Gaijin has fumbled subtrees so hard. Hungary, Finland, and BeNeLux all have too many extremely similar vehicles, despite having plenty of options to choose from (especially BeNeLux).
I think that “copy paste” is fine if the vehicle offers a different experience/capabilities compared to the one from the parent tree. The Mirage 5BA, F-16A (at 13.0), Mig-19S, and lots of other vehicles are taken from one tree, but they offer a different experience compared to the other ones. Most of high tier Germany is like that, and it’s quite good.
You’re missing the point here. Restricting vehicles to one country, when they were used by many, is always arbitrary and baseless. War Thunder nation tech trees are made with a respect for the national history. They are not made from the various and arbitrary player-fabricated standards that exist due to the vocal minority of players like you.
Many vehicles were much more important to another country than the country in which they were designed. Many were modified, painted, and maintained by those aforementioned foreign users. In a multitude of cases, Gaijin copy-pastes the exact same vehicle where there could have been national variants added - this causes many players to incorrectly assume an negatively biased stance on the adding of similar vehicles in tech trees over-all. Whereas it is only Gaijin to blame.
In any case, tech trees are not made less unique by the addition of additional vehicles they have also used, no matter if they are foreign in origin or not. If you are disappointed in the “lack of a unique experience” (paraphrased), maybe you should look beyond your stereotypes and appreciate the cultural and historic context of these countless vehicles.
Your argument misses the mark entirely. The inclusion of Lend-Lease vehicles in War Thunder tech trees is not just a matter of historical usage—it fundamentally undermines the integrity of gameplay and the distinct identities of national tech trees. You claim that restricting vehicles to one country is arbitrary, but what’s truly arbitrary is forcing foreign vehicles into tech trees under the guise of “respecting history” while battles themselves ignore historical matchups. If historical precedent is the justification, then battles should follow that precedent. Otherwise, this is nothing more than cherry-picking history to justify chaotic gameplay.
You argue that foreign-used vehicles were modified and maintained by other nations, but these superficial changes do not redefine the vehicle’s core identity. War Thunder tech trees are meant to showcase the technological advancements of each nation, not to serve as a catch-all for vehicles that happened to be borrowed. Germany’s Tiger tanks, Britain’s Churchill series, and America’s Shermans are iconic for a reason—they represent the unique military philosophies of their respective nations. Diluting these trees with borrowed vehicles erodes that uniqueness and turns tech trees into a bland mishmash.
Finally, dismissing player concerns as “arbitrary and baseless” is both condescending and wrong. Players value the distinct experiences offered by national tech trees, and the addition of Lend-Lease vehicles disrupts that. If you’re so focused on cultural and historical context, perhaps you should consider the cultural and historical significance of preserving the unique identities of these tech trees.
There are times it does make sense, and I think the Finnish tree is a decent example. Yes, it was primarily copy/paste, and there was no reason to give them copies of their high tier Leopards when analogues already existed in the tree. But it gave the low/mid tier something they desperately needed, and that was versitility.
Prior to their introduction, from around 2.7 to 7.7, the Swedish tree consisted of nothing but paper armored snipers with poor gun handling. This made the grind exceptionally unpleasant, especially when you were placed on a city map (Like, ironically, Sweden). Additionally, grinding out Rank V required using a lineup consisting of the very mid Strv 74, the Bkan, and the Lvkv 42. That was all you got. Adding the Finnish mediums to the tree bolstered their lineup options in their weaker tiers, and gave them options for the large proportion of maps they could do nothing on otherwise.
Gaijin apparently learned completely the wrong lesson from this, however, as exemplified by the Hungarian and BeNeLux subtrees, which were 99% copy paste and gave almost nothing those base trees really needed. Italy and France didn’t need Leopard 2s, they needed their indigenous MBTs to be buffed to the state that they are useable again.
If you hadnt mentioned it i would have brought up the LF mkIXc as it is the best spitfire for a dogfight and its conveniently the most common one to be put into other trees, as premium.
for most lend least I’m very much for its addition, soviet Valentyn and Churchills. shermans and mustangs but the money hungry gatekeeping of certain vehicles like the lee and grant are obnoxious
the lack of lend lease hides a part of that nations history.
subtrees shouldn’t be a way to shoehorn in vehicles that dilute a tech trees identity I agree there. India being nothing but commieslop in the British tree and BeNeLux being nothing but British aircraft C&P and leo 2 spam is damaging to a tree
I think this also applies to different nations and subtrees. Each nation should should be unique.
