I predict J-10C BR 14.7 minimum
Active radar homing medium-range missile on J-10C with PL-12, and could received PL-12A before PL-15
2x PL-10 & 2x PL-12 stock, my guess.
The only tank of France 7.0 - AuF 1 - is at rank 5, and in BP the tank has rank 4
Unless, of course, the gaijin for some reason lowers the rank or BR of this m46.
I still vehemently disagree about adding unmodified Panzers and StuGs to Sweden (Sturmi does interest me in it’s most comprehensive configuration). If the vehicle BRs are the issue, then clearly that is what will require a fix rather than the addition of foreign equipment.
If you wish to try a basic Panzer IV or StuG III, go play Germany, minor nations appeal should be domestic vehicles and modifications, just as with major nations.
But yes, maybe Gaijin wouldn’t have to add copy paste support as often if they just gave sensible BRs that weren’t based on the highest performers.
Are you thinking of the M47? Because the M46 we have now in America is already rank IV, maybe it will just be the first 7.0 for that rank in France, but no need to adjust the tank’s BR or anything.
But then how does that apply to nations like Israel, they have three 13.7 aircraft and a 14.0, no domestic vehicle is available, but should they only have one of those, or is the four okay?
If them having 4 foreign vehicles in the same BR range is okay then does that justify giving say Britain the Indian SU-30MKI or Rafale to diversify their lineup, or is it different with subtrees? I know you personally want Danish and Norwegian subtrees for Sweden, does that mean no F-16s, in those subtrees or is that okay because it “fits the theme” better?
Also how close does a vehicle have to be for C&P, does it have to be exact or is weapons variation included, the F-16ADF for Italy is objectively more C&P than say the F-15C for Israel given the different weapons loadouts, then you have the F-16C for Israel, it is actually a different version of the C than the US has not even including weapons, then there are more distinct variants like the AV-8C, manufactured by Hawker Syddeley and operated by the US, does it still count as C&P, I mean it is a harrier, very similar to the GR.1 and 3, maybe it should be part of the British tree, or just removed entirely? I could go on as there are so many layers to it, but I won’t
and I use aircraft as examples because that is the game mode I am familiar with, but everything applies to tanks too, arguably more as full lineups are needed in all game modes
My point is, it’s not a clear-cut issue, and therefore there isn’t a clear-cut solution, especially as opinions on the matter differ significantly, but as it stands I believe adding vehicles people may not want is a better solution than rejecting vehicles that people do want, at least when it comes to vehicles that saw service
and just quickly to this point, in regard to different play styles and the like, if a Japanese player decides to use a US tank in their matches, despite picking the Japanese tech tree and having Japanese vehicles available, then that is their choice, at least allow them to make that choice instead of making it for them, there is no obligation to play the US designed tank for them, they are capable of picking a Japanese tank even if the US one is “easier”, for those that want to play Japanese tanks, adding imported or captured vehicles isn’t going to stop them, but for those that want the choice, not adding them will.
1 Like
Last time i went to some museums in Norway i believe all their panzers and stugs were from after the war and had the gun disabled as they became mine clearing devices, imo no reason to add them. Id much rather see Norwegian Ford trucks with guns from 7.62 to iirc 105mm with multiple guns in between for the higher BR’s there is more unique vehicles to offer. I feel the same way about my homes Panzer III, again the 3 Sturmi models and the Niki, and the T34-76 (german premium but with the german commander hatch or without) and the t34-75 or literally any of the Continuation War vehicles that gaijin would rather sell instead of adding to the TT.
Norway and Denmark would be better as adding air vehicles and 7.0+ vehicles for ground.
They would give sweden cas and fighters at BR’s they have nothing at unlike Finland.
3 Likes
Nations like Isreal have no domestic aircraft at some BR’s and rely on foreign equipment so theres no reason they shouldn’t get what they used. Though id like to see their unique munitions be added instead of just what the US has.
