Funny thing how this game and the C&P discussion highlights issues with nationalism.
Everyone wants their own special nation (piece of fabric with colours on it) represented “properly” (exceptionalist fantasy of X nation) or else they get mad.
They get especially mad when the “purity” is “tainted” by having X or Y flag instead of the “right” flag.
Honestly, this game is trying to satisfy an unsatisfiable crowd.
Military “History” (Nationalist Exceptionalist Militarist propaganda) “Experts” will simply never be satisfied and take great offense at the trivial.
We are all guilty.
But Gaijin tries to represent and include as much as possible.
Many nations simply can’t stand alone as 5 line trees, it’s often wishful thinking to believe otherwise.
So some nations are lumped together.
I wonder if C&P is better than nothing. We all know there are better things than C&P, but it’s often the beginning and often C&P is underestimated in difficulty.
im fine with copy and paste I would just much rather have Canada and Australia 2 nations that have been closely tied to the UK through their entire history, than SA and India that barely have anything to do with the UK and India having honestly more ties with the Soviets with equipment and what not
This take isn’t it. If anything, the nationalism came out from the other point of view, which is that people who want copy and paste F-16s with roundels/flags from their countries are the ones having nationalism.
Because instead of just using any F-16 ingame that’s already available, and changing the decals and flags on the aircraft to that of their own country, they demand that one be added to the game under their own country’s banner just for the sake of nationalistic representation when it does not add anything meaningful to the game. They are willing to put their own nationalistic representation over what is best for the game.
Some people just want whatever makes the tree good without totally obliterating the vague LARP aspect of X nation’s military. I think that camp is more the one asking for say ROC F-16 for Chinese tree, back when F-16 was the hottest thing going around.
But to be honest I’m not sure Gaijin per-se actually directly respond to player feedback like that.
I really don’t think they go “Oh, some players asked for ROC F-16, let’s put that in.”
For me it seems more like they go “Ok, we have some documents and schematics, it seems X vehicle will be powerful, it’s ready now so put it in Y tree.”
Not really sure exactly what the internal thought process or working mechanism to get vehicles in-game goes.
They could have made their and our life a lot easier in this discussion if they would add up to date roundels/markings for more nations.
For example, I personally never really had any interest in a dutch sub tree, but what I do want is an up to date dutch roundel that I can place on vehicles from multiple trees that were used by the dutch armed forces.
To be honest. A bad aircraft is perhaps better than no aircraft at all. So long as it was foldered under something and thus skippable. Then I’d just say add it regardless.
I’ve seen too many people say things like “X vehicle is bad, let’s not add it, let’s add Y from random nation instead” and that sucks. Because then we never see X vehicle
If we take Canada vs South Africa as a “Which sub-tree do we pick” fork in the road.
Which offers more to compliment the UK from a gameplay perspective?
Some Canadian Leopards, or South African indigenous light vehicles?
People asked for UK light tanks, South Africa gave it, we’re getting another Warrior, we got the Fox.
I think it’s a quite easy case to make that South Africa is the right choice.
Gripen should not struggle too much. Sure the airframe would be a bit worse than Rafale or Eurofighter but otherwise it’s up to spec. F-18 is good but it is not magically better than some of the aircraft we alerady have in game.