Who need Singapore？Even our foreign trade vehicles are enough to form a new tech tree full of unique vehicles, why don’t you put them in game now? just because you can’t copy them in another tech tree just like you once did to m44, m55, l2a4 and t80?
I only saw a response that lacked any sincerity; not only did it fail to provide any solutions, but it also tried to divert attention from itself by stirring conflict among players.
8 Likes
then you get rate limited :sob:
But they don’t have to do anything; if we’re talking about facts, this only makes things worse. They give reason to people who have no reason.
The core issue here is that the current process for implementing sub-trees in War Thunder appears to be arbitrary and lacks any clear, historically grounded criteria. This stands in direct contrast to one of the game’s foundational principles: historical accuracy.
Improving the competitiveness of certain nations is a goal we can all support. However, doing so at the cost of historical immersion and the distinctiveness of national tech trees is a different matter entirely. This approach has understandably caused significant backlash within the community.
In my opinion, if Gaijin had adopted a consistent, transparent, and historically based methodology for implementing sub-trees, the process would have been far smoother and much less contentious. Here’s a suggested framework:
Proposed Sub-Tree Implementation Guidelines
- Sub-tree Selection Criteria
If a nation (A) requires additional vehicles to remain competitive, a suitable sub-tree nation (B) should be selected based on clear and sustained historical, military, or technological ties with nation A.
- If no such ties exist, then and only then should a less historically connected nation be considered, preferably one not already closely associated with another major nation in-game.
- Vehicle Inclusion Criteria
Once nation B is selected, vehicles from its roster should be added based on the following logic:
- Case 1: Vehicle X is domestically developed and operated by nation B, without involvement from any other major nation (C) already featured in the game.
→ X is eligible for inclusion in nation A’s sub-tree. - Case 2: Vehicle X is operated by nation B but was developed with significant involvement from nation C (already in the game).
- Case 2a: If nation A has relevant historical, military, or technological ties to X, then it may be included.
- Case 2b: If no such ties exist, X should not be added to nation A’s sub-tree.
Practical Examples
- Thailand (B) is selected as a sub-tree for Japan (A).
Thailand operates the VT-4 (X), which is developed by China (C). Since Japan has no historical or technological connection to this vehicle, it should not be included in the Japanese tree. - India (B) is selected as a sub-tree for Great Britain (A).
India operates the T-90S (X), developed by Russia (C). As there are no meaningful ties between Britain and this vehicle, it should not be part of the British tree. - India (B) also operates the Arjun (X), a domestically designed and produced tank. Since it involves no major foreign input, it can appropriately be added to Great Britain’s sub-tree.
Adopting a clear, repeatable, and historically consistent approach like the one outlined above would not only preserve immersion and faction identity but also foster greater community support and understanding. Random or forced sub-tree integrations, by contrast, risk undermining one of the very elements that make War Thunder stand out: its commitment to authenticity.
Unfortunately, as much as we’d like to believe otherwise, the reality paints a different picture. The bug reporting process has become increasingly dysfunctional.
Reports are frequently closed prematurely or without proper explanation, and inconsistencies in how reports are handled are all too common. In some cases, two reports using the same source have resulted in contradictory outcomes one being accepted, while the other is closed. This kind of logic is not only flawed, but frustrating for those putting effort into well-documented reports.
Worse yet, bug report managers seem to operate without accountability. Mistakes are rarely acknowledged, and the use of anonymous or obscured identities creates a lack of transparency that only deepens the mistrust.
The system has increasingly turned into an echo chamber, where reports pushed by insiders or inner Discord circles receive preferential treatment often regardless of their accuracy or quality while legitimate community submissions are sidelined or dismissed without due process.
If Gaijin is serious about improving War Thunder and working with its community, then the bug reporting system needs a complete overhaul. This includes:
- Increased transparency in how reports are reviewed and accepted or rejected.
- Clear, consistent standards for evaluating reports.
- Proper selection and oversight of report managers to ensure fairness and professionalism.
- Public accountability for mistakes, with a mechanism for appeal or review.
Right now, the system undermines the very trust it needs to function. If Gaijin truly wants to show it values community input, this is one area that desperately needs attention.
7 Likes
Yeah that’s the biggest issue about this forum, random limitations instead of actual solutions
1 Like
read more opinions here:
Personally im not South Korean, what I do have are South Korean friends from Student Exchanges in my University, and when asked they usually reply with the same reasoning, historical context. So from my perspective i can’t support it
you may think its okay, and thats fine, we have our own perspective and reasoning for things
Slowly running out of Likes for the day
4 Likes
no M1A2T for taiwan then by this logic.
hell, no F-16s, Mirages or anything lol
no T-80UD either, nor Mi-35.
also most of the early BRs of chinese TT would also be gone lmao.
see why this doesnt work?
2 Likes
So,Gaijin made Russia very strong in the game. I wonder if real Russian players would be happy about this.
and somehow the T-72B3A has a working APS. Why don’t they copy the code for it? the APS code? (I am not familiar with coding pls don’t blame me)
I can understand that reasoning for people to think that way, but for game wise, it would be the most logical reasoning.
Relatable
1 Like
There vehicle is actually still nerfed compare to real life.
This right here, facts, sometimes when I say don’t add Singapore or any other ASEAN country to China people think I’m anti China but that’s not true, China is 1 of my main nations and I started grinding for it and got premium vehicles because I believed someday I would see unique Chinese vehicles, and that is what I want to see and play, more of China’s own domestic vehicles, it’s the whole point I began playing the country, Singapore to China is egregious and lazy and Singapore would be better off in another tree that actually needs it
5 Likes
the military DOES use this term
Whatever happened to the F-CK-1, the fact we even got Rafale and Typhoon before the legacy F-18s and the F-CK-1 is bonkers
5 Likes
you’ve escaped my like for now, Kaiser.
2 Likes
are you rus?
I am not you.