Copy pastes should only be allowed when there are no domestic vehicles that are available at that BR. Not because it’s the easy way out and to make a quick buck.
This is the opinion of all time. Ah yes, “core identity” of a vehicle. Is this some uniquely American concept which I have not learned about?
M60 with “superficial changes”
You seem to have a very twisted view of “identity”. No matter the topic, you seem to believe that sharing things ruins identity. A so very individualistic (possibly even “selfish”) view of all issues.
Saying “Identity is determined exclusively by uniqueness” is no different than “being different for the sake of being different”. Why?
Lastly, you have a conflict of interest. You mainly play the British tech tree, which has less copy-paste compared to most others. Given you haven’t declared this conflict of interest in any of your posts so far, it is not unlikely that you were deliberately hiding it. Even so, your main post betrays your motivation: you are angry at Israel receiving a Spitfire.
Your intention is to restrict access to others; a man on a high horse who wants to kick others down. But even independent of your bias, your arguments are shaky.
Lend lease vehicles aren’t exclusive to one tree, their usage is historical, gameplay never changes when they’re added. The mindset in thinking this is a issue is beyond me and yes I’ve read the post.
Historical precedent is meaningless if the battles themselves aren’t historically structured. Allies fighting against their own vehicles is a direct consequence of this lazy implementation, making matchups messy and immersion-breaking. If you’re going to argue that their inclusion is justified by history, then battles should reflect that same history—but they don’t. This effects gameplay a great deal.
Well, it’s not just a Lend-Lease problem. With the proliferation of lend-lease vehicles, telling a low tier American Tree from a low tier British Tree would increasingly become more difficult.
There is no doubt that this homogenous composition would be accurate, as allied nations on both sides of the front lines had a sort of potluck of materiel. I’m sure you could find heaps of precedents and records when exactly this happened.
Yet, keep in mind there are reasons some details are omitted for gameplay reasons, like how the tank barrels have no collision.
A new mode with truly historical lineups based on maps would be the only solution to your issue, cuz the current ARB is not historical even if you remove all lend-lease vehicles, e.g. why would Japanese vehicles fly alongside German ones in an European map?
What I said previously referenced the double-standard historical shtick of lend-lease vehicles. I’m perfectly fine fighting the US as Britain in a low tier ground RB. But smudging a foreign plane into another tree under the pretense of historical precedence, when the game’s matchmaking is not historical, makes no sense. Other than that I’m down any day to squad up with my German main friends and smoke some Americans.
Between Fordprefect and Kingtiez the points for or against the need for lend-lease or shared vehicles has been fairly well covered but I would like to add the following (generally limited to ground battles).
Having experienced the initial Allies vs Axis matchmaking and how it impacted vehicle performance, I’d argue that with the current match making free for all, lend lease and sub tree vehicles contribute to stable gameplay, more than they detract.
Export and lend lease Shermans and T-34s are very important to the game in my opinion. At Rank II/III it provideds nearly every nation with a good medium tank workhorse to act as a benchmark without negatively impacting the nations that developed them; US still has the best variety of Shermans, Russia still has the best variety of T-34s.
Additionally, its important to remember that people who engage with the forums like this represent a very small minority. Most players won’t ever complete a tech tree, even fewer will grind out several tech trees to completion. Having variety within single tech trees is critical to ensuring that new players and more casual players aren’t hamstrung by limited variety or overspecialised vehicles.
A final point to consider also is that as vehicles become more modern they tend to become more alike.
You essentially end up with the ‘western MBT’ and the ‘eastern mbt’. This is to say that the auto loading russian/chinese MBTs are more alike than they are different. I’d argue that the western MBTs with 120mm smooth bores in big turrets with composite cheeks are also more similar than they are different. Its the same for the Wheeled light tanks and the SPAA.
US, UK and Israel are always blue.
Germany is always red.
Everyone else can flex blue or red (within limits, there’s lineups of nations).
There’s games where USSR and GB are allies. Some games USSR and GB are enemies.
There’s even games where japan or italy is US ally (makes it really confusing…)
I hate the lend-lease copy-paste. I most hate the way early france and china and sweden were implemented. China especially since they got a P-38 which is like one of the most recognizable planes so having it both friend and foe causes some needless headaches when it should be the one plane you need zero coordination to IFF. Silver mustangs and B25s aren’t much better though.
At least the soviet Mk IX is very distinct in its camouflage (which you can only recognize under ~1 or so km distance with my gfx, otherwise it’s a black silhouette), which has the flipside issue of “I see green silhouette, must be a La-9.”
