Removal of national tech trees

With recent heated debates about vehicles like the T90 Bishma, Swiss Hunter, KF41, and more its become clear to me that there is a major divide between in game national identities. And the want to have certain vehicles be given to specific nations.

My solution is as follows, removal of national tech trees in ARCADE and REALISTIC. With the nations represented on statcards determining what vehicles you can bring in a SIMULATOR battle line up.

Instead of vehicles being seperated by tech trees with vehicles connected by research lines despite having no realistic connection. Vehicles would be placed into lines of direct real world design progression.

For example: t50- t34 76- t34 85- t43- t44- t54- t55- so on and so forth. This would remove mandatory research of tank like the KV series to get the IS series of tanks, or the PZ3 and 4 to get the Panther and Tigers.
This would also mean that lines associated with tanks like the Pattons would become massive and convoluted, though this could easily be remidied by foldering and RP and SL reductions.

This would allow for the addition of all military vehicles without needing to argue about where brazil, poland, korea, turkey, switzerland and others will go.

  • Yes remove national trees for easier implementation of minor nations
  • No keep national trees and add vehicles based on closest assumed political ties
  • Add a (combined nation) tech tree to add all one offs and low vehicle count militaries

0 voters

This would also allow you to make a lineup of all the 7.7 heavies, or all the IFVs. Which is a definite plus.

You will get downvoted hard by russian mains, but this is a good idea. We already have mixed nation battles and no semblance of realism for who’s side you end up on. It would be nice to play Sweden and be able to bring along an M1A2 or an extra Leopard 2A7 when they get here.

1 Like

That’s a dumb assumption to make as I’m not a russian main and even I disagree with this…

21 Likes

Then explain why. And the fact is still correct just because you don’t agree with it.

Because the nation trees are there for a reason, and we don’t need to have a massive want to have all the nations put into a massive pool for mere want of it being ‘easier’ to unlock ‘everything cool’
and ignore anything ‘not cool’…

Just look at the inability of people to use SPAA, and avoid it because ‘it does nothing’…

This is why.

9 Likes

Its not about adding ‘cool stuff’ its about adding minor nations. Nations that dont have clear specific ties to any in game nation but have a following of people who want that nation in game. And that dont have enough vehicles to create a fleshed out tree.

2 Likes

Unfortunately the “nation” tree’s are fundamental to the game system - you can’t replace them simply.

your own example shows this -

T-50 has nothing to do with T34, which has little or nothing to do with T-44, while the IS series ARE a direct descendant of the KV’s!!

Generally I think that the nation tree’s are past their best-by date and the T-90 example shows why, but there needs to be a great deal more thought given to what would succeed them - what would be the criteria for starting resea4ch into a new vehicle for example? And just how would RB and SB match making work?

1 Like

I think an easier solution would just be to lay off the vodka and bathsalts and place vehicles like the Hunter F.58 and T-90S in the country they clearly originated, or failing that; the closest military alliance/political tie.

The BR system (for it’s many flaws) was supposed to cover discrepancies between nations, there’s no guarantee all 7.7 heavies would remain 7.7 heavies under your suggested system

Not really going to argue a lot because the tech trees themselves are part of Gaijins monetisation of the game whenit comes to premium vehicles, so everything getting put together is never going to happen.

2 Likes

It was an example, im no expert on russian tanks.

Rb matchmaking is already the same as arcade so idk what your asking.(theres no longer historical matcmaking) And SB would actually be improved by this change. Because for historical battles where allies fought together youd be able to actually have a historical line up. Like a normandy SIM battle with a line up of a churchill, cromwell and some american tanks.

How exactly would this affect premiums? Theyd still have premium bonuses, which as far as i know is the entire purpose of a payed premium vehicle. If anything itd make premiums more viable as youd have truly full lineups at most BRs of just premiums.

The BR system was meant to match similarly performing vehicles against one another not to cover discrepencies between nations.

Because you could grind with one high rank premium.

Wasn’t the case when they downtiered the Leopard I to 7.3 because Germany was suffering and almost got an M48C at 6.7. I suspect there is a lot more cases like this; like how USSR and China is notoriously terrible at 7.0-8.0 and it took forever for the WMA/PTL to move and the Obj. 906 sits out of place among it’s peers.

Your not accounting for the insane amount of time that would take. And thats what happens already, most people dont grind more than one or 2 nations and likely only 1/3 of all players ever buys a high tier premium.

Yes thats because gaijin changed how they place vehicles. Instead of vehicle performance they changed it to player performance. That why french and US tanks are overtiered and the panther sits at 5.7 when the cent mk1 and t25 used to be 5.7 and the panthers were 6.0

BR positioning has not changed at all.
It’s based on vehicle performance, with minor adjustments from player performance.
Panther & M4A3 being the same BR is a minor inconvenience, but they’re still not further than 0.3BRs apart even in a decompressed state.
T25 use to not have a stabilizer, and was genuinely OP.
French tanks are not over-BR’d.

1 Like

I’d say the AMX-50 TOA100 is over BR’d because it is worse than a couple tanks at the same BR(7.7).

Early post war French tanks are just poor in uptiers, which is what makes people say things like that. They are relatively equal or worse than the things they fight, but they get vastly outclassed in any uptier due to the lack of sub-calibre rounds, and a stable tank.

So a Russian main is anyone you disagree with?

There is a general pattern behind many of War Thunder’s issues: the game has grown so fast and so much, that it has outstripped its original structure. You see this in maps not fit for top tier, the power creep of multiple BRs… and you also see it here.