As for close, when a vehicle has like only maybe a different round id say its still copy and paste, it would need more than that, so example if a nation has a t72, why add the basic model when the nation uograded it to have a bigger gun and a different engine. Imo thats a better addition that just copy and paste. Even adding the unique designs goes a long way, gaijin deciding to add a t34 with missing track guards is lazy when it looked different in service. Again this topic doesn’t work since everyone has their own views for this.
m47 has 7.3, I’m talking about m46
Each TT has its own rank and BR ratio, for example, the Swedish T-34 has rank 3, and the Soviet one has rank 2, although they are the same tank
That and it somehwat complicates things like Ground Sim Battles. If you are sitting in a US M18 and you happen to another another some 300 meters in front of you, is that one of yours or is it an Italian one since they often get paired together.
“Just use your range finder”, that’s not the point. Unique vehicles should be prioritized at most instances and copy and pasting should be limited whenever possible.
1 Like
Or the Japanese M24 being rank 3 vs all other chaffes
I believe its caused by the vehicles at each rank
That is my point, without any clear definition or rule it just becomes a case by case “what feels right”
A Finnish F-18 is more unique than a Finnish F/A-18 MLU 2 in many ways but I’d rather see the latter if I had to pick one, and the MKI was quite unique until the Russians copied it for themselves, if you take Super Sukhoi and weapons into account it still is quite unique, whereas the F-16ADF is a 1/1 C&P, but it was also necessary I think we can all agree.
Like I said, it’s an argument and issue based entirely around feeling, which means there is no solution and because of that I’d argue that overdoing the C&P is better than not doing enough, from a personal point of view for one, as no one is forcing people to use any specific addition, but also from a developmental and financial point of view, C&P gives bigger updates more consistently, extends the life of the game, and brings in more money overall for Gaijin, and in the end it’s what I expect them to continue doing.
1 Like
Copy and paste also allows gaijin to completely ignore fixing a TT and selling anything actually useful too but thats another problem. Again id rather have more unique vehicles if possible than an entire tree both air and ground that added 1 unique tank and 1 unique aircraft. That is a waste of an update and a waste of showing any actual care when gaijin cant even get the stats right or the camos until 2 years later. How that gets on to the live despite being reported before leaving the dev server is just silly.
2 Likes
C&P has effectively no impact on the number of unique vehicles, given that true C&P is near enough free for Gaijin to do, and the further from C&P an addition is the more time it takes, 5 updates of 40+ vehicles a year is pretty insane output, I mean what was it 260 last year overall, all removing C&P will likely do is leave trees barer, and lower the number of vehicles added in each update, and that may be what you want, but it won’t fix underlying issues with the tech trees or gameplay.
Petitioning for gameplay and tech tree fixes is separate from complaining about C&P, and doing too much of the latter means you aren’t doing enough of the former
I mean you said it yourself
2 Likes
This also goes with saying that maybe some nations just aren’t viable for the game because they don’t bring enough to the table. Maybe, at best, they are a sub-tree in another nation. But it absolutely cheapens the experience to face effectively the same vehicle, just reskinned.
Yeah except when gaijin couldn’t even bother to C&P the vehicles that would fill gaps lmao so how do you explain that?
1 Like
Copy paste doesn’t just fill gaps, see the many convos on India here
Now you’re complaining about Gaijin not doing C&P? Look I have no idea why they don’t add some things that seem like simple additions to weak spots in nations, as I have already said I’m in favour of them doing C&P more, rather than not enough
You’d have to give specific examples, sometime “C&P” isn’t actually C&P?
“Israel”
as much as I enjoy the tree, it would have been fine as a subtree
Finland. Half of China. Half of Japan. A third of France. A third of Italy.
Effectively, the game could be structured to into three major trees.
US Tech, European Tech, and Soviet/Russian Tech, with everything else being a two or three sub-tree line down it.
2 Likes
I mean Finland is a subtree
China is like 2 subtrees combined, I think that’s fine, but if you want to be accurate about 90% of China is imported
Japan has a great early tree; you can’t just remove the end of it
France is a perfectly fine tree, they basically hate importing stuff it was just immediately post war that they had to for obvious reasons, but their late tree is great
Italy could have probably stayed a German subtree, tbh
No