Exactly, every problem with sub-trees, coalition trees would also have. The only difference is that one has a “host”.
Both have to fight for space, have their version of a vehicle to be the one represented, etc. Dumping more and more nations into the same tree leads to the same problems of “C&P” and underrepresentation; it doesn’t matter how, as both ways end up the same by the end of it.
Everywhere.
USA only has ranks 1 - 3 air filled to ~25 - 30% capacity, every other rank has more open space.
And since sub-trees don’t add nearly as much vehicles as host trees, >70% free space more than enough space.
That “capacity” is also generous at being 3 lines deep, 5 columns, with +3 vehicles foldered.
The foldering system is perfect for the sub-tree system.
Of course, USA doesn’t need a sub-tree, this is just an example.
Good question, as unless we are making folders like this: MBT-Light-SPAA, there isn’t.
With Gaijin preferring a 3x3x5 setup for the research tree and the community making sure that still happens (see how they changed things post Ram I in the UK tree)
And some nations like Germany’s air rank 2(huh, they break this rule but no pushback happened, unlike for the UK) have already hit the point where folderizing is the only option. And Gaijin seem to prefer folders to have logic (so primarily same family).
“sorry now that we placed the M8 LAC as reserve we won’t be able to move it up despite the existance of possible replacement”
Also we won’t add TT M8 in like never
I seriously despise it
That’s not the point. The point is that they have no issue taking event vehicles and adding them to other nations TTs. Sweden lacks a heavy tank and the Finish KV-1B would make a great addition.
Just ignore the current kv1 in there… And not every tree will have the same tanks. Kinda the whole point of different trees
Plus the 2 kv1Es are premiums/event so I don’t think they’d suddenly add it in the tree lmao