You can read about all the differences here. (Sd. Kfz. 166) Sturmpanzer IV - Serie IV (June 1944)
You misunderstand me. I didn’t say they should have added it instead of the Hummel. I said that if they were really concerned with a gap such that they felt the need to add M44/55, then the Brummbär would have been just fine. Instead the reason they added those to Germany too is imho simply the understandable desire to avoid controversy (people feeling left out etc).
I just don’t like seeing some things locked away forever. Especially stuff unique to a nation.
A good example is the Ro.57 Quadriarma. This plane is really cool, great as an interceptor in Air RB and a great CAS plane in Ground RB.
It is uniquely Italian (although not many were built) and no variant of the Ro.47 exists in the TT.
This vehicle was gained in the 2020/21 WINTER event. Which is cool that I have it, but would suck if I joined the game after then. It is something that there is no real way to acquire anymore. Other similar vehicles include: Lorraine 155 Mle.50, Breda 90/53, Zrinyi I, TOG II, Late 298D.
These types of vehicles are unique to their nations, other models of the same vehicle don’t exist, and they have real capabilities.
This is my problem with the whole system. There needs to be a realistic way to acquire these old event/BP vehicles. For a reward for those of us that got them back in the day they usually have a unique camo. I’m not so elitest I need more than the unique camouflage.
That is the reality of modern military procurement.
Yeah, so? Then why add all these sub-trees to further water things down? They could have instead made a new tree with coalitions, sure there’d still be copy-paste but it’d maintain the uniqueness of existing nations.
Ehh, who cares about reality. Fun comes first. There are arguments for and against copy paste in terms of the actual game but realism ain’t one of those.
Sadly, Gaijin advertises their game as “realistic,” so realism is one of them.
Nah. They know quite well where to draw the line.
None of us suffer reliability problems in combat even though it’d be totally realistic. We fight surreal battles in nonsensical maps with no infantry or threat of mass indirect fire. We ship tanks to places like the Arctic. Nazi Germany and Israel can be on the same team. Got no turret basket? Doesn’t matter, you can reload with the turret in any position. Got no cupola? That’s fine, have the same situational awareness as everyone else. Jumping off a cliff? No problem, the loader is reloading the gun even mid air.
Come on. I could go on for hours. The realistic advertisement only necessitates the illusion of realism. In many cases they already (correctly) prioritise fun over realism.
What they see in C&P is: more content, more lineup parity/access to mechanics for all trees, more grind. All of these are pure game logic and require no realism to talk about.
Because existing minor nations would like to play the game too?
Someone didn’t read the word coalitions. Instead of diluting existing trees with copy-paste make new trees made up of minor nations.
In many cases I’d agree with you, there’s a lot of nations that don’t reasonably fit anywhere and would be best as their own new nations in coalition style techtrees. But at the same time this is exactly what subtrees are, or at least what they should be, so I don’t think it’s right to say they are all bad.
At its core there is two things subtrees try to do:
A coalition techtree is exactly the same. Take for example Poland and Czechoslovakia for example, both would make decent techtrees on their own, about in line with Sweden (- subtrees) but are often anticipated as a combined techtree because that’s more in line with what other in-game factions provide.
The current drawbacks of subtrees, like having multiple nations compete for space in a techtree and potentially forcing players who only care about one nation to also play something they don’t want to, still exist with coalition techtrees because a coalition tree is functionally the same thing.
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.