Also, if vehicles based on or licensed from US designs are forced to be in the US tech tree, that would open up a whole rabbit hole regarding the NF-5A. It’s two steps removed from the F-5A, being a variant of the CF-5A, which itself was a licensed and modified version of the F-5A. The NF-5A also was historically purchased from Canada by the Netherlands, without any US involvement. So the only real connection the US has to the NF-5A is that the original F-5A served as the basis for the CF-5A. That’s not exactly a strong connection, especially since the NF-5A would have never be built by Northrop, as they weren’t willing to implement the design changes the Dutch requested, which Canadair did agree too.
4 Likes
I’d also say that even beyond the pure number of subtrees (mainly because some simply bring more options than others, try comparing India to Luxembourg for two extremes) there’s also still a general limit to keep it in line with the nations that currently have the most potential options in game like the US or USSR. The whole reason to combine nations is to make them roughly equivalent to that, not to shoot past it.
Representation and subtree implementation in general can be fixed. A lot of people have brought ideas to do that and I’m one of them. But what can’t really be fixed is raising the bar that is meant to be the target for all nations to perform to. That way there would be some nations locked in an arms race to get more and more subtrees, others that simply lack even the subtree options to follow and new nations that get barred from the game entirely because otherwise they’d also lack the subtree options to be viable.
So in general I’d say there’s probably combinations where 5+ nations work, but there is also others where even one or two can already be too much, just depending on what the exact nations are. It’s not necessarily a double standard, as long as it’s all with the same limits in mind.
4 Likes
you cannot be serious. its literally a license built F-5 but that isnt a strong connection
built to specifications Northrop (The US) didnt agree to.
I could definitely have phrased my original point differently, since there is a connection through the F-5 lineage. but its not really fair to place an aircraft in the US tech tree when it was specifically built to a set of requirements that US itself wasn’t willing to produce, as the Netherlands went first to Northrop and after being rejected went to Canadair instead.
3 Likes
It's long
May have misread this
Exactly.
I push for logical representation of nations where possible, people just say that Eastern Europe should go togather to make a tech tree, to address issues such as copy and paste, this idea doesn’t fix that problem. That’s why I oppose the idea of an EE tree. It doesn’t fix the issues people expect it to fix.
I don’t view the other nations as sub tree’s I treat them as the cores of the tech tree, other wise it would be called Poland with an Eastern European sub tree. And I know many people would dislike that, for example the Czechoslovak community, Czechoslovakia has a lot of vehicles and could rival the Polish tech tree as another potential candidate for the next nation, reducing them to a sub-tree would be wrong.
Going back to your original point, when I support people asking for Canadian, Australian, South African, or other vehicles in the British tree, I’m supporting those communities trying to get better representation for their nations. But some of these communites, for example notibly the Indian community, want to seperate away from the tech tree and want their own tech tree.
Yes, Britain should receive proper representation too, and I understand the concern that having too many subtrees takes up space and attention that could otherwise go towards British vehicles. That’s a legitimate issue with how Gaijin implements subtrees.With Gaijin being at the core of this issue.
So I don’t see how this is a double standard. I support nations getting logical representation, regardless of what nation it is. My issue with the EE tree is that people think putting a bunch of nations together will fix a problem that can’t be fixed.
4 Likes
And after that got added, they switched over to adding Canadian vehicles to mostly GB and USA
So let’s say, hypothetically speaking, a Polish/Czechoslovakian tree arrives in the near future. Would you support Ukrainian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian etc communities if they wanted to get more representation in-game and felt (justifiably or not) that the Polish/Czech tree was the best option for their vehicles?
so much bla bla bla for nothing.
give me saudit and turkey / pakistan tech tree and go away.
oh yeah cherry on top, help the uk tree by adding canada by giving them some 11.0 and 9.0 like alpha jet and freedom fighter.
3 Likes
I support the Baltics definetely.
Ukraine could really strengthen the tech tree, so I wouldn’t mind, ideally would be best to add it with Mauswaffes suggestion
2 Likes
Alpha jet is literally unneeded.
Our 9.0-ish aircraft are fine, Just struggling due to extreme compression.
Hunter F1, Hunter FGA9, Lightning F6, etc.
All fine vehicles if not for the compression
(absolutely no idea how the CA-27 is doing which is why ive not mentioned it)
As for an F-5… sure, we lack fighters at that area, and especially anything “supersonic” but I really dont want to see more C&Ps, and with proper decompression, what we have would be relatively speaking fine.
i dont say no for a 9.0 smart ccip plane. and yes i am aware of the jaguar and harrier at 9.7
great i can say that as i am grinding the tree.
idk honestly i dont have them.
i just think there is a bit of space here that can come help a bit
but most of my suggestion are C&P so i dont think its worth talking about
Who would even be able to give the UK and Alpha Jet? As the only users in Canada is a PMO, and unlike something else from them, it can’t get around that issue with being a logic modification.
As for a Freedom Fighter I’d love the CF-116, but then again I’m basically desperate for Canada to get a Canadair aircraft.
2 Likes
didnt know that. which would explain as i dont have a large knowladge on canada air force before modern day.
Seeing how Sparrows have been buffed to all hell, CF-105 Avro Arrow please
3 Likes
The first gap, would be better filled by aircraft like the Gnat, Sea Vixen FAW1 and maybe even the RAF operated F-86s. And for Storm, something like the Avro Arrow too would be quite interesting. A F-102 equivalent basically
The second gap, sure, its trickier to fill domestically, There are things like more Hawk Variants, but if it really really needs to be filled, then something like Cheetah would at least be a little more interesting than C&P
Though the addition im really itching for, which could be about 11.0, is the Jaguar GR3A. But really needs a decent game decompression and gamemode overhaul before that actually comes into its own
Edit, thought the second gap was between 10.0-12.0. But its not, its 12.0-13.7, in which case things like a Tornado F3 Op Granby, Harrier GR9A (and it would kinda suck, but maybe also the GR3A) could help fill.
1 Like
Bar a few patrol aircraft and variants of things with a suggestion (eg. The remaining CF-100 variants), but everything missing currently is a prop.
Basically every jet Canada ever used (that is War Thunder possible) has a suggestion. Outside the CF-105s but those are bing worked on.
1 Like
I hope we get both, but know Gaijin we’d be limited to the Mk 1 as even meaning the MK 2 will never come despite being War Thunder possible.
I would love the Arrow (Now Sparrows are very good), CF-101B would be cool for some more Falcons. Obvs the CF-116 should make an appearance because it is already in game in the French TT, later Canadian Hornets would be lovely for an event vehicle (Only place they will go now)
Even without the Sparrows, it just looks like an interesting and different aircraft
Arrow or bust for Project Wingman gameplay
1 Like