They dont place them just arbitrarily, they follow exporter origin because it preserves a tech tree coherence. That same coherence requirement doesnt disappear just because you scale up to a subtree. If anything it becomes stricter and not looser.
It actually does because subtrees arent exempt from the logic used for individual vehicle placement. If the equipment base doesnt align, the subtree becomes incoherent by definition.
Yes and the individual vehicles follow exporter logic, and thats what undermines the French subtree idea further. The Algerian inventory is overwhelmingly Soviet/Russian. A subtree can’t be built on “if they add one French vehicle someday” and still you’re talking about an hypothesis, in any case Syria currently sits in the USSR tree despite how actually close and “friendly” it was to France historically.
I dont disagree there but you’re missing the implication, if a nation’s vehicles scatter across multiple trees due to exporter diversity, that nation is fundamentally unsuitable for a subtree. A subtree needs concentration.
Yes and that tie has always been justified by the military continuity and compatibility and not just any historical association alone… India was trained by the British and are part of the Commonwealth, Malaysians are in ASEAN and got close ties with Japan (and no past grudges), Finland has almost always been a very close ally and partner of Sweden up until today, Belgians and France were close allies before even NATO was a thing, Switzerland is partially supplied by the germans and share a close cultural proximity etc…
The precedent that Gaijin only creates subtrees where there is a clear and consistent equipment lineage with the host nation. Finland-Sweden and Belgium-France (for this one, I personally would rather have an independent Belgian tree) are examples. And Algeria and France is the opposite, the doctrines are incompatible, there is no military alliance/cooperation and there is a very hostile post colonial relationship. And just to be clear it isn’t only me opposing it because it would be disrespectful toward us, but its also because its purely illogical. Speaking from first hand knowledge Algeria today has nothing to do with France militarily, politically, doctrinally or culturally.
India works and is pretty much very different because even after independence its military stayed basically with the same british doctrine, organization, equipment and strong ties that lasted decades (and they’re also members of the Commonwealth). India even had its own army and equipment (affiliated to the british) during the colonial era. I would still have preferred to see an independent Indian tree though.
Algeria is completely different because before and after independence, the army (then National Liberation Army) was built to avoid France, and soviet/russia-aligned. And I’m speaking both doctrinally and in terms of equipment, but also politically. The soldiers were being trained on soviet vehicles, artillery, aircraft, and other equipments in the USSR while the Algerian guerillas were still fighting.
Its very foundation is Soviet (and kind of Chinese) and in no way French, and that up until today.
I’m surprised about the general lack of Boxers and Patrias in the TTs
(Yes, I know, the Badger is based on the Patria)
As much as I hate autocannon vehicles, these IFVs have some very interesting variants that could provide some fun gameplay.
I’d love to see the RCH155, the Skyranger or any of the Patrias (and the ATGM Badger), but Gaijin seems to be adamant on turning these wheely bois into event vehicles
Perhaps it’s based on their unfinished prototype thing, where if provisions were made for it to be armed, than it could be added ingame in that way. The EAP didn’t have that right? It was just a tech demonstrator without any plans to arm it right? Based on the suggestion rules (not the game or made by devs ofc, but heavily influenced by gaijin’s decisions/policies) the Su-47 was even able to be suggested bc of these factors, but the EAP can’t even be suggested as I understand it.
I am pretty sure the Su-47 suggestion being approved is more of an outlier.
The MiG 1.44/1.42 apparently wasn’t approved, despite having provisions for weapons and the 1.42 variant being the one that would have been adopted, if the project had not been cancelled.
As far as I know the Su-47 had the same level of provisions for armament as the EAP, that being space for a radar in the radome and pylons that could be used to attach weapons for display and aerodynamics testing.
Tin foil hat moment: I feel like the snail deliberately holds back vehicles instead of adding everything “at once” probably so they don’t “run out” of content to release later, but even so that doesnt really excuse it because the game needs much more things. I too would take a bunch of these IFVs over another same “generic” tank any day.
There’s so much potential thats just sitting there and besides, I really love Patrias, Boxers, Piranhas etc…
