They remove national uniqueness.
I think he means it deteriorates the tree it was copied from.
I mean both.
and
I mean, both of these do not seem like a bad thing? For the first part it means that you can make ‘alliance’ line-ups, as most of this ‘national’ equipment often go into exercises with their allies, like Belgian APC’s and French ones or Belgian F-16’s and French Mirages…
And for the second argument it increases the availability of certain vehicles which were mass-produced and exported to allies in War thunder, which means you don’t have to grind other Tech trees to play the vehicles you desire to play.
3 Likes
Yes, and that’s my point. We all need to grind vehicles that don’t appeal to us, and different vehicles do/don’t appeal to different people.
For example I only play the Swedish tree for Finnish vehicles (well almost, the J 21s, J 22s, Strv m/41, and a few others), thus most of the non-Finnish vehicles are “clutter” that I need to grind through. You have your own preferred vehicles, as does everyone else.
Heck, even in my most “complete” tree (Japanese Bluewater) I still have a few native-Japanese ships I’m not interested (enough) in, had to grind them too.
1 Like
You know why that’s a bad thing.
This is a game. It is not real life.
And removes the national uniqueness.
Which then means there is no reason for said TT to exist no? So lets get rid of all the TT besides the main one and then sub tree them.
And adding unnecessary foreign vehicles exponentially adds to this problem. Stop advocating for more grind.
Exactly. It offers more diverse lineups for those who want them, but doesn’t take away the option to only use domestic vehicles (or any other “my preferred vehicles” set) from those who want to do that.
It’s better for lineup diversity and better for the grind.
1 Like
You have to be trolling.
Well, no. History is complicated and you still need to be able to play with certain nations against others. Either in Mixed battles or in Historical gamemodes such as World War or Simulator.
(only a NATO vs USSR or Allies vs Axis tech tree would be nonsensical and too big of a grind).
Again, if you’re equating “grind” to “vehicles I’m not interested in”, then your entire argument is nothing more than “don’t add vehicles that don’t appeal to me specifically”.
Everyone has to grind through vehicles they’re not interested in, and what those are differ between all players.
1 Like
On top of that it allows to make line-ups of just that operator nation if they want.
After all, if a C&P vehicle is being added to a tree it’s more likely everything of that nation is. Which keeps said nation together and in the same place.
2 Likes
No, grind is total vehicles. The more vehicles, the more grind, and as such, the more unnecessary foreign additions, the more grind also.
Now you are being contradictory.
It may not take away from your options but it will reduce the diversity of what you play against in matches, and that diversity is already lower than a lot of people like, I mean I’m fed up enough of seeing F-4S players, now imagine how much worse it would be if you could grind every nation with 1 premium, you’d go into matches and it’d be 16v16 of one aircraft
1 Like
So your argument is we should have less grind by having fewer vehicles in the game.
And, of course, that we should accomplish this my having fewer of the vehicles which don’t appeal to you personally.
1 Like
No, it isn’t. You know it isn’t. Stop using strawmen.
How so?
The only context this matters is in the case of balance/“meta” issues, which are their own problem to solve. Outside of that, one should never expect to control what other players use in a multiplayer game; that sort of thing belongs in singleplayer settings.
1 Like