Duplicate Vehicles: Why We Add Them

[AurenKarach]

@Leo2A6EX-live

Again there were still unified German t72s leopard 2a4s Marder 1s and bmp1s (and possibly bmp2 but their history in the bundeswehr is limited)

But that is not what you get in game. You get a team split where the operator flag for the BRD and the operator flag for the DDR appear side by side in one, and only one of the teams, because there is no way for the DDR and the BRD to fight each other unless you get one of those rare civil war matches, since they share a tech tree. It is the exact same situation as ROC/PRC and as the future Korea situation.

Gaijin is disregarding ideology and alliance systems (imho wisely) and it is unsustainable to argue that this shouldn’t be the case for China and for China only on the altar of “immersion”. The game does not represent real historical battles with real historical factions, the set up to most matches is completely outlandish, so complaining about immersion is fundamentally misguided.

Like, just think about the fact that even if you had a purely historical MM, technically Japan should almost never share a ground battle with Germany/Italy, since they were fighting in completely different theatres.

Immersion for thee but not for me.

@Pipimer

they did serve together in the same army pal

They spent a much longer period of time planning on how best to murder each other. T-72s were issued to the NVA with the explicit goal to fight West German tanks if the cold war ever went hot.

@Pipimer

If it was truly sharing the default flag of the TT should be something natural and Taiwan flag actually exist in the game and be able to put it in the TT

@Pipimer

more like PRC TT and POC subtree its now and Taiwan doesn’t even have their own flag

You know exactly why that cosmetic option is lacking. Gaijin is not gonna antagonise one of their biggest markets (and their government). This has nothing to do with purely gameplay considerations. The fact of the matter is still that two antagonistic operators share a tree. Tika thinks that should not be the case, because it breaks immersion. I think there is no immersion to break to begin with. I don’t know how to say it any plainer than this, but you seem determined to misunderstand me.

@Pipimer

no its not, we don’t have any other TT were two counties with completely different armament be together

Korea will be one such, don’t you worry.

Also, do I really need to point out that during the Cold War, Italy and Hungary were on opposite sides of the Iron Curtain whose military plans included how to fight each other, since it was assumed that Austria and the Alps would be their respective fronts of engagement, and yet you can use communist Hungarian vehicles in the Italian TT alongside standard NATO issue just fine?

@Pipimer

from the start Taiwan post 1950 should have been as a subtree to USA

The USA don’t need a subtree in the way that Gaijin have implemented them, being one of the three most populated trees in the game. Given the consumer power of the Chinese market and the willingness of their government to expect compliance from companies, Gaijin would have never antagonised them by deliberately going against the PRC understanding of what is “China”. Moreover, they have been applying the same rule to other nations (Germany, the Hungarian sub tree, the future Korean tree), so it is also internally consistent, whether you like it or not.

@Aisbitt034-psn

Moderators Please smite these two for ‘Irrelevant discussion’

Irrelevant how? This topic is about copy paste vehicles. The East German T-72 and the ROC Abrams are two clear examples. A fellow player complains about the ROC Abrams’ placement breaking immersion, which is a common criticism of copypaste. I am pointing out that I think such criticism rather hollow. How is this off-topic for a thread literally titled “Duplicate Vehicles: Why We Add Them”?

[AurenKarach]

@Pipimer

when Taiwan and China reunite peacefully like germany we can talk

That is not Gaijin’s criterion for tech tree placement and/or copypaste.

I said it before and I’ll say it again, tech trees are an organising principle for research and player progression.

Of course when it comes specifically to copy paste, additional considerations come in (whether there are unfillable gaps or not, the workflow thing they talked about, etc). Some of the motivations they give are solid, others are more shaky, for example the M44 definitely did not fill a gap in the German TT at that BR, beceause there was no such gap. I think it’s much simpler, they wanted to avoid the controversy of “we used it too, why aren’t we getting it?” and it cost them very little to copypaste the vehicle and call it a day.

But the fundamental job of the TT is to funnel the player into an RP/economy progression mechanic and to give the player an organising principle to build lineups. The placement of copy paste flows from that premise. Placing ROC in PRC is the option that gives Gaijin fewest headaches and allows them to use Western tech “copy paste” to add content to the Chinese TT where it suits them.

For example, I think this is a good illustration of the difference in our perspectives:

@Pipimer

yes and this is why i belive they dont deserve Taiwan or when they didnt like the THAI VT-4 going to Japan

Who cares what a TT deserves?

