So you are one of those Leopard 2s that send their turrets to the moon like a T-72 every time you glance at their hulls because they filled their hull racks with ammo they won’t be getting to use most of the times instead of carrying 16 shells in the secure bustle rack?
Compare our Leo 2 performances and you’ll have the answer to that question.
Whatever the difference is, I can assure you it’s not caused by me ever running out of ammo for carrying “only” 16 shells and finding myself unable to get more kills because of it xD
There may be other reasons, but me running out of ammo won’t be one.
The Su-30MKM is an MKI variant specifically made for Malaysia that comes with many features that other variants lack like MAWS and the DAMOCLES targeting pod, as well as local integration of GBU-12 bombs.
And it can join it again if we get AIM-9L/M for it since they integrated the LAU-7 missile launch rail from their Hawk 208.
AIM-9L mounted to LAU-7 rail on a MiG-29N
6 Likes
To be fair both of these aren’t inherent issues with subtrees, but come from how they are handled by Gaijin specifically. Especially the Finland issue doesn’t require any complicated reworks or fixes, just a bit more foresight and player-focused decision making.
The first Finnish vehicles were added at a time where subtrees already were a concept, so Gaijin should have known that to prepare for a Finnish subtree in the future they should only add vehicles that could be spared from such a subtree as premium/event content before that. Even things like minor variants or named premium versions of the same vehicles could’ve done this well without limiting their short term profits at all, since without a Finnish subtree yet they still would’ve been unique
Space on the other hand does need a rework quite desperately, but even here the only reason space is limited in the first place is because Gaijin didn’t have the foresight to tell that even just UK + South Africa is a very tight fit in just one research tree. The issue could’ve been reasonably avoided even before the first subtree was ever added by just adding it the way many on the old forum thought of when it was first announced (as separate tabs).
6 Likes
Day 1313 of waiting for Polish tech tree
3 Likes
Day 10 of waiting for Cypriot sub tree
I think it’s telling that people could already see sub-trees need a full rework, even as far back as South Africa being the only one.
Sadly, nowadays people wear rose-tinted glasses and are blind to the many issues even South Africa has.
1 Like
Sub-tree folders. New/updated matchmaking with said folders in mind. A bit more work, sure, but would go a long way.
(IMO)
2 Likes
Why do I feel like nobody is reading me?
If the bustle rack is the most convenient for the loader, then loading 11 shells should mean that the bustle rack is filled and the floor is left empty; however, as of now, the bustle rack is left with empty spaces with, instead, the floor being filled with inconveniently placed shells.
PRECISELY because the bustle rack is the most convenient for the loader, if you load only 11 shells, then THAT rack, the BUSTLE rack, should be the one filled; instead of leaving it half-empty while the INCONVENIENT floor is still filled with shells.
Yet, “not a bug” and I can’t even reply. Can’t they see that they are contradicting themselves? The bustle rack is the most convenient… yet if you load 11 shells it’s left half-empty in favour of the inconvenient floor.
This is why we end up not bothering or caring about bug reports. It is pointless when they are dealt with like this.
9 Likes
Then a multipath height reduction is a huge no
The oliphants are also incredibly good and I will never undertand the dislike for them. The Mk.1A is slow sure but its not horribly immobile and its one of the few 8.3s that is stabilized while having both a good dart and an lrf and the Mk.2 is just a great all arounder in general for a 9.3.
Im still waiting for gaijin to add the Mk.1B and the Optimum.
2 Likes
The South African subtree is amazing, most of their vehicles are good, some of them I’d argue are even better than Britains vehicles at their respective BRs.
I get why someone would dislike the South African subtree when it comes to it “replacing” British vehicles, but absolutely not when it comes to their performance.
2 Likes
At this point I’m sure they’re using a cheap chatbot which hides behind the “Volunteer” names lol
If the comments would have been left open and you correct him, he would be like “You’re absolutely right!” xD
4 Likes
Currently, UK aviation tech tree lack RAN & RCN aircraft since rank II ~ V, none Fairey Firefly NF & AS variant and low tier (rank II) night fighter
I mean, this is the same reply Smin told me here… but, as I replied and explained, it just doesn’t make sense. But no one seems to have read my explaination.
I should have added it to the report itself, I should have seen this coming and been a step ahead.
1 Like
Canada isn’t a subtree
There also isn’t really a point in adding copies of existing vehicles, just because they would have a different flag.
If they are meaningfully different, that’s valid, but just camo and operator nation being different isn’t a valid reason to add them to the TT.
Also, if anything, the TT is missing South African aircraft.
1 Like
Correction: They don’t want to read it.
I usually abide “Hanlon’s razor” → “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
But even that has its limits, which seem to be reached here as either multiple people didn’t read it (extremely unlikely) or they intentionally didn’t read it/misinterpreted it.
You made a mistake in the report. You said the floor shells should be the ones depleted first, which can’t be right if they should also be filled last. The bustle should be filled first and depleted first. The floor shells should only fill up after the bustle has been filled and only refilled after the bustle is depleted.
I’m not sure if that’s why they rejected it (they simply misunderstood) or they for some reason really don’t want to change it, but it could be the reason.
1 Like