Nation-based tech trees are no longer fit for purpose. They should go.

What this example shows, above all, is that there are just too many trees.

We, the players, look at the squadron T-90 example and ask ourselves, how could we have an alternative situation where something that looks so out of place doesn’t happen? But that’s putting the cart before the horse, Gaijin approaches this from the opposite end. “We need to give the British tech tree a top tier squadron MBT” and the real world options for that are quite limited.

This would not be an issue if we had fewer tech trees, with the number of vehicles staying the same. With more vehicles per tree, everyone would have a bit of everything, and balancing would become a lot easier. No light vehicle gap at X BR, or lack of a good top tier MBT, or lack of an IFV, or… you get my point.

You are correct, and in fact there’s even more elements that make this very challenging. Player progression being very long is extremely important to a game like this.

Either you pay up to speed up progression, or if you pay for free, at least you’re guaranteeing Gaijin that you’ll be queueing up for matches for a really long time (which keeps queue times short, and the MMO in question in a good state of health).

And then there’s the marketing side of it. Being able to say “we have your country in WT too!” is a major USP.

Plus, like IlSolitairell says,

That convinces me, even more, that condensing trees is the right option. It addresses the worst of the issues, without rocking the boat in terms of commercial priorities and player progression.

The number of vehicles remains unchanged, so progression times are not really affected. And you get to keep the national flags etc that allow Gaijin to market the game to people that care about national identities.

To give a very basic example of how this would work, imagine that the American, British, and Israeli trees were placed under a “folder” together. Call the folder whatever you want, let’s go with “Anglo” for the purpose of this example. Inside this folder you’d have the American line, British line, and Israeli line, each marked with its own little flag.

If you want to specialise in one only, you as the player have that option. Research would remain nation-specific, so you would not invalidate the purpose of premium vehicles.

However, you have the option of constructing a lineup with vehicles from all trees within the same folder (in this case, USA, UK, Israel). This means that there is no need to give you ridiculous copypastes to flesh out a tree, the gaps fill themselves by virtue of many vehicles being available.

This also allows you to put in a near-infinite number of sub trees and minor nations if you so wish, because they don’t need to have complete lines. Stick the South African flag together with the other three in this Anglo folder, then repeat the process for Canada, NZ, Australia… even if they have trees with very few vehicles, it doesn’t matter. You’re not trying to build a lineup out of them alone.

Another advantage of this, is that it allows you to resolve a number of awkward oddities (cough cough Chinese and Taiwanese vehicles in the same tree???). You could have different political identities belong in different folders. For example, Axis-era Kingdom Of Hungary could be in one folder with the relevant countries, whereas communist Hungary could be in the Warsaw Pact folder. Same thing for Germany, DDR vehicles would get their DDR tab in the Warsaw Pact folder.

There are additional benefits to this system.

You make the matchmaker’s job much easier. Rather than try and assemble games from every possible combination of ten different factions, you’re now assembling matches from four factions, a very limited number of combinations to accommodate.

This means queue times drop like a stone and stay low even if you introduce massive decompression (which now you could better sustain, since you’d have a much more granular selection of vehicles to give the player).

Teams would be more even, because every faction would have all sorts of vehicles, rather than (for example) one team with all the good guns and gun depression having an automatic advantage on say, Mozdok.

Ground RB would look less like Arcade Mixed Battles (T-34s, Shermans, Panzer IVs, ZSU-57s are basically becoming universal at this point…). With this system, it would have a distinct identity from AB, but also a distinct one from SB, where people would go to “roleplay”.

6 Likes

When I play American 5.3 lineup, it usually causes me to play vs germans very often, so matches sometimes look like endless supply of just Tigers and Panthers thanks to their popularity.

Would I like more variability there? Sure I would, but I don’t think removing nation restrictions would help with that. There would just be most popular lineups, instead of most popular nations.

I would rather see something that incentivizes people to play greater variety of vehicles. Which current system doesn’t in case you are playing with friends.
When I play with friends and each one has a different nation lineup, matchmaking takes forever, so this discourages from grinding other nations in order to prevent this. Instead you are incentivised to play the same nation, but again this lower vehicle variability in game as you are more likely to match lineups from popular nations.

2 Likes

-1
This would remove a lot of flavour from the game that comes with having vehicles be represented by certain nations. Having pros and cons for every lineup depending on your nation and BR is a huge part of what makes this game interesting. 5.7 USA is wildly different from 5.7 Germany, both playing very differently.
If everyone can just pick the best tanks from any nation and stuff them into a lineup on just a BR basis you would quickly find the viability of certain vehicles would drastically lower as well as you would lose what makes nations interesting at certain tiers.
People already complain about copy/paste, I can only imagine how people would react to seeing Chi-Nus and Turans sharing a lineup.

Additionally, it is absolutely not a change necessary to add new nations.
There are still plenty of nations that could work from rank I-VIII in both air and ground with unique vehicles. Czechoslovakia and Poland could work excellently as a standalone nation tree when brought together while still having a load of unique stuff. Same could be said for an independent Swiss and independent Yugoslav tree.
Even still, for nations such as the Koreas and Turkey a solution already exists. With the addition of Israel a new bar has been set for what is expected of a nation in order to be able to function independently in the game. The Koreas and Turkey would fit very well in the game in this style.

It is an unnecessary change for both short and long term, hence my vote.

4 Likes