Czechoslovakia also has these, except for naval, but then many tech trees still lack naval trees
1 Like
Yup, but China and Sweden can easily have a ship tree. I don’t say anything about Israel because it’s a bit of a “special” tree in my opinion.
Czechoslovakia can have a similar “special” consideration as well then, since it is a land locked nation unlike Israel
1 Like
Did anyone do a revised TT with Poland + another subtree already or do I gotta scroll up/through ~300 messages
nope not really
Here’s my suggestion of what I found .
https://polandgroundfinal.neocities.org/poland_ground%20(3)
This is my tree of standalone poland, there is still a lot I can add but I dont have the time. The BRs arent consistent to the most recent update, but they are the how they were before the last BR reshuffle
All 2nd republic large ships were made out of country. Naval infrastructure takes a very long time to develop, and gydnia only really started developing its shipyard for the navy in 1927. Large destroyers and minesweepers like Gryf were designed in Poland and contracted in places like france and UK.
The first destroyers to be built in Poland would have been the 2nd batch of Grom class destroyers starting in 1939. They would have been Huragan and Orkan. We can actually have Huragan ingame as it started construction on july 15 1939 (fits the requirement to be added as a naval vehicle)
2 Likes
We took part of the discussion to DMs, but I think my side of it belongs here.
“Poland that only has around 250-300. Current list I have for Czechoslovakia is 559.”
Counting designs is the weakest argument.
If raw numbers decided trees, you could fill a whole rank with T-55 variants and call it content.
If raw numbers decided trees, USSR tech tree would multiple it’s size.
It’s not what people want. Nobody wants to grind through rows of T-55s.
Like “who modernized the T-72 more times” or “who built more demonstrators” matters.
Both countries had coldwar armies, and both license-built and upgraded Soviet equipment.
That’s a draw, not an argument for Czechoslovakia.
A tree is good when every line has something worth playing and there’s a top tier worth reaching.
That’s what makes people grind and spend money, and that’s what Gaijin actually looks at.
“What would be your reaction if Poland was to be added as subtree to Czechoslovakia”
I understand the worry, given how recent subtrees were added. But attitude matters.
Working together on a West-Slavs tech tree is okay, but being sub-tree of Poland isn’t? Gajin don’t do things that way. We got:
Sweden, not Vikings.
Italy, not Latinos.
Japan, not Asians-except-China.
A shared tree only feels like a loss when it’s built badly.
How I’d build it
Not 90/10, and not a forced 50/50 either. Follow history:
- Early ranks: mostly Czechoslovak. That’s where most of the interesting interwar and early-war vehicles came from, so they should lead.
- Mid ranks: the shared Warsaw Pact era. We codeveloped vehicles, and both of us built and modernized Soviet designs. Folder the parallel ones (BVP-1/BWP-1, T-72 upgrades) and put the most interesting variant from either side up front.
- Top ranks: more Polish, given where things stand today, but with the best of modern Czech and Slovak industry in there.
- Alongside the shared lines: purely domestic lines for each country.
On their own, I think both trees would end up like Israel in places: gaps, and not much pulling you toward top tier. Combined and done properly, this could be one of the more interesting trees in the game.
I did my best to answer your “Why do Poles always want Czechoslovakia as a subtree”.
I don’t want Czechoslovakia getting the lazy treatment, so why not to transfer the effort spent on these fights into product of both communities working together.
1 Like
United Korea
1 Like
2 Likes