There is no type 10 with APS currently tho there is in development for it but none yet
1 Like
Every Spit/Seafire barring the MK.1 being evaporated
4 Likes
how is that even possible ?
Spoiler
2 Likes
bro is a time traveler
1 Like
The reason I prefer a stricter definition of copy-paste is precisely because the term has become so subjective.
Some variants are obviously more distinct from their parent design than others, but there is no objective threshold where a vehicle stops being “copy-paste” and becomes a “variant.” Because that line is impossible to define consistently, I think it is more useful to reserve “copy-paste” for genuinely identical implementations and treat everything else as a variant, regardless of how minor the changes may be.
I would argue the opposite is already happening.
Players increasingly use “copy-paste” as a catch-all term for almost any vehicle that shares a common origin with another. We’ve seen this with many Leopard variants, particularly the Swedish Leopards when they were first introduced, where vehicles with visible and documented modifications were dismissed as copy-paste simply because they retained the same gun, engine, or overall silhouette.
Perhaps the issue is not that we need a stricter definition of copy-paste, but that we need separate terms for historical similarity and gameplay similarity.
A German Leopard 2A4 and a Dutch Leopard 2A4 may be near-identical in gameplay, making them gameplay clones, yet they are still distinct historical variants. Conversely, a vehicle can undergo extensive historical modifications while remaining very similar to its counterparts in-game, like the Leopard 2A5 and the Strv 122A. Treating both situations as “copy-paste” obscures the actual discussion and encourages increasingly broad use of the term.
In my view, it is entirely possible for a vehicle to be a legitimate variant (not C&P) while also being a gameplay clone. Those are not mutually exclusive categories.
The problem is that once historical and gameplay similarity are conflated, the definition of copy-paste inevitably expands. What begins as a label for vehicles that are effectively identical can quickly become a label for any vehicle that belongs to the same family. At that point, distinctions between genuine copy-paste vehicles, gameplay clones, and historically distinct variants are lost.
That is why I believe maintaining a clearer distinction between copy-paste vehicles, gameplay clones, and historical variants is ultimately more useful for discussion.
6 Likes
I’m hoping that we get a new tree soon.
2 Likes
We wait for Polish tech tree
2 Likes
Your clueless but Germany should get their revolution package
Another Czech here. Absolute Heresy
1 Like
Technically not true, since cw spit, griffon spit and seafire
why am I spawning you guys in all of a sudden
5 Likes
its a big difference from what it should and what it gets, for now Germany wont get a Leopard like the 2RI
I only use Copy-Paste when:
1- 2 vehicles are fully or functionally identical (visual changes, MGs, etc).
2- The 2nd vehicle in question DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE anything truly positive.
So it’s kind of a reserved pejorative for me.
For example; I call the French Leopard 2A4NL a copy-paste because it’s identical to the German one AND it does not really contribute anything of value to any French lineup, as it’s just sitting there alone at a BR on which there’s no other French vehicle at all; however, I would NOT call the Taiwanese M1A2T or the Australian M1A2 SEPv3 “copy-pastes” because, although they are functionally identical to the American counterparts, they DO contribute a lot to their respective trees and lineups.
In my view, Leopard 2RI is FAR from being a copy-paste; even leaving aside its contribution to the Japanese tree, the tank is just distinct enough; even the closest variant, Leopard 2PL, is significantly different, with an entirely different hull altogether.
3 Likes
I recycle my old example:
In terms of copy paste, I think we do differentiate between
Leopard 2A4 (In game) / 2A4 (C) / 2A4 (PzBtl Premium) / 2A4 (Finland/Dutch) / Leopard 2A3
However Gaijin does not differentiate between these example vehicles as we do, and rapidly change their actions and advertisement on them.
Ideally, 2A4 (C) should go to the tree some years ago because it has in game differences that will contribute do different gameplay, Finnish and Dutch variants should have come IF they are really needed (Answer was no), and 2A3 should be the event / premium vehicle instead of PzBtl (because it is a soulless reskin).
If you are fine with Gaijin’s handling of these vehicles, it is fine. But I am not.
1 Like
So you are against calling them copy-paste but happy to call them clones? That is just a distinction without a difference, saying they are ‘gameplay copy-paste’ to steal your wording would mean literally the exact same.
1 Like
My issue is not with people saying two vehicles play similarly. A German Leopard 2A4 and a Dutch Leopard 2A4 may be near-identical in gameplay, and that’s a fair criticism.
My issue is with using “copy-paste” as a blanket term for both gameplay similarity and historical similarity. Those are separate questions. Two vehicles can be gameplay clones while still being legitimate variants rather than literal copies.
The term “gameplay clone” criticizes repetitive gameplay without implying that meaningful historical, visual, or technical differences do not exist.
8 Likes
Coughs in oplot which was a good addition as a unique vehicle and meant to fill a capability gap - then it got copied to china
1 Like
I bet theres a ton more just lurking
Arjun wont even be close to top tier lol base Arjun will probably be sub 10.0 and then the Mk1A will probably be 10.7
2 Likes
they better show up when I release my ultimate suggestion
5 Likes