People on do surface level research now, despite the PTRL having different radars, turret layout and FCS it looks like the Gepard so its a copy & paste addition.
2 Likes
I am however waiting for the South African version of the R400 to eventually be called copy and paste🥀
Ew.
That’s not comparable in the slightest. You can still go and play America, no matter what is or isn’t in other trees, if you split a nation it basically stops being that nation and just gives some bonus content to others.
6 Likes
To make another example dating practically to prehistory, the British Stuarts in the game are missing a lot of tweaks and minor modifications that would make them visually very distinct.
2 Likes
As far as I’m concerned, the USSR shouldn’t get any Czechoslovak, Czech, or Slovak vehicles, given what it did in '68. That’s why I’m glad that, on behalf of the Czechs, I can bomb Russians while flying the L-39ZA/ART.
4 Likes
Sometimes, “copy-paste” content provides the only way to flesh out a nation’s tech tree. Take Japan, for instance: without the M24 and M41, there wouldn’t be a single light tank between BR 1.0 and 7.7. Similarly, the absence of the M4 and M36 would leave the 5.7 lineup with only the Chi-Ri, which would be a significant disadvantage. At times, C&P content is beneficial—whether by filling gaps in a tech tree or offering interesting premium vehicles (such as the captured P-51C or the Me 210 A-1 W.Nr.2350—though I hate that Gaijin gave it the historically inaccurate name “Me 210 V-22”). At other times, however, it’s poorly implemented, as seen with the Thai M60A3 or the Indonesian Mi-35.
2 Likes
More than only that
3 Likes
An invading force should not receive vehicles from the country it has invaded. For instance, Germany should not receive Polish AH-64s. A different case involves captured vehicles or those from sub-trees. The Japanese are entitled to use captured vehicles—such as the P-40N—but they should not receive vehicles they did not actually capture, like the Type 59. However, when a vehicle comes from a sub-tree, it is considered part of that nation’s service inventory—for example, the Thai VT-4. Should Japan receive a Chinese VT-4 flying the Chinese flag? Absolutely not. But a Thai VT-4, flying the Thai flag and crewed by Thai personnel, could legitimately appear in the Japanese tech tree, as Japan acts as the host nation, providing its tech tree as a home for Thai assets. Furthermore, if—hypothetically—Poland were to be added as a sub-tree to Germany (even though Gaijin has denied this a million times), would I, as a Polish player, have to accept seeing Pz.III tanks alongside Polish 7TPs, despite the fact that they faced each other in combat in 1939? The answer is yes.
3 Likes
Canada is not a tree in the game. Japan is a tree in the game. People try to make this argument all the time while ignoring that Canada is not a tech tree. That’s why it’s not the same as the Kongo.
I mock British mains for demanding stuff while complaining US mains demand stuff. There is no comparison between the Abrams and the Skink.
The UK tree doesn’t need 4 or 5 subtrees. That’s absolutely insane. The UK tree didn’t need multiple Abrams and F18s. If Australia and Canada were that close to the UK for them to only go in the UK tree, they’d be driving Challenger 2s and flying Typhoons. Adding their foreign made vehicles to the UK tree is unreasonable when the UK tree already gets South African vehicles. Minor trees should not be able to cherry pick the best vehicles in the game.
1 Like
Got to love the logic…
Whether something is currently a tech tree is besides the point. Otherwise at one point you’d never had any Hungarian, Israeli, Greek, Thai, etc. vehicles added before they had their own trees. Of which only ISR currently has.
New idea. Remove the US Tree from the game and then we can be rid of US Mains constantly whingeing. You’ll thank me later for your new surfeit of spare time. Some of you might even learn to read!
3 Likes
-Translation-
‘I don’t have the slightest clue as to why a nation that once had an Empire over a 1/3 of the globe has so much in common and so many links with most of it’s former Empire and Dominions.’
4 Likes
Indeed, you can spend 200 dollars on US vehicles, and they’d still be US vehicles in a US tree and can be used in US line-ups.
But 200 for a split nation, and you are sadly funding other trees and not the nation you are interested in; it’s vehicles for everyone else. (This also feels worse; when they then bundle them together and, in turn, make it seem like they are selling you an instant lineup on the surface when they aren’t).
Indeed, well, other ideas, like independent and CANZAC(RIP), are supported but if limited to sub-tree it’s the UK tree, as it basically gets rid of 90% of sub-tree issues (C&P), with the biggest issue then being that lack of room.
But Reddit relating the split nations is a bad thing just means the pots and pans we have been banging about your dislike of the current treatment and how it’s a bad thing worked.
That’s because most forum-goers at least understand the PRTL is a unique variant; Reddit is where you’ll find the claims it’s not.
Meanwhile, a months-old message got responded to, which led to a Canadian, British main and German main having to explain to a US main the real nature of a Canadian vehicle and how their delusions that give them ties to it is wrong.
5 Likes
While it’s got a differing radar and FCS, it’s going to functionally the same as the Gepard, and with the BR changes it’s going to be sitting at 8.7 so it won’t even help address the French SPAA gap
There’s a chance we get a variant with unique ammo, but looking at how the devs implemented the Leopard 1a5BE without its domestic APFSDS I think that’s unlikely.
A handful is not the representative view of all.
Personally I’d rather the USA get a domestic option (though its not the end of the world, just a slight bummer) and for Canada to find a permanent home. Same deal with Singapore, Poland, Spain, Austria and any other nations with split vehicles (official announcement or not).
3 Likes
I wonder who typed one of those
It is the point. Israeli vehicles were split up before it became a tree because it wasn’t a tree. That’s how the game works, even if you don’t like it.
“If Australia or Canada were that close to Britain” my brother in christ Australia and Canada are literally REALMS of Great Britain and the Commonwealth meaning they share the same head of state (King Charles), political system (Westminster model) and are very close trade partners. Military tech sales mean fuck all outside of what is best for the nation that require it. Canada and Australia love the US so much they are moving away and looking at other foreign parters for TRADE and MILITARY equipment because the US is not the ally it once was and cannot be relied on.
Before you open your mouth next time, DO SOME RESEARCH
3 Likes
Yes, you clearly have so much in common they don’t use your equipment.
What did Australia and Canada use during WW1, WW2 and post war?
4 Likes