To clarify the CAC sabre is a complete redesign. It’s like the difference between challenger 1 and challenger 2.
3 Likes
There is many. I’m not pushing for a flood of Aussie or Canadian vehicles here but just want to clarify to say Aussie stuff is just a copied American version is in most cases completely wrong.
4 Likes
Britain operated the F-86 for several years as a stopgap between the Vampire, Venom and Meteor and the Hunter. So technically should already have them. I am proposing a unique variant of the F-86 instead of a direct C&P
We want to be in the British tree. That’s where we belong. We’ve been pushing for it for as long as the game has existed. It’s not new.
5 Likes
Seeing the discussion about these vehicles I’m going to throw my two cents in.
I feel that the copy paste thing (imo) is thrown around too broadly. The only Indian copy paste imo are the sams as the others cannot be found in another tree with the exact same performance.
I think partitioning a nations vehicles between multiple main countries (i.e like what’s being done to Canada, Spain and Poland) is a bad idea.
I personally don’t care about the east and west mixing as long as it’s not a one to one copy.
India would’ve been better of with India due to more space and imo, has a current stronger link as they have cooperated heavily with eachother. That being said, as long as the vehicles cannot be given to another nation with the exact same performance, I don’t mind getting more Indian vehicles (preferably not behind limited sales or events.
I apologise if I misread, but didn’t you say
Unless you ment gajin prioritising copy paste from those two nations, it seems you are contradicting yourself. Again if I had misread, I apologise.
I was a huge F-111K believer but the F-111C was chosen as it was fully complete. That’s up to gajin. Also while I might be in the minority here, I couldn’t be bothered about other nations receiving similar vehicles at top tier. That’s just how the modern equipment is distributed as either exports or joint development.
Unless we somehow get a Can-Aus-Nz tree which is seems quite unlikely, then the UK tree seems to be the best place.
1 Like
In my opinion, copy-paste isn’t an issue whatsoever when the vehicle in question was operated by the main nation, so long as it doesn’t replace a domestic in-service vehicle. This is particularly the case for nations with smaller armament industries, who lack as many fully domestic designs. So, an Australian Abrams in an Australian tree- that’s totally fine. Same with a British Sabre in the British tree. But when a subtree is primarily copy-paste, this is an issue. Then, the subtree becomes a trojan horse to siphon off the best vehicles from other established trees. E.g., an Australian Abrams in a British tree is a problem. Or, an Australian Sabre in the British tree.
Furthermore, when a nation is introduced as a subtree instead of a full one, they’re confined to more or less a single line of vehicles. This means that domestic vehicles, particularly prototypes, as made to compete with imported vehicles. And the both the general playerbase and Gaijin tend to prefer the imports. This can be seen in every subtree.
India already has enough vehicles to fill an entire tree. Canada and Australia have even more. Cramming all three into the already quite large and full British tree is a disservice to all.
To put it more concisely, if a vehicle was in-service with a nation, or was developed by that nation, I believe it should be represented in-game (with exceptions for vehicles that just wouldn’t work, couldn’t be balanced, or are very minor changes compared to another vehicle in the tree).
For this reason, I am opposed to the idea of a “Commonwealth” subtree because it would be impossible to achieve such a goal given how many vehicles such a “subtree” would need to include, and because doing so would essentially give Britian the best vehicles of half the other trees in the game.
1 Like
In an ideal game, there would be more independent trees with their slew of unique vehicles but I doubt we’ll get more than one new tree considering gajin really likes it’s high cost modern stuff.
Again, gajin just seems to do whatever.
I also do agree with the copy paste comment, if it’s the only option, then sure. As long as a tree is over 50% unique vehicles or mods, I would be happy to see it.
India could’ve been independent but even if gajin was against it, there was literally another nation with good ties, a mix of east and west and a nice batch of vehicles all around. Then gajin goes ahead and adds it to a large tree.
Can-Aus-Nz could’ve been a really cool tree but gajin seems like distributing Canadian vehicles like SL repair costs on a full lobby.
I’m honestly not sure where South Africa could’ve gone, it has good ground forces but it seems it’s air is too small for an independent tree.
Australians and Canadians don’t want seperate trees, we only askynanything of ours added comes to the British tree where we belong.
Additionally you keep pushing the Aussie sabre as being a copy American sabre. They aren’t alike in any way other then a passing resemblance. The CAC sabre was designed, built and operated in Australia. It’s bigger, more powerful and different amament.
I should also comment on you final paragraph about the Commonwealth branch would be made up of all the best stuff from the top 3. You again misunderstand what we Commonwealth nations ask for. We don’t want Britain to stop being a British tree but in the case something is deemed needed or a vehicle is added that was specially used by a Commonwealth nation then it’s should be considered and included for the tree. Don’t want Britain to have and Aussie Abrams? Then don’t add an Aussie Abrams. We aren’t asking for the world just saying our stuff belongs in the British tree when added.
4 Likes
It’s still a modified derivative of the F-86F. Remember, Morvran was the one who decided the MiG-21UPG, Bhishma TWMP Jaguar IS, etc. were all copy-paste. I’m just going by his standard for copy-paste to keep the discussion focused.
No it’s not modified, it’s a whole new plane designed and built in Australia.
Again it just looks the same. It’s bigger, different air frame, bigger intakes, British engine, and British fire power. Only thing American about it is the name.
1 Like
It’s based on the F-86F. Australia acquired the license to the F-86F, then fitted them with new engines, intakes, and armaments. Are you under the impression it was an original, ground-up design?
The plane was completely redesigned and built by the Australians. It has less the 40% commonality with the American sabres
LAV 6.0 ❤️❤️❤️❤️ PLEASE
4 Likes
No worries about idk… British kit in the Russian tree? Kind of the same issue but just shoved the other way?
I mean so was the T90 Bhishma which literally had a completely new turret designed for the tank because the Indians couldnt produce the cast turrets so a welded turret was made for them and they put a completely different powerpack into the tank vs what they originally planned again, because the Indians wanted a different pack.
SU-30mki is a similar thing too.
CAC Sabre completely redesigned, but the Bhishma isnt?
A vast majority is not British though and most are asking for things like the Su-30 and Mig-29 to be added to the British TT.
If it was simply about adding british export stuff then why bother adding India as a Sub-TT. Export isnt required for that
Dodging the question lol.
Again, how would it be different adding Harriers, Jaguars, Hawks, Abbot, Centurions, Vijayantas, Mirages, AMX-13s, Hunters and so on to the USSR tree? Which is what would happen lol.
And it’s a Soviet design, not western. Doesn’t fit in the tree.