Yep. And even then, “X vehicle doesn’t count because I’m not interested in it” is just silliness anyway.
4 Likes
Nooo…, because clearly for the 10 nationalist X very-minor nation people would be “happy” (which they arent because it happens that most of those minor nations do not even have their own vehicles or competitive ones anyway) - its worth for the other nations to take the hit, what does this mean…? It means that no nation is actually enjoyable or unique, whats the point of me playing the whatever nations if it doesnt even have unique vehicles
Gaijin also tried trading players, so some german players (nobody) might want to play with the “italian” wait uhh sorry, the hungarian tank that italy happens to have in-game (2A7)
Probably should return to base bombing, since for him, all buildings except for the bases would yield rewards
2 Likes
“Uniqueness” across trees doesn’t matter. Any nation can fight any nation, and you can’t build pull from different trees to make lineups.
It’s diversity within trees that matters, because within a tree is how you make lineups. Giving, say, France a German-designed tank adds diversity, as now you can play a French and German tank in the same lineup. What other players have in their own lineups, and what trees they happen to be using has no bearing on you.
The most diversity possible would be to not have nations, and instead all vehicles are just one big pool that can be freely mixed and matched.
3 Likes
yh what u just said is exactly why this game is bland and doomed
Reworking the concept of subtrees could be potentially be a good step in the right direction. Seperating the subtrees to create a seperate category, which the player can choose from a number of nations which is also possibly accessible to multiple main trees as well. Kinda like how minors work in kards. This allows for each player to tailor the lineup to his playstyle while conserving the diversity. Additionally, this avoids political arguments much easily because it is the players that decide which minor nations go with their main nation lineup.
5 Likes
What I mean be like, lets take the example of existing minor nations/group of minor nations:
Benelux - Available to both Germany and France
When creating a German or French lineup, the player may pick a selection of benelux vehicles. The player can also choose to research benelux vehicles instead of their native tree, similar to how grinding helicopters in grb works.
Romania/Hungary - Available to Germany and Italy
Canada and Australia - Available to US and Britain
India - Available to Britain and Russia
Switzerland - Available to Germany, France and Italy
5 Likes
The Idea behind this is good, but for Sim it would cause some trouble.
Leaving the Shared vehicles out is not acceptable and having them rotate between both main nations to avoid FF also doesnt sound like a good solution.
Maybe for Sim the sub nations could act as full nations? Like how vehicles of a too high BR are filtered out maybe the same could be done with sub nations. For example if you have Russia and India on two separate teams and you have a lineup with both nations vehicles you would then have to choose to be on the team with Russia or India, whichever one you choose would lock the other vehicles for that match.
1 Like
Sim should forego the concept of tech trees entirely and focus on factions, imo that is the best way to prevent excessive false flag gameplay. I envisioned sim to be like the player builds a lineup from a tree or across multiple trees if they are playing a minor nation - and then playing the game under a certain nation that belongs to a faction. The factions and the nation it consists would also vary by time periods and in my opinion, should be geograpically specific. One complaint was the excessive soviet-era designs on former eastern block states eg DDR, but under this format DDR vehicles wouldve been placed on REDFOR in sim.
There would still be false flag gameplay such as kungstiger or HFS 80 hind(post-reunification) but given how less common it is it would be less relevant. There could also be reduced punishments for killing a false flag vehicle unintentionally, and additional rewards in terms of some SL when the player knocks out an enemy false flag tank.
1 Like
I did take this thought from how squad reworks faction in 6.0. Also RIP warrior CSP its now gaijins turn to put this in their games
Would mig29g be redfor then? or blufor like irl? even the 9.12a could be considered blufor.
Its post-reunification so presumably BLUFOR. It does use the luftwaffe symbol after all.
Plus in ASB the RWR IFFs were tuned for teams, not IRL designs I guess.
1 Like
I will have to put a hard disagree with that. Why would I then grind X nation when I could play Y nation cause they already have it. As of right now you can have mixed battles without mixed battles.
2 Likes
In March, it’ll be almost one year since we have had fox 3 missiles introduced. Should Gaijin add more capable missiles next patch such as AIM-120C and R-77-1?
- Yes
- No
0
voters
depends on what aircraft get access to those missiles really. If you’re just adding them wholesale, then no.
2 Likes
I suppose 8 fighter aircraft top tier only received AIM-120C & R-77-1 after gajin decompressed max BR to 14.3
Except if the range on wikipedia of those missiles are totally far from the reality, i’m not sure we will even get things like mica ir at that point, i don’t believe it at all, + all planes should have aproximatively same missiles capability in terms of range and it would also mean adding things like rafale f4.2 for mica ng which would be in those values and is right now not a thing irl even if it’s gonna soon be in 2025 too.
Maybe on june with some aircrafts that would be more balanced for it. Well, specficially hornets and Su-30s, compensating for their airframe.
this. hornet with c5 would be fine.