wouldnt be to sure of that, considering we have 12.0 premiums now
I’m only going to speak for myself, but I do not believe the issue is specifically the vehicles themselves. It is fine that they are being added for the nations and subnations that used them, the issue for me is that it affects the overall experience for players that want to experience different nations and their respective vehicles. It is incredibly repetitive and boring to work on the same vehicle multiple times across different nation trees by unlocking or spading them again. This is obviously going to have to be made as an economy suggestion, but I believe this is the core of many players’ issue with how these subtrees are being added.
6 Likes
Civil articulate assertiveness is a skill all should employ regardless of who’s on the receiving end and their perceived actions toward you or others.
@DirectSupport Taking time to think on their actions after the fact and realizing they could’ve done better is something we should all strive to do.
1 Like
Something that we have to keep arguing apparently.
even then the F20 is 12.0 without AMRAAMs I doubt the Mig21 Bison would only be 12.3 and have R73s and R77s
Yeah, HMS Queen Mary would be another random dreadnought filler that would add nothing to our TT. basically a HMS Orion equivalent that we just got. It would be a major dissappointment
small difference mig 21 bison still is a bison, its heavily hindered by its airframe, just like f4f ice will be, the airframe is just shit not to mention how many R77 can it carry ? 2 ?
I fully get that complaint but what do you suggest to fix it? because most people either say its fine or just remove the copy paste and neither of them make everyone happy
I believe most people argee with you it doesn’t fit and makes no sense in the UK TT over nation’s that do.
2 Likes
As for the Benelux leak, I’d rather there be a sub tree than a tech tree that’s >95% copy paste for air, and >20% copy paste for ground.
That and it’d push Gaijin’s foldering of vehicles more reducing grind for these new additions.
It could cause its radar is going to be bad, and it’s limited to 4x AAMs.
Mig-29SMT and F-4F ICE will inevitably slightly hurt more than the meta WVR boys despite having meta radar and IR missiles as well.
yeah its kinda sad I get we had A LOT but like come on cant we add them later like they did with destroyers, because tbh right now I have no motivation to go up battleships when I know my ww1 era battle ship is just gonna be absolutely clowned on by one of the 3 meta ww2 era battle criusers (scharnhorst, alaska and the soviet one I cant remember the name of)
2 Likes
At least be realistic in your slander…
2 Likes
It doesn’t help that getting a meaningful response on behalf of Gaijin is so backwards. Having humility is good for anyone’s argument, but having to always need to argue your point doesn’t reflect well on Gaijin.
1 Like
Yeah… I dont mind them once in a while. But its just continuous. Especially when we need at least 1 WW2 BB
I’m going off of the proposed vehicles in the suggestion, if there’s more beyond that, I’m less aware of those.
I would be glad to see your calculation for the >95%
2 Likes
Reasonably, one solution is to have vehicles of the same variant have their progress universal across all trees that use that specific vehicle. I don’t advocate for removal of the vehicles, just removing the redundancy of repeating the same experience. This explanation is overly simplified obviously, but this would remove a major annoyance involving subnations while still allowing them to cover gaps.
All France needs from BeNeLux is a handful of armored vehicles and that would be it. There’s no reason to dedicate an entire subtree to something that doesn’t even need it.
There’s no reason a Leopard 2 or CV90 should be added.
2 Likes
wait what is this?
Four (technically).
