Since subtree discussions are hot today.
6 Likes
You guys sold them to Canada, no?
Then, if Canada really gets home, then you blokes have no proper claim Canadian Hornets to US TT.
At the same level as Canadair Sabre or Skink.
1 Like
Considering the Canadian Hornet is already in the UK tree, they already don’t have a claim to it or able to use it to make a claim.
1 Like
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.
2 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.
2 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.
2 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.
1 Like
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 ann freedom fighter.
1 Like
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