Same should be said for the Abrams, Leopard 2, F-18, Boxer, etc. yet you conveniently don’t seem to be opposed to those
And the exact same will happen with “Commonwealth” vehicles. But it seems many Britain players only care about getting the best of specifically the US and Germany based on the arbitrary distinction of these being “western” nations (but I guess France and Sweden aren’t? And the idea that there is a distinct clade of “western” nations that shouldn’t mix with “others” is inherently racist)
Again. I dont really care, it beats out a soviet thing, but Would still much prefer native options. Though Boxer is being used by Britain and has been extensively trialed. So?
The point is a T-90 in a lineup with Challenger 1s is wierd. Strela and OSA alongside Stormers is wierd. Let alone the Sim arguments in here as well. The amount of people I see abusing the T-90 to flank in GSB. There is a reason why those arguments exist. If Britain isnt allowed to stand by its own native additions. Then the bare minimum is adding vehicles of extremely close allies like Canada, which already has a major placement within our tree with a dozen existing vehicles. instead of adding, so far, mostly soviet C&P.
Out of the 7 indian vehicles. 5 have been soviet C&P and none have done what they claim Sub-TTs are about which is patching holes in the tree that cant be filled by native options.
Heck they just added the Badger from South Africa which most consider weaker than the 8.0 options Britain already had and does absolutely nothing to support our 10.0+ line-up where we still have no IFVs at all.
And a Leopard or Abrams in the same lineup as a CR2 is equally “weird”.
Then let Britain stand in its own. You and so many others are so quick to cave in on domestic vehicles if it means you get American and German export vehicles. All “oh well, if I have to, I’ll take it :c” while vehemently opposing Indian and South African vehicles, even fully unique domestic ones, because “copy paste”.
And nearly 100% of the Australian and Canadian vehicles will be the exact same: copy-paste when there’s domestic options. But that doesn’t matter, I guess.
And i’ve been fighting for Challenger 2 buffs for years. Gaijin seems to have decided that the Challenger 2 must be a weak vehicle. At this point, most of us have just given up on it ever being fixed.
Such as?
LAVIII which would be an ideal IFV for our tree is 100% Canadian. I would also quite like the RAAF F-86. Now Britain did actually operate the F-86, but for the sake of a bit of diversity, the RAAF F-86 could be added instead which replaced the engine with a Rolls Royce Engine and the 50 cals for 30mm ADENs.
Everything else I want is from Britain:
Air:
Hawk
Jag
Vulcan
Mosqutio
etc etc
Or Briitsh export like a heavily upgraded Hunter from somewhere like Oman, Chille or Singapore and the Buc S50 would be fun because of the RATOs
So you managed to name one (1) unique vehicle before going to a copy-paste F-86? And don’t even try to say “well it has a different engine” because you also called the Bison and T-90S “Soviet copy-paste” just two replies ago.
And on top of all that being crammed in a subtree is a total disrespect for either Canada or Australia. Now they won’t be able to have the vast majority of their vehicles properly incorporated due to space limitations and copy paste. Canadians and Australians will never be able to have a proper lineup for their country, they’ll instead be forced to always be a sidekick to Britain.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
