And the vehicle they called C&P is a full domestic design of the nation but because it looks similar to something else it’s C&P.
2 Likes
Well, yeah, because they don’t know about the few unique vehicles those nations have lol
And even then, some nations really don’t have much to offer and when they get representation in-game it’s more likely to be something that’s either entirely copy-pasted or just barely different enough to count as unique
Or the unique things are low BR, so your average player just overlooks them. The game is only top tier after all!
1 Like
I don’t think they tarnish anything necessarily. At least in concept, their implementation somehow manages to hurt all involved nations and quite desperately needs changes.
But this is also coming from someone interested in all of these nations, I think the forced implementation of multiple nations in just one research tab is especially bad for players that might only want to play one of them.
For fully new nations I hope we can see a few soon. They already mentioned their plans for a Korean techtree, and that this might not even be the next techtree, meaning there is a chance we will see a nation like Poland or Yugoslavia even before that.
Especially now that the existing nations in game don’t really need additional subtrees anymore (aside from maybe something like finally confirming Denmark), there is a much better chance we might see new techtrees soon.
7 Likes
We had our fair share of discontent with lend lease back in the old days, but because most of them appropriately (especially captured vehicles) came as premiums and weren’t commonly seen we threw them under the bus. I think that’s different from major regular tree implementations and diluting a national tech tree’s identity.
3 Likes
Yet, even without sub-trees by these people no nation will have an identity with 5th Gen as 90% of nations using F-35s, because alliances have always wanted equipment unity.
This can be seen in WW2 even when nation cut their own production of domestic degins because the western allies decided to standardize to Sherman’s.
3 Likes
I honestly quite like this way of putting it.
My main issue with current subtree implementation even beyond the many mechanical issues is that it seems to just throw vehicles together in one pot for one game faction, but throws the individual identities of each involved nation out of the window.
Of course a MiG-29 will look out of placed in a research line next to Italian air force aircraft, because it’s not Italian at all. It’s Hungarian, but to the game it’s just depicted as “Italy+” with a somewhat underwhelming “sweep it under the rug” flag change feature so you can pretend the tree is now “Hungary+” instead.
9 Likes
And I love that change because it kinda stops the need to have half nations as why would you need an independent Thailand when you can literally play as them as part of the Japanese tree
3 Likes
I can help the discussion more by elaborating why I think this way. I come from a time period when every main tech tree represented only its intended singular nation, and each nation had its own distinct matchmaker to faciliate that immersion that you’re roleplaying a nation militarily and historically. For example, Japan’s matchmaker mainly centered on Pacific maps and sometimes Khalkhin Gol against the Soviets (was only possible with lower tier props). Understandably because that’s how it was in real history, there was a bitter rivalry between the US/UK and Japan, especially on the Saipan and New Guinea maps, and it was a lot of fun whenever you won on either side.
Every nation was really unique, it was easy to feel protective or tribalistic towards your main nation of choice. It wasn’t even that bad that for example Japan was lacking in the top tier meta, because it’s simply Japan, it didn’t advance rapidly like the other nations after WW2. Funnily our biggest issue back then was playing in mixed matches whenever they did happen because they weren’t flavorful or historical and they interrupted the flow of specific nation-oriented tactical gameplay.
Through this lens, I believe we were really excited to see newer nations, and I’m glad we saw Italy and France in that light while it lasted, but now I’m no longer excited in the same way for Poland and Yugoslavia. National tech trees really mean nothing now, unless they make drastic changes which I hope for in the future.
+++1
6 Likes
12.0 tops due to lack of countermeasures
Yeah not a fan of half nations either. I do like the concept of subtrees, just not the implementation. I agree there is nations that simply can’t form a viable techtree, and that combining nations helps with lineups and content balance mechanically.
But I don’t think this is an excuse to ignore national identity for the involved nations, that’s what needs fixing in my opinion.
I was really excited when subtrees were first announced with South Africa, just disappointed when I saw how they implemented them.
That said not every nation that can be added is a half nation, there is some great full nation options out there that I’m in full support of again.
3 Likes
What do you mean “lack of countermeasures”?
It has 48 CMs according to the suggestion for it.
Where is that? I’d like to see the reference. What I know is that it could use UV-3A dispensers and their installation only allowed 12 cartridges.
Spoiler
Don’t know where, you gotta ask @WalletWorrier about where he found that
Nobody has tried to refute the claim on the suggestion, so I am inclined to believe that claim
there’s your answer
the only mig31s with flares are the MiG-31M and a MiG-31BM that was spotted last year with what seems to be countermeasure dispensers:
That’s weird to me, I also read Yefim Gordon’s books and didn’t find any reference to 48 cartridges
MiG-31M in bottom photo
I know, those are UV-3A dispensers, the same ones referenced in the regular MiG-31’s specs list in the screenshot from Gordon’s book. Look at the other spoiler and read under “ESM”
I’m probably more in support of subtrees than you are, but I like this perspective and I especially agree with that last part.
As excited as I am about new nations, even as subtrees, this excitement dies down a lot when Gaijin treat them as convenient places to grab some extra content rather than nations. For example Thailand has a very distinct and interesting history with aviation, but when condensed into just a handful of aircraft in another nations research lines, this just doesn’t come across the way it should.
If you want my detailed opinion on what I think subtrees should be, you can read my suggestion about improving the current system.
7 Likes
I’m ok with subtrees so long as they rework them properly. This is my take on them:
But I also think that if they had the courage to add a nation like Israel that only starts at tier 4, they should have been able to add Hungary, Romania and Czechoslovakia independently.
Agree with this!
2 Likes
And I just added the suggestion to my other reply… Good to know you read it already and thanks for leaving the feedback. You’d be surprised how much just about every reply on that topic helped refine the idea further!
3 Likes