Well in ground RB the match maker is all over the place anyway it wasn’t like pre 17 when we had actual historical match maker.
Very interesting, it’s an indigenous Belgian upgrade that would help me justify seeing some of their less original vehicles in-game. After all, an LRF with HEATFS is quite the potent combo.
1 Like
I mean ahistorical clashing isn’t really related to C&P, it’s a different issue entirely. Copy paste is simply irritating because it results in more uneventful encounters and a lost incentive to play a nation’s unique stock in preference to those of foreign countries.
For example, if we were to give Japan Stuarts, M8 LACs, and captured Russian vehicles, there would not doubt be less interest in the admittedly weaker Ke-Ni and I-Go-Ko.
Likewise, do you not think that it would be disappointing to see people rack up kills in a Belgian or French M46 rather than say, a French vehicle that would actually represent the tree?
1 Like
In my view is, if that country service it then it should be added
2 Likes
It is mostly a personal issue, but when I play 4.0 now, I cannot help but think about all of the more interesting artillery vehicles that would make me say “wow, I should really try out this nation, that tank looks pretty fun”. It gnaws away the point of nations, if they aren’t showcasing their vehicles.
That is actually more an issue of BR compression than anything, if the Stuarts, and M8s are so much better that they entice Japanese players away from domestic vehicles, to a detriment, then the balance is the issue, not the vehicles themselves, as you could very easily say that the same issue entices people away from Japan and towards “stronger” trees like the US and Russia.
The “issue of C&P” has never been clearly defined and generally seems to be based on a mix of feelings and opinions about who should have what with no specific logic to it. If you can define the issue to an enforceable degree, then great, but as far as I see it any definition of the “issue of C&P” requires too many exceptions to be implemented realistically
5 Likes
I think it would be interesting to see historical arsenals in a separate game mode, but as it stands, multiplayer is not really suitable for this.
That’s the think first they go oh it’s C&P then it’s a question of need and finally they end up saying they don’t like it
2 Likes
See i think copy and paste is fine but only if no domestic or unique options are available. No reason to add a copy paste vehicle if either a domestic version exists or unique modified
It gets better, the M47 in Belgian service had a MECAR (a Belgian Munitions Giant) APFSDS round.
| Designation | Gun | Caliber | Type | Velocity | Weight | Penetration | Notes | Fire rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M670 | M36/M41 (Patton) | 90 mm | APFSDS | 1500 m/s | 3,65 kg (2,1 penetrator) | Should be a bit less than 300 mm | Interesting APFSDS for M47 and M48 Developed by MECAR |
3 Likes
Maybe low tier Japan isn’t the best example, but my point is that different nations tend to have different styles of vehicle, and when players are forced to choose between one or another (forced meaning the choice of vehicle in which to play in a match), chances are they’re going to choose one from one of the arguably easier nations such as USA, Germany, or USSR.
It sounds petty but I believe it truly does effect the legacy that different playable countries leave behind. Add a captured T-34 (1940) to Italy and the P40 suddenly becomes undesirable, a Norwegian Stug and Panzer III in Sweden may remove attention from the homegrown Strv m/42 and Pvkv series.
I hope you understand my point; it is of course entirely subjective but I will not drop it anytime soon.
Holy moly, it does get better
Stug and panzer iv would literally be better for most players, explain why anyone would play the PVKV IV when the M10 exists at .3 higher with better armor and gun? Again if vehicles on minor nation got BR’s to match their actual performance that wasn’t determined by the good players people may be more interested.
Who wants to play half the beginning frnech or Japanese vehicles? Their big and have essentially no armor (not the french for this case lol but still no pen.) Japan imo is good at 1.7 and up there are a few rough vehicles but those vehicles are just abysmal. Its why when finland dropped and added actually good vehicles on a lineup it made sweden actually fun below 10.0 too bad the 3.7 free to play lineup instantly got butchered when they put an unarmored t34 at the same br as the t34 and the KV-1B/E
Again gaijin need to make the vehicles that suck either better by lowering their BR or juat not adding them. Again BR’s are way too compressed for a lot of vehicles.
I predict J-10C BR 14.7 minimum
Active radar homing medium-range missile on J-10C with PL-12, and could received PL-12A before PL-15
2x PL-10 & 2x PL-12 stock, my guess.
