It belongs best with the rest of the Challengers. Part of the reshuffle was allowing future potential.
1 Like
But it’s an export tank - does the m1a1HC not belong with the other abrams tanks?
The American tree structure isn’t relevant here. The Challenger 2E has its place with the other challengers.
As already mentioned, the changes allow future potential for the export / commonwealth line. Moving the Challenger 2E there doesn’t achieve anything and prevents that future possibility when it already has a suitable place.
1 Like
Why does it prevent future possibilities? It’s the export line, why is an export tank not going there? Not only that but the american tree structure is entire relevant as this shows a lack of consistency throughout trees. Why does moving the challenger 2E to the line it should have already been it prevent other vehicles from being added to it?
Looks like you’re brewing some new Commonwealth vehicles to boost UK performance soon(ish) :D
Because as the first point its not just the export line:
Secondly, it has its place already with the current Challengers. There is no reason for it to move over. These are general themes for the line and not hard rules. The US tree has entirely different categories and configurations to it. So the comparison has no meaning.
There are future plans for the British tree that was the primary reason for this reshuffle.
4 Likes
Tbh nation trees are always differs from each others. The only consistent lane in all of them is the SPAA one
1 Like
@Smin1080p_WT Being Australia part of the Commonwealth has there been any considerations for moving the M1A1 AIM from US to UK eventually? or is the Abrams intended to stay with US tech tree forever?
That is terrible reasoning. It’s commonwealth and export, meaning both types. The Challenger 2E fits this, so why not move it? it’s not just a commonwealth line
I’m not exactly sure if anyone has already asked this, but I’ll try nonetheless.
Is this reorganization of the UK tech tree a rather one off and specifically needed change or could we see this sort of treatment to other tech trees?
I would have one particular example that could need some reorganization, particularly if future content is considered.
We don’t “move” tanks from one tree to another. That specific version owned by people already will always remain where it is. No matter what.
The Challenger 2E is still a Challenger and is a logical progression up from the existing Challenger family. It helps to cap that line off, building on what came before it. The export and Commonwealth line serves a different purpose and different style.
There are no plans to move the 2E.
3 Likes
Right now, its just for the UK tree. As its key for the future development of the tree. How it was configured before wouldnt allow for the plans already made.
2 Likes
Got it, thank you.
well that is not completely true, when you decided to add Israel many ground vehicles were removed from US/UK and re added them to the israeli tech tree… you might not call it a “move” but its essentially that, it stops being available in one nation (in this case US), and start being available in another nation (Israel)
But seeing that AIM isn’t an event vehicle like kv-1b can it be duplicated in two trees like recent french and german CLOVIS/df-105?
What I said was entirely correct. Nobody who owned those vehicles in the US tree lost them. They all remain in the ownership of those that have them. We did not “move” them as they were.
New separate versions were added to the Israeli tree when it came.
5 Likes
So you’re telling me that the challenger 2E being an export tank but still a challenger means it won’t be going to the export tree, and there’s no point in comparing other tree’s because they’re all unique… so why is there such a lack of consistency? The logical end to the Challenger family is either the Black Knight with it’s APS - plus moving it would help to de-clutter that line - it ends with 2 folders… 2 FOLDERS
Got it, appreciated
the m1a1 HC would like to know your location
Thats correct yes. Its a Challenger development in the Challenger line.
Thats also correct, you are creating rules between two different trees that don’t exist.
Because they are entirely different trees. You are trying to define a rule that does not exist. Again, this line focuses on Export and Commonwealth vehicles. It does not mean ALL export vehicles for the entire tree must fall into that line.
Once again, there are no plans to move the Challenger 2E. It has its rightful place in the Challenger line. There are other future plans for the Export and Commonwealth line, as well as the British tree as a whole that were the primary reason for these changes.
2 Likes