Lol. How many nations have APS now?
Correct. And you know what a ton of other nations have now? APS.
It’s not just a choice between adding every vehicle or adding nothing.
Gaijin could be more selective about what each nation actually needs. They could also focus more on unique vehicles and new gameplay mechanics.
I’m not against national representation. I just don’t think every Leopard variant needs to be added immediately.
Agree, Sweden is not Italy which lacked top tier tanks, I completely agree for the Italians getting the 2A7 from Hungary that was necessary since they did not perform well at top tier gbr. Sweden has been a at the top in terms of tanks for a very long time.
That’s actually a good point. Maybe the real issue isn’t copy-paste vehicles themselves, but copy-paste gameplay.
A new vehicle should give players something different to experience, not just another name in the tech tree.
Fair enough, APS is a valid reason to add the 2A8NO. But that doesn’t change my broader concern about tech trees becoming increasingly similar. I’m looking for more than just another Leopard with a new feature.
I think you are vastly overstating the experience of moving your mouse and left clicking.
Oh boy do I have news for you
Exactly. Italy getting the 2A7 makes sense because it fills a real gap. Sweden is a different story. I’d rather see Gaijin focus on nations that actually need stronger top-tier lineups.
1 Like
that is such a nothing argument, okay so every tech tree can only have one tank of each role at every rank unless it adds some special gimmick?
That’s not what I said. I’m not asking for every tank to have some special gimmick.
There’s a big difference between having multiple vehicles in a lineup and grinding nearly identical tanks across several nations.
I’m talking about variety, not limiting every nation to one tank per role.
And now we have the M1A2T at the top of the Chinese tech tree. Seriously? China has its own modern MBTs, yet we end up with an Abrams. If that isn’t a sign of tech trees losing their identity, I don’t know what is.
I casually asked a few Chinese players about it, and they all thought it was ridiculous.
Except on the gameplay perspective, the chinese tanks are all inferior to NATO tanks, and the M1A2T brought the so called “gameplay” to actual players, rather than vehicle larpers.
So instead of making Chinese tanks more competitive, the solution is to give China an Abrams?
That pretty much proves my point about tech trees losing their identity.
And Taiwan does have an abrams? It was a legitimate addition.
Good luck finding a chinese tank with actual good depression and without T-series weakpoints.
the gimmick thing wasnt my main point there, my point was that often tanks are designed to fill the same/similar roles so saying something like this
is so silly because like the arjun mk1 and challenger mk3 both give fundamentally the same gameplay, but are still entirely unique vehicles
do you think gaijin shouldnt have added the arjun mk1 because the UK already has the challenger mk3?
saying the issue is copy paste gameplay negates like 90% of the vehicles in this game
So every nation needs an Abrams or a Leopard 2 to be competitive now? That’s exactly the problem I’m talking about.
And it’s one your solution (making china more competitive) can’t solve. There are no competitive solution that isn’t a copy paste tank.
They are simply necessary to fill the gaps.
You’re comparing two completely different tank designs that happen to play similarly with multiple variants of the same tank appearing across different tech trees.
That’s not quite the same thing.
I have no problem with the Arjun and Challenger playing similarly. At least they’re different tanks with their own designs and identities.
My concern is seeing the same Leopard, Abrams or T-80 platform spread across more and more nations.
I disagree. The ZTZ99A and VT4A1 are perfectly capable tanks. They have their weaknesses, sure, but so do the Abrams and Leopard 2.
Why should every nation need a Western MBT to be competitive? That’s exactly the kind of homogenization I’m concerned about.
youre the one who said the issue is
i didnt say that