yea and its obvious he means that they shouldn’t be in the same TT as in real life they would never be together, and the battalion in game is your line-up not the teammates, Taiwan should be with Mainland China but have equal rights not like now that Taiwan doesn’t even have their flag
It clearly matters to him, btw, he’s talking about immersion. Where do you get immersion, in the research screen, or while playing the game?
You’re looking at the finger rather than the moon.
He’s saying “these operators are enemies in real life and so they should be enemies in the game too, or it breaks immersion”. But there’s no such immersion! Countries that are or were enemies in real life fight side by side all the time in War Thunder, and they do so in completely unrealistic scenarios. So the immersion argument is completely pointless.
Do you even know what a battalion is? If your battalion is down to (a maximum of) 11 vehicles, brother, let me tell you, you are not fit for combat anymore lmao.
From a business perspective it makes zero sense for them to do that, irrespective of what our personal opinions may be about the politics of the situation.
tell me what nation that are enemies are together in a TT together?
you can carry up to 10 vehicles in game, and its an analogy
East Germany and West Germany. Like, hello?
Also have you forgotten that we already got confirmation that Korea will be a united tech tree? Unlike the China situation, there is zero ambiguity from an international perspective that these are recognised by everyone as two distinct sovereign countries, which I might add are technically still in a state of war with each other. And they’re going to share a tech tree!
That said,
This sentence I said is not just limited to tech trees. You can literally have USSR and USA together in a team at cold war BRs, or again, Nazi Germany and Israel, scenarios that are already unthinkable. It’s WT. You’re not supposed to take it so seriously, it is a shooter game. If you want realistic factional armoured conflict, go play WARNO.
EDIT:
You are, once again, misinformed. The max number of crews was always 11, but the 11th crew used to be hidden behind getting 10 friends to join the game through your referral link and get to Rank III. Now, however, you can just buy it, it was recently changed. I have 11 crews in my German TT.
2 Likes
30 years ago??? now they are united???
yes the key word is UNITED
something that does not happening with Taiwan
yes in a battle but they are not TOGETHER in TTs
So what? If you’re playing at the Cold War BR, they should not be fighting on the same side, at least if you care about that factional thing. There is no scenario in which the DDR T-72 would be fighting alongside West German Leopards. It is no less outlandish than the ROC Abrams fighting alongside PRC vehicles.
PRC and ROC are enemies that share a tree. South Korea and North Korea are enemies that will share a tree. BRD and DDR were enemies and they share a tree.
Yes, it is. PRC and ROC are in the same tree.
This is irrelevant if your argument is about breaking immersion. If you think PRC and ROC fighting side by side is completely unacceptable, as Tika seems to believe, then it’s unacceptable in any scenario. Whether because of TT or MM.
My response to that is that there is no immersion in WT, so using it as an excuse to split ROC and PRC into different trees is ridiculous.
2 Likes
Yes, they had it, at a time when they were decommissioning large quantities of equipment because a literal legal precondition for German reunification was that they would reduce their military readiness. But that is irrelevant to the argument Tika was making. If war broke out between PRC and ROC tomorrow and PRC captured an Abrams, I guarantee you he’d still complain about the Abrams in the Chinese tech tree because he thinks WT should represent the political antagonism between the two operators. Something which WT never does with any of its tech trees.
Tech trees are organising principles for research and lineup formation in this game, and nothing more.
Again there were still unified German t72s leopard 2a4s Marder 1s and bmp1s (and possibly bmp2 but their history in the bundeswehr is limited)
they did serve together in the same army pal
were did you see the sharing? 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
more like PRC TT and POC subtree its now and Taiwan doesn’t even have their own flag
no its not, we don’t have any other TT were two counties with completely different armament be together
from the start Taiwan post 1950 should have been as a subtree to USA but now this cant happen so at least give them their own flag in their own tanks and have the ability to put it into the TT
1 Like
@Forum Moderators Please smite these two for ‘Irrelevant discussion’
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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”?
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Not all FNF missiles are equal in terms of gameplay, just as not all tanks are equal.
1 Like
“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.
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
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