Many a discussion has been held on whether people prefer new trees or subtrees but I’m curious on whether people prefer nations vehicles being grouped by nation operator or origin.
Honestly it should be case by case decided.
A mix of both could work in some way by operator and or manufacturer, specially in simulator battles but that’s another can of worms. Initially could prevent team-killing but at the same time move a whole bunch of vehicles to one side or another, which might create a imbalance.
Whichever nation did R&D into a vehicle should get it. That’s the point of tech trees.
By whatever cockroaches are in my head. 2a4 to usa, france, israel, ussr, japan, china. And put them before any interesting vehicles. Definitely doesnt turn tts into bland mess with lots of unnecessary and repetative grind.
Jokes aside, by manufacturer. Or country that modified it to point where it gives player smth new. Like kurnass 2000. Stronger agm, tgp and py3. Thats somewhat new compared to f4e. Unlike standart kurnass which is just f4e reskin.
I think tech trees should offer new experience, not playing same vehicles over and over again. Especially magachs.
By operator nation where applicable, but if an operator isn’t in game yet the next closest would be manufacturer.
But in those cases I still want to see it added to the operator nation once it’s in game, even for event vehicles like the Finnish KV-1B for example.
In some cases I can also see both the operator and manufacturer needing a vehicle, but here I am not a fan of taking another nations operator vehicle and giving it to the manufacturer. Usually there is a prototype or demonstrator, or maybe a similar variant that can be added instead of a 1:1 copy that doesn’t belong.
You don’t get the R&D funding without export money. The point of national tech trees from the start was to show tech used by a nation, not tech made by a nation. The launch techtrees for example already included captured and lend-lease aircraft.
Doesn’t mean it was a good choice.