The only tank of France 7.0 - AuF 1 - is at rank 5, and in BP the tank has rank 4
Unless, of course, the gaijin for some reason lowers the rank or BR of this m46.
I still vehemently disagree about adding unmodified Panzers and StuGs to Sweden (Sturmi does interest me in it’s most comprehensive configuration). If the vehicle BRs are the issue, then clearly that is what will require a fix rather than the addition of foreign equipment.
If you wish to try a basic Panzer IV or StuG III, go play Germany, minor nations appeal should be domestic vehicles and modifications, just as with major nations.
But yes, maybe Gaijin wouldn’t have to add copy paste support as often if they just gave sensible BRs that weren’t based on the highest performers.
Are you thinking of the M47? Because the M46 we have now in America is already rank IV, maybe it will just be the first 7.0 for that rank in France, but no need to adjust the tank’s BR or anything.
But then how does that apply to nations like Israel, they have three 13.7 aircraft and a 14.0, no domestic vehicle is available, but should they only have one of those, or is the four okay?
If them having 4 foreign vehicles in the same BR range is okay then does that justify giving say Britain the Indian SU-30MKI or Rafale to diversify their lineup, or is it different with subtrees? I know you personally want Danish and Norwegian subtrees for Sweden, does that mean no F-16s, in those subtrees or is that okay because it “fits the theme” better?
Also how close does a vehicle have to be for C&P, does it have to be exact or is weapons variation included, the F-16ADF for Italy is objectively more C&P than say the F-15C for Israel given the different weapons loadouts, then you have the F-16C for Israel, it is actually a different version of the C than the US has not even including weapons, then there are more distinct variants like the AV-8C, manufactured by Hawker Syddeley and operated by the US, does it still count as C&P, I mean it is a harrier, very similar to the GR.1 and 3, maybe it should be part of the British tree, or just removed entirely? I could go on as there are so many layers to it, but I won’t
and I use aircraft as examples because that is the game mode I am familiar with, but everything applies to tanks too, arguably more as full lineups are needed in all game modes
My point is, it’s not a clear-cut issue, and therefore there isn’t a clear-cut solution, especially as opinions on the matter differ significantly, but as it stands I believe adding vehicles people may not want is a better solution than rejecting vehicles that people do want, at least when it comes to vehicles that saw service
and just quickly to this point, in regard to different play styles and the like, if a Japanese player decides to use a US tank in their matches, despite picking the Japanese tech tree and having Japanese vehicles available, then that is their choice, at least allow them to make that choice instead of making it for them, there is no obligation to play the US designed tank for them, they are capable of picking a Japanese tank even if the US one is “easier”, for those that want to play Japanese tanks, adding imported or captured vehicles isn’t going to stop them, but for those that want the choice, not adding them will.
1 Like
Last time i went to some museums in Norway i believe all their panzers and stugs were from after the war and had the gun disabled as they became mine clearing devices, imo no reason to add them. Id much rather see Norwegian Ford trucks with guns from 7.62 to iirc 105mm with multiple guns in between for the higher BR’s there is more unique vehicles to offer. I feel the same way about my homes Panzer III, again the 3 Sturmi models and the Niki, and the T34-76 (german premium but with the german commander hatch or without) and the t34-75 or literally any of the Continuation War vehicles that gaijin would rather sell instead of adding to the TT.
Norway and Denmark would be better as adding air vehicles and 7.0+ vehicles for ground.
They would give sweden cas and fighters at BR’s they have nothing at unlike Finland.
3 Likes
Nations like Isreal have no domestic aircraft at some BR’s and rely on foreign equipment so theres no reason they shouldn’t get what they used. Though id like to see their unique munitions be added instead of just what the US has.
As for close, when a vehicle has like only maybe a different round id say its still copy and paste, it would need more than that, so example if a nation has a t72, why add the basic model when the nation uograded it to have a bigger gun and a different engine. Imo thats a better addition that just copy and paste. Even adding the unique designs goes a long way, gaijin deciding to add a t34 with missing track guards is lazy when it looked different in service. Again this topic doesn’t work since everyone has their own views for this.