i mean yeah its pretty big issue especially if they could make an ASEAN tree that would solve that issue, hell might see it in the future since they seem to working on that eastern Europe tree (which solves a lot of issue of people not wanting their tanks in the soviet tree)
And make like 3 other trees pointless because an ASEAN tree will be packed with copy paste from tons of different countries? If it needs multiple countries to be packed together to be viable then I don’t think it’s a good idea
And how does that make 3 trees pointless? last I checked they dont get the best of any one nation baring spaa and if your concern is leopard 2s or F35s that ship has long since set sail
They get Flankers, F-15’s F-18’s, and F-16’s as well as Gripens? Rafales and of course a variety of other aircraft/ground vehicles i don’t know about, all in one tree
and…? again most of the time they dont get the top of the line versions of these planes? so again how does that make any tree pointless?
Why spend all the time grinding other trees when you get a pretty similar or effectively the same vehicle of 3-4 nations in one. There’s enough copy pasting already
so why not go play italy then? they have their own mbts as well as leopards, their air tree has mig 29s gripens F16s and eurofighters I wouldnt say italy made germany america britain or russia pointless?
4 Likes
Britain, US Germany and Russia still have a lot of other vehicles across other BR’s. An ASEAN tree would be filled with vehicles from other nations from top to bottom.
They would get all 3 of the main US 4th gens, the latest Rafales, modern Flankers, and Gripens, and that is just top tier air
There is a difference though.
In the case of the VT4, some players are demanding that the Thai VT-4 not be deployed alongside the Thai subtree, the location where by all established standards that vehicle should go. Those players want an exception to a rule-- a rule that has been followed by Gaijin in the past.
In the case of Singapore, players are questioning why those vehicles would be deployed into the Chinese tech tree when by all established standards, those nations don’t make sense to be grouped together. Those players are questioning Gaijin’s creative decision.
That’s not hypocrisy or a double standard. Those are two separate issues.
6 Likes
Avoid one-man rule by the Bug Manager. A transparent issue review process is in place. Bug Managers must be supervised by the corresponding players. Players’ issues should be communicated with community management or the Bug Manager. Players will rate their performance, and the Bug Manager with the lowest rating will be removed annually.
Restore equipment performance. If the restored equipment is too strong, increase the corresponding combat weight.
Fix a large number of issues that have been approved but not implemented for a long time.
Players will participate in discussions on combat weight adjustments, raising questions and comparing vehicles with the same combat weight but different performance, or vehicles with similar performance but different combat weights.Officials need to give reasonable and convincing reasons to the majority of people。
Do your job and fulfill your responsibilities. If a person is recognized as not being able to do a job well, he should be replaced as soon as possible.
*Machine translation may not be accurate
Obviously, mentioning Singapore is a deliberate change of subject. What is China’s appeal, one of them is not mentioned, but it causes conflicts among players and deliberately shifts the contradictions.
1 Like
It’s not about questioning their stance, but rather about their opposition to integrating Singapore into the Chinese tech tree. The core reason is that if this integration happens, the Chinese tech tree would gain access to Singapore’s acquired F-35A and F-35B variants, in addition to China’s own stealth aircraft. This potential access is precisely what leads some players to ‘question’ the move, as you put it.
1 Like
You perceive these as two distinct issues, but they are essentially the same problem. Your opposition to Singapore’s inclusion in the Chinese tech tree is fundamentally the same as our opposition to Chinese export vehicles being added to the Japanese tree. Please don’t treat them as separate matters. If you insist on doing so, then we could just as strongly “demand” that Gaijin add Singaporean vehicles to the Chinese tree.
1 Like
All players should stick together. This is not just a problem facing China.
6 Likes
To be fair, the Oplot-T was always going to go Thailand under the JP TT. It’s a Thai tank.
2 Likes
Yes, the official response is also blowing off Chinese players.
“We don’t believe your bug reports, so have a Leopard instead”
4 Likes
How about giving China their own server without access to US/EU and giving them whatever they want? Problem solved. US/EU/RU would be happier without them. Plus I wouldn’t have to see them drop N-Bombs in every other Air RB
That’s a pretty bold blanket statement to make. I suppose I can’t speak for everyone but I frankly don’t care if China gains access to F-35s in War Thunder. If those planes get used by Taiwan, for example, then by all means the Chinese tech tree should have them. Besides, this is a bit of an odd complaint to claim the entire opposition is based on when the F-35 will already be deployed to almost every tech tree in the game. Anybody taking that stance seriously is ignoring that China having the F-35 would hardly make a difference in how often the F-35 would be seen in hypothetical future top-tier air battles.
I think you’ll find that most people question adding Singapore to China on the basis that there really isn’t a connection between them. Most other subtrees in the game currently reflect some kind of geopolitical or military alliance, especially during or after WW2, or at the bare minimum geographical proximity.
South Africa-> was a Dominion of UK during WW2-> Deployed in UK tech tree
India-> was a colony of UK during WW2-> Deployed in the UK tech tree (I don’t agree with this placement but I understand the logic)
Finland and Norway-> Geographic proximity and military cooperation with Sweden-> Deployed in Sweden tech tree
Hungary-> Geographic proximity and was a minor Axis power-> Deployed in Italy
BeNeLux-> Geographic proximity and alliances prior to WW2 with France-> Deployed in France
Switzerland-> Geographic proximity and technological cooperation with Germany-> Deployed in Germany
Thailand-> Military and economic cooperation during and after WW2 with Japan-> Deployed in Japan
I’m willing to learn but I’m not aware of what strong connection Singapore has to China to justify deploying their vehicles there. Especially when you look at the other examples and how Gaijin has justified other tech tree placements, either the UK or Israel have a much better claim to Singaporean vehicles than China does.
They are distinct issues, as I thought I explained quite clearly in my original post. They are not essentially the same problem.
Players arguing for the exclusion of the VT-4 from the Thai subtree want Gaijin to make exception to an established rule for how they implement vehicles. That is their position.
That is not the same position as people questioning the possible inclusion of Singapore as a Chinese subtree. In fact, the people arguing that position are questioning why Gaijin would make an exception to an established rule.
One camp is advocating for Gaijin to maintain one standard. The other camp is is asking for Gaijin to tear that standard down.
Say what you will about me, but I’m not threatening the other side with making a bad-faith call to action.
China deserves to have better treatment in terms of its vehicles and how they are represented in War Thunder. I get that the VT-4 controversy has been a uniting force for the community, but it’s basically diverting attention from issues within the actual Chinese tech tree by demanding special treatment. If Gaijin caves to this demand, what is to stop any international community from organizing a campaign and demanding another nation’s vehicles without justification?
War Thunder players need to be working together to hold Gaijin to their own standards to defend ourselves from anti-consumer practices (which, to be honest, neither the Thai VT-4 nor Singapore are). If we break down the system by basically turning War Thunder into a shouting contest where whichever group of players can bully Gaijin the hardest gets whatever they want, we’re never going to be able to band together to stand against RP increases, antagonistic bug managers, or other changes that could negatively impact the whole community.
2 Likes
he doesnt compute as soon as it comes to british commonwealth countries
1 Like