The Idea behind this is good, but for Sim it would cause some trouble.
Leaving the Shared vehicles out is not acceptable and having them rotate between both main nations to avoid FF also doesnt sound like a good solution.
Maybe for Sim the sub nations could act as full nations? Like how vehicles of a too high BR are filtered out maybe the same could be done with sub nations. For example if you have Russia and India on two separate teams and you have a lineup with both nations vehicles you would then have to choose to be on the team with Russia or India, whichever one you choose would lock the other vehicles for that match.
1 Like
Sim should forego the concept of tech trees entirely and focus on factions, imo that is the best way to prevent excessive false flag gameplay. I envisioned sim to be like the player builds a lineup from a tree or across multiple trees if they are playing a minor nation - and then playing the game under a certain nation that belongs to a faction. The factions and the nation it consists would also vary by time periods and in my opinion, should be geograpically specific. One complaint was the excessive soviet-era designs on former eastern block states eg DDR, but under this format DDR vehicles wouldve been placed on REDFOR in sim.
There would still be false flag gameplay such as kungstiger or HFS 80 hind(post-reunification) but given how less common it is it would be less relevant. There could also be reduced punishments for killing a false flag vehicle unintentionally, and additional rewards in terms of some SL when the player knocks out an enemy false flag tank.
1 Like
I did take this thought from how squad reworks faction in 6.0. Also RIP warrior CSP its now gaijins turn to put this in their games
Would mig29g be redfor then? or blufor like irl? even the 9.12a could be considered blufor.
Its post-reunification so presumably BLUFOR. It does use the luftwaffe symbol after all.
Plus in ASB the RWR IFFs were tuned for teams, not IRL designs I guess.
1 Like
I will have to put a hard disagree with that. Why would I then grind X nation when I could play Y nation cause they already have it. As of right now you can have mixed battles without mixed battles.
2 Likes
In March, it’ll be almost one year since we have had fox 3 missiles introduced. Should Gaijin add more capable missiles next patch such as AIM-120C and R-77-1?
- Yes
- No
0
voters
depends on what aircraft get access to those missiles really. If you’re just adding them wholesale, then no.
2 Likes
I suppose 8 fighter aircraft top tier only received AIM-120C & R-77-1 after gajin decompressed max BR to 14.3
Except if the range on wikipedia of those missiles are totally far from the reality, i’m not sure we will even get things like mica ir at that point, i don’t believe it at all, + all planes should have aproximatively same missiles capability in terms of range and it would also mean adding things like rafale f4.2 for mica ng which would be in those values and is right now not a thing irl even if it’s gonna soon be in 2025 too.
Maybe on june with some aircrafts that would be more balanced for it. Well, specficially hornets and Su-30s, compensating for their airframe.
this. hornet with c5 would be fine.
120C and R77-1 should be added and the performance of PL12 should be repaired
1 Like
I fully believe Gaijin will just rather “fix” MICA EM’s range to keep it AIM-120C level, shorter range still but greater employment envelope/maneuverability.
Because trees have more than just that particular vehicle, naturally.
1 Like
i mean isn’t aim120c like 130km max r77-1 110km ? mica would be more than unusable if so, normal one best can do is 80km.
I don’t mind C&P, but I do mind how it’s added: Simply put it’s inconsistent.
Like Gaijin is willing to C&P a vehicle said nation might have had like 20 of, yet the one they used thousands of is missing. Heck, this last update is a perfect example of how inconsistent with is two C&P possible vehicles, where one everyone got and the other we barely got half.
As for sub-tree C&P, I don’t fault the sub-tree nations themselves, it is not their fault they are getting stuff they used. It’s how Gaijin views sub-trees, a quick and easy way to buff the host tree with little effort and how the sub-tree system is currently implemented. And wouldn’t be as big of an issue if the tabs/folders thing was already in the game.
As for “uniqueness”, I disagree, TT represents the nation, not the industry. After all, they are also called national trees, not industry trees.
Yes, some of the additions have poor implantation(but this loops back to that much-needed sub-tree rework) but said additions would allow you to make line-ups of just that nation and that’s great.
WT is a line-up-based game, with almost all of its modes having you bring a full line-up. This is something often overlooked and forgotten, with these arguments.
I know my biggest wish/thing I’m fighting for is to be able to use the stuff my nation is the operator nation for together and it’s the same with many others and their nation. So it hurts seeing stuff that would have made wonderful line-ups together be ripped apart.
“Uniqueness/useful to other nations vs Being able to use said nation’s vehicles together”
When boiled to their basics this is basically every agreement on the forums and definitely every one about C&P. It’s those who think trees should be unique/represent the nation’s industry vs those who would like to use their nation stuff together(and those who support them).
1 Like
You could easily had achived both by just putting sub trees in the main nations rather then creating 3 minor trees to give them all leopards.
And said tree could have easily just been a sub tree.