throughout the lifespan of this game.

[skars]

This right here ^
Unique vehicles should not been premium exclusives.
Premiums should not be better than tech tree variants.
Premiums should not have a low BR to “make them better”.

Examples…
F-4S better than F-4J
F-14D better than F-14B (The AWG9 radar is almost blind to anything not flying towards it).
SU-30MK2 and SU-30MKK, low BR.
J-7D, low BR, compare to closest, J-7E and J-8B are two BR steps up.
J-35XS, we don’t even have a Draken with flares in the tech tree (does a squadron vehicle count?).
Netz (Mod) better than Netz (armaments are not meta, but proves the point)
F-18 with AIM7P (Only premiums to get the 7Ps where it is still a bit relevant)

This seems to be the trend the last couple of years and it is disappointing to see. And this happening again now with the F-14D is just frustrating and disheartening.

Premiums should not be “pay to win”, they should be “pay to progress” at best, like premium time.

[MAUSWAFFE]

A message from @Rowiek

@Rowiek

“I appreciate the effort that went into explaining Gaijin’s reasoning regarding duplicate vehicles. Greater transparency is always welcome, and understanding the reasoning behind certain decisions is something many of us have wanted for years.”

“However, I don’t believe the explanation reflects the current reality for several nations, particularly Japan. The post states that duplicate vehicles are not replacing unique domestic vehicles, but instead serve as temporary additions while those unique vehicles are developed. Unfortunately, from the perspective of someone who has followed the Japanese tree for many years, this is becoming increasingly difficult to believe.”

“Japan is often presented as a nation that has very few unique vehicles remaining. While it is certainly true that Japan cannot compete with nations like the United States or the Soviet Union in terms of sheer production numbers, that does not mean the nation is anywhere close to being exhausted. There are still a significant number of domestic vehicles left to implement. Many of these are not obscure “what-if” projects with little documentation, but aircraft and vehicles for which extensive historical information exists. Blueprints, technical drawings, performance reports, engine specifications, structural documentation, and ammunition data have all been discovered and compiled by members of the community over the years.”

“Perhaps the clearest example is Japanese aviation. The WWII portion of the Japanese aviation research tree has not received a single researchable WWII aircraft in well over five years. I specifically mean the research tree itself, excluding premium, event, and Battle Pass vehicles. Five years is an incredibly long time for an entire era of one nation’s aviation to receive no expansion whatsoever. At the same time, the Japanese tree has continued to receive duplicate or export vehicles, while the large backlog of indigenous aircraft remains untouched.”

“This is where the explanation begins to lose credibility. The community has not failed to provide suggestions. On the contrary, the Japanese section of the forums contains well over 200 aircraft suggestions alone. Many of these suggestions include an enormous amount of research, primary sources, translated documentation, blueprints, performance calculations, and historical context. Obviously, not every suggestion is suitable for implementation, and not every aircraft should be added. However, it is difficult to argue that Japan simply lacks available content when such an extensive catalogue of documented domestic designs exists.”

“This issue also extends beyond aviation. Japan still has domestic ground vehicles, naval vessels, prototypes, production variants, weapon upgrades, and indigenous modifications that could strengthen lineups while simultaneously preserving the nation’s identity. Instead, duplicate vehicles are increasingly being used to solve lineup problems that could arguably be solved with domestic additions.”

“The concern many players have is not that duplicate vehicles exist. Duplicate vehicles absolutely have a place in War Thunder. The concern is when duplicates become the primary solution instead of the secondary one. If duplicate vehicles are intended as temporary placeholders while unique domestic vehicles are being developed, then players should reasonably expect to see those domestic vehicles arriving on a consistent basis. For Japan, that simply has not happened. Instead, many parts of the tree have remained effectively stagnant for years.”

“This naturally creates skepticism when we are told that unique vehicles are still coming “over time”. After waiting more than five years for a single WWII researchable aircraft, “over time” begins to sound less like a roadmap and more like an indefinite promise.”

