That is theoretical space, not practical. We also need to consider research progression logic, which means vehicles will be sorted by type, vehicle folders need to make sense and BRs need to be mostly in order.
Then most holes at any tiers are generally the SPAA lines, which Gaijin deliberately don’t fill as much as other lines (I’d love more personally, but I can see why some wouldn’t want to research as many SPAAs as medium tanks for example)
So in practice it looks a lot different. For example here is the space left for vehicles from new vehicle families / types in the first three ranks of US air:
Red (I can’t use red text, just pretend it’s red) is free spaces that are already there, which is three (3)
Orange is free spaces that can be made by moving folders in a logical way, which is an additional four (4)
These are then additionally limited to being specific lines for fighters (5), attack aircraft (1) and bombers (1), rather than just spaces free for use.
Only vehicles that can be reasonably grouped with existing ones can be added outside of these limitations, unless we see some changes to the research tree structure or layout.
This is in no way enough to fit the hundreds of unique aircraft that the US could have to offer here.
Honestly, Gaijin’s policy is to make as much money as possible. That’s why they want to add Korea and Greece (new premium vehicles) and infantry (another new weapon or premium infantry unit).
If I may ask, where did you get those two statements? So far, Gajin has only said that he doesn’t see the point in adding more WW2/early Cold War vehicles, and that they might be behind a paywall.
I’d say they should allow more vehicles in a folder (more than current 3) that way they can add more stuff without making the grind longer for those not interested by a certain rank.
Maybe even sub-trees that deploy when you click a folder
That’s practical space, not theoretical.
As you can see there, not even 50% of fighter space is filled in USA.
There’s still 22 free slots open for fighters in rank 2. 4 vehicles per folder, which isn’t unprecedented.
@Grzegames
Q&A he says WW2 vehicles are added and more will come.
Focus =/= exclusion.
In theory you can add a lot more, but practically they will be locked into existing vehicle classes and most even specific families to allow them to fit, which simply won’t be enough to add all of the existing options.
And that’s still just 22 fighters as you say, there is far more than 22 fighters missing here for example, with many more options ranging from entirely new aircraft to variants of families already in game.
So again, there isn’t enough space for everything. Of course they won’t add everything at once, so in thepry this isn’t needed, but there still should always be enough space that Gaijin can pick any individual option at any point in time.
Maybe I’m stupid, but the statement “adding even more vehicles of that era doesn’t make much sense” means they don’t see the point of adding new vehicles to TT. I have a life, I don’t have time to constantly play War Thunder to earn event vehicles and the Battle Pass. Plus, I’m not going to give those thieves at Gajin a penny for premium vehicles.
@Grzegames
“Even more” than an unknown number above 40.
Focusing , meaning to give priority, to early cold war jets, to props, to medium tanks, when there are holes elsewhere doesn’t make much sense.
That doesn’t mean the focusing on BR holes means no new vehicles where there is saturation, but it does mean there will be less until holes are filled.
And that answer is exclusively in the context of the short-term, the next few updates. It’s not in the context of the long-term of the game.
So claiming they’re not going to add WW2 vehicles is 100% a blatant lie when they stated the opposite.
Last year, only 14 WWII-era TT vehicles were added. Yes, that’s more than 10, and that’s probably the only positive. The countries that received new vehicles were the UK, Sweden, Germany, the USSR, and France. The rest received nothing. This gives me a good reason to consider writing suggestions pointless. Why waste hours searching for sources and then spending even more hours writing suggestions if they won’t make it into the game anyway? It’s a pointless waste of time.
I really don’t feel like looking up every single US aircraft that might end up in rank 2, so here’s just 23 of them taken from suggestions here on the forum (linked below):
I limited myself to only use already suggested vehicles, as well as not using more than one of a vehicle family, just to make it more interesting and not have the entire list filled with P-39s alone.
Which would be a way to create more space that we don’t have yet. You can’t use a possible solution to disprove a problem.
I think the problem there, and ultimately what’s caused the controversy over the Q&A, is how many of those 40 were actual Tech Tree vehicles and not Event/Premium/Squadron Vehicles. Going by Grez’s list there, only 12 out of the 36 or so listed were TT vehicles. That matches what BVVd was saying about them not seeing the need to add many more to the TT going forward, and generally reserving them for events/premiums, which is a tad annoying.
True, but then again, there’s definitely way more than 22 fighters they could add to the US TT at that rank and thats not counting Bombers, attackers, strike aircraft etc
That is something I can get behind.
2024 saw more event/premiums than 2025 relative to all other additions, and BVVD did a poor job answering the question.
We know BVVD meant that 40+ vehicles will continue to be added while they focus on filling BR holes.
Which means after they finish filling holes things change. Just as 2025 saw more filler additions than 2024, 2026 and 2027 will see more than 2025.
@MAUSWAFFE Your list included around 7 bombers and strike aircraft.
The Curtiss SC-2 Seahawk would also be rank 1.
At rank I there can be more than 3 horizontal lines, current maximum is 4 afaik, but since arrows between rank I and II aren’t necessary, there can be even more.
Edit: nevermind looked at event stuff
Fair enough, but considering that’s still only four short of the 20 spaces left for fighters in Rank II (assuming 3 fighter lines * 3 vehicle folders per line * 4 vehicles per folder - 16 already in the tree) I’d say it still gets the point across.
This wasn’t all aircraft they could add, it was just a few I could find quickly.
I could probably use up at least half the space for P-39 variants alone, and that is ignoring that there is at most enough space for five of them in the tree, less if you merge P-400 and P-39 folders to make room for another type.
I know this is getting off topic but the Boeing B-17B (Early) Flying Fortress would suck in all the right ways and should be added for that reason alone
Alright bro you can go do Cold War vehicles now )))
It’s sad that it has come to this, WW2 has created a HUGE amount of vehicles that “too many” is really too few, and your suggestions show this to be true even for a country as small and limited on options as Japan is.
This is unfortunate, as Malaysia could have brought the CAC Sabre with it.
First, from the Cold War era I could only write about 10 proposals (aircraft and ground vehicles) for Japan.
Secondly, I don’t like writing suggestions for modern vehicles because I don’t fully understand most of the technology used in them. I struggled mightily with suggestions for the FS-T2 Kai and the MiG-25P.
The suggestions I’ve managed to write represent only two-thirds or even less of all the aircraft suggestions I’ve planned. One could add another 100 suggestions to the existing aircraft suggestions for Japan, and there would still be aircraft to suggest, 50 more suggestions to tanks, 20 more suggestions to helicopters, and at least 70 or more suggestions to ships. That’s a huge number of possible suggestions that gajin could completely ignore.