Tech trees are not moral agents, they are a game system. They’re not football teams. Vehicles in the game are also not moral agents, they’re pixels. Look at it from the perspective of game design and you can better understand why Gaijin does what it does (regardless of whether we agree or disagree).

Tika’s complaint about the copypaste Abrams being immersion-breaking is also really about game design at the end of the day. If you want WT to be an immersive milsim, it is indeed a problem that everyone is using the same vehicles over and over. Everyone and their grandma has a Leo 2 these days. But WT is not really trying to achieve that kind of immersion from a game design POV. So the copy paste placement is done in a totally different light.

@Pipimer

yea and we still dont know when will it come

Sure. I mean, I was and am personally against the creation of more independent TTs. Ironically, I think it would have been better to have a smaller number of supra-national trees that had more nations in them. This may sound weird since I am also defending Gaijin to a degree in my replies, but the thing is, it’s important to understand why they do X and Y, even if you would make different decisions in their shoes.

For example, I get that designing the system from scratch is probably asking too much at this point. I really like Mauswaffe’s subtree folder suggestion. That said, Gaijin in their own way are making tech trees multinational already. The only thing really missing at this point is a serious RP/SL discount for duplicate vehicles if you’ve already spaded them in another tree.

[SinisterIsRandom]

@Pipimer

It was captured in Ukraine (we do not want this)

Should mention it’s unlikely it would come, cause 1: None of those actually work anymore. But also 2, even if it were operational, the performance and combat effectiveness would be significantly worse. But also, it’s an active war.

[Pipimer]

A lot of the equipment was captured intact, I even saw a Russian YouTuber driving around a Leopard 2A4, the bottom is that no country should get any more captured v vehicles specially USA the Pantsir or the T-90, or Russia get Leopards and Abrams

[_DAMOCLES]

@Pipimer

dont exist and if america gets the captured Pantsir that will mean Russia should get all th things it captured in Ukraine (we do not want this)

Idk what your point is-im making the same point you are. The US and Russia didnt get a Challenger 2 when the UK got an M1A1 and T-90 Bhishma TWMP. Some nations are getting their nation’s vehicles handed out either in the form of purchased/captured vehicles, or in the form of completely different nations. Therefore, the US and Russia should be getting sub-trees to fill gaps in gameplay capabilities which all the minor nations received.

@Pipimer

have you forget the 16 fnf missiles in the helis?

Not all FNF missiles are equal in terms of gameplay, just as not all tanks are equal.

[SinisterIsRandom]

“None of those actually work anymore. But also 2, if it were operational, the performance and combat effectiveness would be significantly worse.”

“Also, it’s an Active war” If you are gonna respond, at least make an effort to read.

[Pipimer]

There is a huge difference between subtrees that used this vehicles and captured ones. If USA gets as Subtree Serbia or Algeria (0% chance) then yea they could get the Pantsir, Britain got the Abrams because Australia is a subtree the same with India even if it’s not official (I think), and for the missiles 16 fnf missiles that are not as good as the lemurs but they are still 2 times more

[Pipimer]

When someone is capturing something intact it’s means it’s in perfect condition, and how do you know if they are still operational? We do not know

[_DAMOCLES]

There are many vehicles in the game which aren’t captured or part of a sub-tree, but still in a tree for another nation. But yes, my argument remains the same if they just give the US a subtree with russian vehicles.

Also, ask any american main- they would take 8 LMURS over 16 hellfires, or KH-38MTs over AGM-65Ds. Gameplay gaps are questions of effectiveness too, not just similar technologies. A perfect example of this is disparity being remedied in game is the Italian Ariete and BeNeLux Leopard 2s.

[Pipimer]

@_DAMOCLES

There are many vehicles in the game which aren’t captured or part of a sub-tree, but still in a tree for another nation.

Like what? All vehicles have a reason being in a specific TT.

CAS is overpowered no matter the country, I want to play ground battles without having to worry of Kh or AGMs, I am sick of trying to play ground battles and dying to air no matter the country, maybe Russia has better CAS but that doesn’t mean the rest of the countries don’t have a good CAS

[PlayedStatue626-live]

So uh

TT Independent and Strumtiger when? TT/Squadron MLRS would be cool too

[_DAMOCLES]

@Pipimer

Like what? All vehicles have a reason being in a specific TT.

