Yes, I know, but just completely ignore the political problems. We are here just to have fun and play the game and those vehicle. Ignore about those outside-world stuff. All I want is to play different War machines from around the damn world.
Bro in this thread even Chinese mains are mostly against Singapore being in their subtree and prefer Pakistan, what are you talking about
No? I don’t have to be angry at some people who have lost their minds because of being too anrgy. When people are Anrgy they just don’t think properly, and when they don’t think properly they never think before they say. Just focus and solve the problem instead of complaining.
2 Likes
Yes, we are literally just TRYING to stop people who can’t think, it’s complicated.
2 Likes
Think the key difference is generally* Singaporeans players do not want to be a part of China, Chinese players generally* do not want Singapore and other players (of lesser importance when it comes to representation) see no point in it being added to China. In fact a fair amount of complaints I’ve seen from Non-Chinese/Singaporean players is that this would just dilute the Chinese tree and take spaces that can be filled with domestic Chinese or Taiwanese vehicles (not to mention Pakistani and Bangali Vehicles). The only views I have seen that are against are either people who frankly do not care or people trying to compare this (Singapore → China) to the Thai VT-4 situation.
In the Thai VT-4 case, it has been a subtree for 6 months and the Thai players are fine with it, and so are the Japanese. Just because hundreds of Chinese people do not want the VT-4, doesn’t mean it should be cancelled. Once China sold it to Thailand, it became Thai first and Chinese second.
Also worth prefacing this by saying I’m not “one of those Westerners” as I’ve been called everytime I make a serious response on this thread.
*to stop misinterpretation
4 Likes
Because someone released a list of leaked vehicles for the next update, which included adding the Thai VT4 to the Japanese technology tree, and his previous lists were quite accurate, Chinese players assumed that the VT4 would inevitably join the Japanese technology tree (and this update was released during a sensitive period). This caused their reactions on forums and other communication platforms to be quite intense. The vast majority of Chinese players (including me) believe that the official saw their reactionsSo did not add the Thai VT4 to the Japanese technology tree in this version and added to the Chinese technology tree. One of the reasons for this is that the automatic loading positions of VT4 and VT4A1 are actually different,However, this is not the case in reality (VT4’s automatic loading machine has a higher position, so its survivability is better）
4 Likes
There is a very simple solution for this:
- Gaijin needs to fix the Chinese vehicles
- More domestic Chinese designs need to be implemented into the game
- Singapore should not be considered because there is already Bangladeshi & Pakistani vehicles to complement the Original Chinese tree and can provide help in the form of lineups, additional vehicles, etc. Just like how Finland is to the Sweden tree when it originally appears. the vehicles are not too different from the original tree, but they help with providing reinforcements, respawns, etc.
10 Likes
They need to fix everyone’s vehicles including China’s
I agree… Pakistan vehicle and Bangladeshi is already in the China tree so we shall focus on them instead of pulling more countries with not much relationship with China. And China and Taiwan itself have lot of unique vehicle that are still missing.
2 Likes
But Gaigin don’t want to make those thing because there are lazy.
So right,but what bvv_d and gaijin have done?
1 Like
clearly wanting to do the easy route by just adding Singapore and ignoring the issues present
2 Likes
Why is that?
Korea has good political relations, has as a military pact with each other (+ USA), so it would make sense for them to go to USA, but, USA already has enough vehicles to make a full lineup and a diverse one at that.
On the other hand, Japan Has a severe lack of vehicles between 9.3/7 and 11.7 South Korea has good Vehicles that would fit these BR’s.
United Korea tree makes no sense, not only politically, but, no one wants another “Isreal” Tree situation, (Copy paste + no real low tier)
3 Likes
Adding new tt isn’t a good thing, Gaijin’s production capacity is insufficient, which will cause many tts to only get copy pastes or only one vehicle.
merkav mk4 continues with the aps not working
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