Aliances changed drasticaly in the last hudred years.
No matter what you do with tech tree someones is going to be offended by some geopolitical issue.
Don’t worry they don’t need to rearrange tech trees to do that.
Copy paste will always be seen as lazy by most people.
1 Like
But if arranged that way, players will have a choice how they want to fill their lineups.
eg.: Will it be China only, or maybe Korea only, or mix of everything if they wouldnt mind?
No.
This idea would work only if something like the subtree rework idea was applied as many of the tree would be too large to fit all the vehicles.
4 Likes
Middle East and Africa get an oh my… but putting Japan, China and Korea in one tt is not? my guy they been at war since the dawn of time.
3 Likes
No.
What Drama?
I am kind of out of the loop here…
How do you handle matchmaker?
How do you get semi-historical battles?
Are we going to turn ground sim and air sim into arcade/high tier ARB civil war with this?
A big appeal of air sim is having axis versus allies. With this, you rob us of that appeal.
1 Like
Fair point, Im not sim player.
lmao right? Like how is that LESS political?!
-
The general problems of TTs are rooted in the total absence of immersion as a direct result of the grind scheme (and the subsequent artificial need to grind through nations with gaps which needed to be filled with subtrees) and gaijin’s approach to determine vehicles based on their alleged combat effectiveness - which is nothing more than a fairy tale as BRs are plain tools to steer player progress.
-
The only logical solution would be to create trees based on eras which would bring back some immersion and would also allow to satisfy players which want to play nations which have just a few vehicles to offer.
In other words:
From a player perspective it would make sense to create era trees based on irl alliances which switch between the eras. All you have to do is to determine which BRs should apply to which alliance at which point in time to put them into the following brackets:
- WW 2 era (Axis vs Allies)
- Cold War #1 (basically Nato vs WP)
- Cold War #2 (USA/former UK colonies/Nato vs the World)
Based on these brackets the MM determines the sides in which nation has to fight vs which virtual enemies.
As the BRs are not attached to service / combat usage at specific years the allocation of BRs to those brackets is very easy. All gaijin has to do is to study some publicly available data which county was attached to which side at which point of time.
Example:
-
As i saw a Polish player: PL would be part of allies in WW 2, part of WP in Bracket #2 and in the USA cluster in bracket #3 - just for the vehicles allocated to this era.
-
Or Germany: Parts of the TT belongs to WP
The overall problem of such a proposal is obvious:
Gaijin creates with its current nation concept gaps in TTs on purpose - and offers solutions with subtrees and premium products which cost time, money and energy. So they are not really interested to solve a self-made problem for players which generates earnings/income for them.
Have a good one!
1 Like
Yes, lets add a South Asian tree or a Balkan tree. Screw it, make a Middle Eastern tree! South American tree? Eastern European tree? This will cause no problems at all! Such peaceful regions with no problems with eachother, huzzah!
2 Likes
Thai VT-4 got leaked for Japan via Thai subtree. Chinese players want the Thai players to be ignored because of their historical gripe with Japan.
nah…
“Since the Thai VT-4 going to Japan caused problems, lets add China and Korea to the same tree as Japan.”
three East Asian countries have not been on good terms since long ago, and will certainly cause problems ;-;
This is a very bad idea for so many reasons.
In the case of Australia going with China?
China is our primary concern as a national security threat. That’s pretty political, one of the many many reasons this idea is bad. This post is really just a demonstration of ignorance of geopolitics for some goal that doesn’t line up with any of your claims. This is before we even consider the geopolitical strife between the Asian nations that is only recently cooling.
There is no good outcome to this.
1 Like
…is also that certain nations still think they would be relevant - whilst the have zero (conventional) combat power in a theoretical conflict.
If geopolitics would play an actual role very strong regional powers like Turkey or India would have their own tech trees - and Nato without the US would be a combined tree.
I mean you can google the number of “ready for combat” MBTs and actual combat troops of the combined Nato powers in Europe to understand that there is a huge gap between what the think they can do and what they are actually capable of doing.
Whilst this looks comprehensible - a security threat in the classic sense is either based on military supremacy of one party/nation (and their willingness to use it) or their economic relevance/dependencies/trade relationships.
So even as Australia has vast natural resources it makes no economic sense for any power to invest a hell of money in order to conquer these resources and to occupy the country in order to exploit these resources.
We have several examples that even countries with unlimited funding (based on obscure financial practices) have issues with the occupation costs and/or the political pressure of their population.
So it is way cheaper to buy the stuff you need. Or to buy the land with the resources. Or to do both.
150 years ago the duration of armed conflicts / wars was limited as available funds to pay and feed soldiers were the decisive factor.
Have a good one!
You made my day! Thx man! 👍