Well, I am not fine with the F-15, F-16, and F-22.
And are you sure that those comments are sarcastic banter, mate?
Australia bought the F/A-18 and Abrams. Well, if Aussies weren’t our sub-tree, it could’ve been absurd, but well, with your logic, Blame Gaijin, not us. okay?
Because simply you blokes never used Skink, earlier in this topic, I said I might be fine with American Firefly because there is precedent for the American Spitfire.
I really don’t like to use tu quoque since it is boring, but well
It was always American mains who shot first when we asked for ‘US-Built, UK-used Lend-Leased vehicles’
You blokes simply said a hard no to nearly everything in the name of ‘-1 Copy-paste is bad, and tech tree uniqueness is important.’
If we Brits are not allowed to have any vehicles
which we used (P-400 Airacobra Mk.1, Buffalo Mk.1, Merlin Mustangs)
or which our subtree used (F/A-18 Hornet, M1 Abrams)
Then, do you really expect that we say ‘yes’ to a vehicle which you have zero connection with it, and never bought?
I come in here and regularly see foreign mains demand access to US gear, even before the US has received it, then mocking US mains for demanding other stuff. This whole forum pretends demanding stuff is from US mains only. It’s absurd.
The UK didn’t need 4 F18s and 2 Abrams. You wanted it and demanded it. US mains are regularly told we don’t need things by the same people demanding stuff they don’t need.
That is simply not true.
You are mocking us for demanding stuff, and other US mains mocked Japan mains for demanding stuff,
Well, that logic was the same logic which you blokes used when we asked for P-400, Buffalo, Merlin Mustangs, and 76mm Shermans with American guns, right?
Well, that is how Subtree works, no?
Probably mainland UK didn’t need F-18 and Abrams, but well,
Australians needed these.
With your logic, you tossed your flaw of Skink to Austrian SK105;
You need to blame Gaijin, not us.
Gaijin decided to add Aussie to our tech tree.
When we demand things we want, you blokes suddenly come up, lynch us, and simply justify it as ‘Tech-tree uniqueness is important, and C&P slop is bad’.
I am seriously wondering why the French still cannot get the M24 Chaffee when they are the largest M24 operator post-WWII, and why we cannot get any Merlin Mustangs when Mustangs are born of our request to North Americans that ‘we need a copycat Kittyhawk; can you make some’.
The UK tree didn’t need the Australian sub tree either.
They already had South Africa which is still one of the best sub trees in the game, As it actually had effort put behind it.
Especially since there are still several trees without any sub tree at all i don’t see why it was “needed”.
Well, that is Gaijin’s decision.
Probably they just didn’t want to fix Chally’s problems and fubar status of the British Air Branch.
Or adding some French stuff from SAAF to fix these.
British Air TT post Spitfire LF Mk.IX were simply on “Getting over with it with Bennett Foddy.” status.
Unworthy to grind compared to US TT, unless you are british, or an anglophile, untill Eurofighter changed the tide.
Still, the general experience of grind was painful even after Eurofighters, because ‘adding Eurofighter’ doesn’t solve mid-rank problems.
Well, we have the South Africa subtree, that is true, but calling it ‘one of the best sub-trees’ is quite a debatable term.
They were added in March 2021, on “Ixwa Strike”, but within 5.5 years. only aircraft they got was the JAS 39C.
I reckon it is not the best one since it is heavily neglected.
But got your point; they have unique-ish vehicles over ground branches, makes sense.
Another day I lose faith in educated conversations and “We claim this, we claim that” as someone has said before, because it uses a hull and another nation modifies it/radically changes it, doesn’t mean the nation that originally made the hull should get it.
Take the Argentinian 105 Sherman, originally a Sherman VC Firefly but was later regunned with a French 105 like the M-51. Should Britain get it? Fuck no, we washed our hands of the tank when it was sold off. Should the US get it? Also a no, because they washed their hands of it when they lend leased the original vehicle to Britain. It would either slot in the German tree (Argentinian vehicles are already in there) or the French tree (France helped co-develop it).