“Another point raised in the post is that some prototypes are too obscure or insufficiently documented to implement. That is entirely understandable, and no one expects Gaijin to create vehicles from incomplete information. However, this should not be used as a general explanation for Japan’s lack of indigenous additions. Many Japanese vehicles are not obscure at all. The community has already gathered the documentation necessary for numerous suggestions, including detailed technical information that would allow these vehicles to be recreated accurately. The bottleneck no longer appears to be documentation. From the outside looking in, it appears to be prioritization. Ultimately, I think this is the heart of the discussion.”

“Players who choose nations like Japan generally do so because they enjoy experiencing unique domestic vehicles that are unlike those found in other trees. Lineup strength is important. Gameplay balance is important. But so is preserving what makes each nation distinct.”

“I don’t believe the solution is to stop adding duplicate or imported vehicles altogether. They absolutely have a place in War Thunder, especially when they help strengthen lineups or represent smaller operators. What I would like to see instead is greater prioritization of the minor nations. Japan should not have to wait years for domestic additions while receiving imported vehicles in the meantime. The same applies to France, Italy, China, Sweden, Israel, and other nations whose indigenous designs often appear to take a back seat despite there being substantial historical material available.”

“Rather than replacing domestic additions with duplicate vehicles, I would like to see Gaijin increase the amount of effort devoted to these nations so that both can exist alongside one another. If an update introduces an imported vehicle to strengthen a lineup, it should also strive to introduce an indigenous vehicle whenever possible. That approach would preserve national identity while still solving gameplay gaps.”

“Ultimately, I think this requires increasing the overall amount of attention given to the minor nations rather than simply redistributing the existing workload. Many of these trees still contain years’ worth of documented domestic designs that could be added. Prioritizing those alongside imported vehicles would create healthier progression, maintain each nation’s identity, and reassure players that indigenous vehicles are not continually being pushed further into the future. Because at least from the perspective of many players who enjoy the minor nations, the current trend suggests that imported vehicles are arriving far more consistently than the domestic designs that make those nations unique.”

“I genuinely hope Gaijin’s future updates prove otherwise. The historical research is there. The community has already done an incredible amount of work documenting these vehicles. Now it’s simply a matter of giving these nations the attention they deserve. Because at least for Japan, the past five years have shown very little evidence that those unique additions are actually arriving.”

“I know… it’s a ton of text. But what Gaijin is doing now is just putting a trash bandaid on a heavy bleeding wound.”

It’s a long read, but I think he touches on some very important issues here that the statement just doesn’t seem to address. As Gaijin said, unique vehicles often take more time and effort, but it is very important for the game that this is actually being invested.

[SinisterIsRandom]

That’s 40mm’s. I’m mainly comparing small Caliber machine guns. Within a tracked base chassis.

[_DAMOCLES]

@Stona_WT

You missed this part:

For example the M44 for Germany, this vehicle filled a gameplay gap in the tree while we worked on developing and implementing the Hummel, which was just implemented in the Heavy Cavalry major update.

Mobile artillery have never been meta vehicles for gameplay purposes, but in the case of germany, players already had access to the brumbar and sturmtiger. They did not need any copy-paste.

Speaking of gameplay gaps, where is the American KH-38MT? LMURs? Vihkers? Pantsir? Spike carrier? MICAs? You know, things that are actually really problematic in terms of game play… If certain nations cant go a single update without getting copy-paste vehicles to fill gaps they didnt have, how is it that America and most other nations dont have copy-paste vehicles with these or comparable features yet?

[SinisterIsRandom]

Want to mention that the G4M cockpit model they did isn’t even complete. While it’s mainly completed*
When you stare into the back, you don’t see the rest of the fuselage, and from pictures, it’s very clear that the pilots would be able to get some glimpse of it, not pitch black.

