1 Like
Yeah thats true
I think you might be underestimating the J-10C
1 Like
Tomato Tmoato :P
true true, and if they raise the BR to 14.7 or even 15.0 we still have the issue of where to put the J-10C to high it gets clowned on by trenche 4 EFTs and the Rafale F3R to low and it could be the same BR as things like F-15J (M)
1 Like
Yeah but Czechia also used a ton of British vehicles, German vehicles and the entire doctrine wasn’t even close to Russia until the 50s
Only “subtrees” Russia could get is post-USSR states
3 Likes
I mean, the tree is called “USSR”, not “Russia” lol
I really don’t see why Russia or the US need subtrees at all. They have so many vehicles that could still be added, and no gaps that couldn’t be filled by the vehicles that could still be added.
Why give them a subtree that just copy-and-pastes their own vehicles? That doesn’t make much sense either.
For me, subtrees make the most sense when they:
- Represent a nation with unique vehicles that couldn’t be added on its own
- Give a nation access to vehicles that wouldn’t fit otherwise
Uniquely modified vehicles of course would be interesting to add but you don’t need a whole subtree for that.
12 Likes
:P
3 Likes
I’m very disappointed that we can’t use the British Empire flag :(
Yeah, time to riot
what type of unique we are talking here
1/ foreign plane upgrade by the country ( mig29 sniper)
2/ weapons upgrade (iran f14 )
3/indigenous vehicules ( cant find exemple so t-84 )
In what way would it be comparable to the AESA EFT? Flight performance the EFT beats it no? especially for longer range BVR, better missiles for longer range BVR, more countermeasures and from what I read in the EFTs and J-10 thread the radar on the EFT being better.
So that is a pretty one sided comparison.
1 Like
The T-84 isn’t really a good example since it is a further development of the T-80
1 Like
Honestly i think of potential candidates for a USSR subtree Belarus is probably the least controversial option. Not that they need one of course but ultimately gaijin will do what gaijin wants so like… meh I already have the entire USSR tree done anyways so Personally i am fine with them adding whatever at this point as long as its interesting and not another T-80 or T-72 baring some super specific variants.
1 Like
Sometimes I do wonder that soviet constructors were drinking… or consumed in general
2 Likes
Idk what it is but man i could use some it would probably help with this cold lmao…
1 Like
Well the original poster I was replying to was talking about Czech vehicles with unique modifications. I assume those would mostly fall under 1 and 2 though of course the Czechs did develop the L-39 indigenously which would be most like the T-84 in this comparison. (I should note that if Gaijin ever added some kind of independent Czech tech tree or a Czech subtree, that Czech vehicles should be duplicated/added there from that point onward)
An example of a unique vehicle would be the Saudi Lightning that’s in the game. It’s different from the tech tree version of the Lightning, but we don’t need to say that GB gets a whole Saudi subtree just to have it.
There are also of course the “support nations” that are not technically subtrees but tend to show up alongside one nation-- Argentina is the best example of this. But that’s digressing.
My main point is that the USA and USSR don’t need subtrees because of the sheer volume of vehicles they have to draw on, but unique vehicles that don’t have a better place to go could and should go to those nations when applicable. Of course, I also believe Gaijin should work towards finding as many better places for vehicles as possible, whether that’s subtrees or independent nations.
3 Likes
Wouldn’t some middle-eastern nations also make sense? There are a lot of T series tanks rolling about there.