This is just a simple observation but wouldn’t the US wanting those vehicles also be projecting, since there are plenty of US versions that could be added and the versions of those 2 commonwealth nations are in no way necessary as, has been previously stated, the US is the main operator of them, again, just a simple observation
2 Likes
Not sure what they would be projecting. @StormRyder13 here is acting like everyone here has something against Canada and/or ANZAC, because he thinks there is some deeper meaning behind the placement of Canadian operated vehicles.
3 Likes
Especially the poor map design!
Like… who wants close quarter combat for tanks at 9.0+…
Why would you want to play Alaska, American Desert and Small Tunisia…
The real conspiracy is against Oman, the main dudes to use the Strikemaster in combat and dont even get a camo for it! It was given to the Kiwi! ./s
(shameless plug moment [Special] Founding of the Royal Air Force of Oman Day. 1st of March. )
2 Likes
He just wants Canada to be consolidated under a single tree, a perfectly reasonable thing to want, and you’re arguing against that
1 Like
Canada is not a subtree or its own nation in WT and unless that changes at some point, their vehicles go wherever Gaijin deems fit.
2 Likes
Let me ask this, what specifically would there to be gained from either commonwealth hornet that separates from the US ones that would be added, because there has to be a reason every time this is bought up it gets this heated
2 Likes
US Army test AH-64E fired Spike NLOS only but never service
The early helicopter platform test Spike NLOS before AH-64AI & AH-64D Saraph (Late) in the future it might AH-1S (IAF) with Spike NLOS
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
2 Likes
The British tree has no need for them and based on prior additions like the 2A4M and Abrams AIM those Hornets would either go to the manufacturers tree (US) or not be added at all.
Them not being needed as techtree vehicles doesn’t mean they can’t be event, premium or squadron vehicles.
As to why this tends to get heated, US mains want their own stuff in their own tree, UK mains are split up into at least three camps by now all having different views on the copy paste shower the tree is receiving and the ANZAC people want to be their own thing, so different interests collide. (Plus StormRyder always gets this “passionate” about the topic anyways)
Ok, so what would the US tree gain from three of the same vehicle
1 Like
A TT vehicle, a premium vehicle and a squadron vehicle! xD
What did other trees gain from having copies of the exact same vehicles as premiums and/or event vehicles?
Nothing, so why keep it up?
1 Like
Well, I’m not Gaijin, but my guesses include:
- Simplicity reasons
- Not having the same vehicles in every other tree
- Consistency
- Lazyness
- “Because we always did it like that”
I enjoy that we’re still arguing about the same nonsense for years on end, even though it’s clear that Gaijin will put whatever vehicle it likes wherever it likes, and cite whatever reason it likes.
All we’re doing is arguing what any of us would do if we made the tech trees, which we don’t.
I mean we’re already expecting the F/A-18 in 3 trees, and given that there are 3 Commonwealth Hornets to pick from, I wouldn’t be surprised if at least 1 ends up in the British tree
1 Like
Yeah, or the poor gamemode design that promotes CQB fights
3 Likes
Do you have some evidence of the Phantom FGR.2 carrying TV guided Martels?
1 Like