[Abdusalam003]

I hope so, man—who doesn’t want this game to get better? But the devs’ attitude and what they’ve been doing over the years just wore me out.
Back in the day, when there was an issue, I’d make suggestions, submit bug reports, send in feedback—but none of it ever got the response it deserved.
I’m tired. And it’s not just me—most of the player base is tired too.
A lot of people are just here for the memes now, they don’t give a shit anymore. Some even hope Gaijin just crashes and burns so they can finally break free from this damn prison

[MAUSWAFFE]

This game has so much potential, but sadly throws too much of it away

[Thomas_Belgium]

@TikaD

a suggestion manager (someone who literally works with gaijin and signs off on questionable vehicle additions like these)

You’re mistaken, I don’t sign off on anything and I’m just a forum volunteer. I have no influence or say for any WT addition.

@TikaD

tell me that these additions fill gaps in the French tree

They give alternative play styles and do actually have different armament at different BR’s compared to almost all possible French planes that have been added or could be added in the future.

@TikaD

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.

I was mentioning the ▄F-16A and the F-16AM compared to what people reference where they were “copied from”: the USAF F-16A and the F-16CM. The added Belgian variants do offer different options compared to those and have a slightly different playstyle. The squadron vehicle F-16A is also one of the most unique variants of F-16 in terms of armament, as it is the only one that used French Matra missiles. But even this one I personally think wasn’t that needed, even if it is quite cool.

Once again, I have absolutely no say in what gets added or how, the only slight influence I have is approving suggestions and forwarding some to the devs, however that does not mean they will get added to the game, more like a nice start to get to reasearch it more and possibly implement it. The devs always have the final say.

---

@TikaD

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.

I never said a benelux premium F-16 should be there before a US one? Irrelevant to this discussion. Although I personally do agree that’s a sad affair, but at least they already have a F/A-18, Harrier, F-5, F-4 and a F-14 premium… You can’t really make a premium for every plane (maybe in the far future we’ll see one?) I can only guess as much as you can. Once again: I only know as much as any other Forum user here in regards to what gets added to the game

[SinisterIsRandom]

@Thomas_Belgium

They give alternative play styles

Barely anyone uses this so-called “Alternative playstyle” Cause there are no Alternative playstyles.
As these so-called alternatives are not viable due to how the maps are designed, it isn’t really a viable play style either because many vehicles are being forced into engagement ranges they were not designed to combat at. These vehicles are also unable to perform the role they are intended to operate within because there is a lack of mechanics and other whatnots missing to make them a viable and reliable form of engagement.

You are either A: Aggressive or B: Passive and sniper from afar, which doesn’t benefit most players, as most of the maps aren’t open field, and when it is open field, it is often heavily hilly, limiting the role greatly.

Basically, you either Soviet Rush the enemy or lose the game.

[GuardOfTheSquare]

Yes but you can remove them once a more suitable vehicle is added, like move the Hummel up to rank 3 and remove the M44, i swear if you add another cool vehicle and then make it Rank 2 so we cant use it in events like just why? At least change how events work then and let us use rank 2 vehicles

[SinisterIsRandom]

No one wants vehicles removed.
We just want it to become more infrequent until the WW2 equipment is all added.

[Константинович7]

@Stona_WT

Bottom part of the article :)

Will player’s feedback about this vehicle, given that in the new format a reasoning for this vehicle will be added to the development blog format, be taken in consideration during the open development server to add, modify or even halt the implementation of said vehicle in a multi-platform survey? This would greatly improve the receptions of new vehicles—whatever it is unique or copy & paste, researchable or premium, regular or event vehicle.

This new format won’t really improve anything of this situation, in my opinion adding a text block purely to justify “We want to add this vehicle that you’ll have access in other 5 or 6 tech trees because we don’t have materials for a unique vehicle for this specific nation” (M44/M55 and Hummel case for example) while adding a

@Stona_WT

effective and interesting premium vehicles

Which this “problem” could be “solved” by adding those same effective and interesting premium vehicles as cosmetic variants of research tree vehicles with camouflage nets or whatever, like the Senrai Maidens’ vehicles series, and or offering similar performing vehicle counterpart to the research tree.

[more_bid]

ahh, but still 2 vehicles that got nicknames from turning people into paste

[more_bid]

got my first God mode in that little guy

[SinisterIsRandom]

Indeed.