No doubt it would be put in the middle of a shit flinging contest because [X] nation is unhappy with the placement.
P.S I am sour Italy gets the only Sherman IC Hybrid, but I have a soft spot for that tank.
US would likely have got those 4x F/A-18 and those 2x Abrams. Did they need them? No. In regards to Australia EVERY, SINGLE Australian vehicle before the M1A1 AIM was placed within the British tech tree, so the cope over AUS vics going in the Brit tree is comical even now. Canada should realistically be a British sub tree instead of India, but Gaijin make the rules (albiet shittily) and we have to abide by them, if you don’t like them just ya know LEAVE.
The “suprise” Alvis production of Piranha for Switzerland throws alot of people off. Alvis also marketed these said vehicles.
In addition to these, ASLAV did get the same TOW-25 as found on the Alvis model. This turret is already in game on the Desert Warrior. And a fun freebee for you, ASLAV with a 120mm mortar system.
Its better to instead split them to the nations who either:
A: Need something to fill a gap.
Or B: Give (Thing here) to the nation that thing is more closely related to.
Again, Its extremely hilarious how angry you all are over the US tree getting a copy of something from a nation that isn’t dedicated to anyone.
Are we going to whine about the Praga in the USSR tree next? The USSR had little to nothing to do with that, Yet i haven’t seen anyone lift a finger on that one.
They have already been denied South Korea despite the history, Joint ventures, Military cooperation, And current contracts, They have basically no options for sub countries left that offer anything of value.
But The UK, Germany, And all the others have plenty.
You can learn share a couple Canadian things, Especially when such a significant portion of the US tree is copy-slopped.
Not even a US main, And barely play them, Im just tired of seeing how abused it gets for export garbage while double standard after double standard is stacked onto it.
The Canadians that play this game have explicitly said they WANT to be a British sub tree. They are close politically, militarily and have a very affluent history with Britain. They HATE the idea their vehicles are spread across multiple trees, they HATE how Gaijin treat their vehicles.
In regards to the Praga, the Czechs HATE that its in the RU tree and want it removed. However it is a catch 22 becasue its 1) Czech representation however it is also in a tree they don’t want it in and 2) its removed content from an independent Czech tree.
Then they feel exactly how people who wasted their time grinding the US tree feel.
Must be tough seeing your things being shared around with the loosest connections imaginable huh?
They feel time is wasted having to play their vehicles across 3 trees, when they could all be centralised in the tree they want (Britain in this case) so they can make proper lineups. The Aussies have been fighting tooth and nail for years to make it a reality, the Canadians sadly are still fighting the good fight.
And to the incredible snarky comment at the bottom, Germany and RU have got vehicles under looser terms repeatedly and still do, but ofc that will be ignored to once again throw Britain under the bus.
I’ve seen a couple of people bring it up. Especially since it could’ve easily been USSR flagged due to trials and therefore would’ve led less people to think it was a USSR sub when it was repeatedly denied.
Maybe one of the middle east states or something.
Only 2 now, those being the USSR and USA. Also 2 of the largest trees currently. Japan and France also had 3 iirc by the time Australia became a sub (Though yet to see a Luxembourg vehicle).
The thing that could probably solve most of this copy-paste issue would be if they just do something like the nation folder suggestion that was already posted in here a while back.
Make each main folder an “Alliance” or “Faction” or however you want to put it.
Every nation in each faction group is technically its own tree and you can make lineups using anything across the trees within said factions.
That way no one has to be “owned” by anyone, We can have more micro trees without flooding it with copy-pastes that way too to appease the people who want nations that only made <20 tanks.
Technically China too, The devs have stated before they treat both ROC/PRC as one country.
Which is sort of correct, Since both claim to be the real China.