Yes. I could come up with a bs reason to add any vehicle to any tree, such as a “gameplay gap.” That’s my point. Per your question, the TAM is one example.

@Pipimer

maybe Russia has better CAS but that doesn’t mean the rest of the countries don’t have a good CAS

I didnt say they didnt. I said they are no where near as good as russia, hence a “gameplay gap.”

[Pipimer]

The TAM is a German designed tank were did you wanted it to go?

[Leo2A6EX-live]

Israel is where some want the tam to be moved too

[_DAMOCLES]

Doesn’t matter at all to me in this discussion- we are talking about why some “gameplay gaps” should be filled with vehicles from other nations and why others dont receive the same treatment.

The TAM was commissioned for production by Argentina and only Argentina uses it. They didnt have to add it to the game at all, but it doesnt inherently need to be in the german tree any more than it needs to be in another nation’s tree to fill a “gameplay gap.” It could have been added to its own South American conglomerate-- i dont care. There are many other examples, such as the C2A1, which were arbitrarily thrown into one tree when it could have easily been added to others that needed it more.

My point is that gameplay gaps are not a reason to add other nation’s vehicles to trees, nor is it a reason to add a subtree. But that is exactly what Gaijin is doing anyway. That’s a problem. You recognize that bevause when i suggested it you said that if the US started getting russian vehicles then russia should get NATO vehicles to be fair. The current implementation is anything but fair bevause gaijin is picking winners and losers with copy-paste vehicles and sub-trees.

[Pipimer]

@_DAMOCLES

Doesn’t matter at all to me in this discussion- we are talking about why some “gameplay gaps” should be filled with vehicles from other nations and why others dont receive the same treatment.

you started talking about “gameplay gaps”,only the big 3 and Israel don’t have a subtree to cover gaps because they done need any ( except Israel they have huge gaps) , (Germany is getting Swiss ground subtree one day and Israel still haven’t got any Greek/Cypriot stuff to cover the gaps )

@_DAMOCLES

The TAM was commissioned for production by Argentina and only Argentina uses it. They didnt have to add it to the game at all, but it doesnt inherently need to be in the german tree any more than it needs to be in another nation’s tree to fill a “gameplay gap.”

still it was designed by Germany

@_DAMOCLES

It could have been added to its own South American conglomerate

of course when the LATAM tree comes will get the TAM

@_DAMOCLES

There are many other examples, such as the C2A1, which were arbitrarily thrown into one tree when it could have easily been added to others that needed it more.

its a Leopard and Canada isnt a subtree to any nation

@_DAMOCLES

My point is that gameplay gaps are not a reason to add vehicles to trees, nor is it a reason to add a subtree.

yes it is

@_DAMOCLES

The current implementation is anything but fair bevause gaijin is picking winners and losers with copy-paste vehicles and sub-trees.

no?

@Leo2A6EX-live

Israel is where some want the tam to be moved too

weirdos, having some Israeli systems doesn’t mean it should go to Israel with the same logic the Trophy Abrams should have gone to Israel too or when the Leopard 2A8 comes to go to Israel and Greece

[o0Leech_CMDR0o]

i don’t mind copy paste vehicles and do think they could have a place in War Thunder, BUT not as it is implemented at the moment.
Right now these copy paste vehicles are “in the way” of the unique ones. What i mean by that is that to get to the unique ones you have to grind out the copy paste. For me this is the most annoying part, as some copy paste vehicles DO boost lineups or fill holes in br’s.
I could be done like the South African ground tree in Great Britain (foldered behind the unique tanks). Or as a whole new side tree. That way you don’t need to do them, but still have the option if you want to expand your line-up or fill the br gap.

About the premium copy paste:
Much rather have premium copy paste than unique premiums. Premiums should just be a way of grinding a tech tree faster, not about collecting/getting to play unique vehicles.

I would also love to see those polls make a comeback (the polls War Thunder did when the review-bombing happened). These were in my opinion a good way for everybody (developers as players) to know what everybody thinks about proposed changes/vehicles to be added.

[YaBoyCoconut]

FYI

Currently the only way to access the KH-25MPU

[Aisbitt034-psn]

Ah. Yes. Because Israel and Argentina have amazing relations

[Aisbitt034-psn]

Exactly. Or Black knight Chally 2 going to Israel because of Iron Fist.