please state the contradictions.
lets not talk about this because you havent ever provided credible evidence for this claim.
the 141 actually had a gun at least. the others did not and only were proposed with guns.
i question your definition of consistency
exactly my point.
i presume then that you agree with my points but have just masterfully summarised them? 😁
kf41: designed 2015
kf51: designed 2016
so if both were added in game in 2019 would germany receive both?
your logic is unconvincing to say the least.
hungary purchased the lynx in 2020.
so after 2020, would you remove the 41 from germany? and if hungary bought the 51 in 2025, would you rmove the 51 from germany then?
bruh think three times before you type
the fact that you felt comfortable typing such words makes me worry about the logic circuits in people’s heads.
well the hunter is originally a british aircraft so it should go there,
agreed that i may have made a few inconsistencies (i am human and imperfect) but have yet to find credible ones pointed out by people. it doesnt help that most people havent read all my points.
i thought a lot about this, and am saddened by people pointing out how this dosent align with their opinions.
bruh i dont care about opinions. i wanna hear logic and consistency
which is exactly what im criticising and want to solidify as a concrete and fair set of rules
well at least you have provided you opinion respectfully and while being aware that it is what you like. i appreciate that.
most people here:
Gaijin already has a concrete & fair set of rules…
“source: trust me bro” much?
Sir, isn’t that what you are doing here? There are people that agree and people that disagree. I do not agree with your proposed solution. Ignoring that the post was made mainly for the KF41, what you showed on post 32 for the intended result of your proposal is objectively a mess.
i am arguing based on a defined set of regulations as i have stated in my original post.
a blatant assumption that is false. i hold many grievances and the KF41 is but a small one of them
objectivity is verifiable, but the term you used “mess” is subjective. thus i would like elaboration from you on that point. as well as what exactly is a mess on what i have shown on post 32
The mess in question is castrating tech trees by moving every single vehicle that wasn’t made by the nation to the nation that made the base model (Example: F-4EJ goes to USA). This makes a complete skeleton of minor nations.
-Israel is basically gone
-Finland is gone
-France will have significant BR gaps in rank 2 and 3
-Italy will have gaps in ranks 2-4
-Taiwan tree is gone, China has no tree below rank 4
-Japan is okay for ground, but loses almost all high tier aircraft.
There is no other way to describe the impact of what your proposal would bring. There’s no way to sugarcoat it, it is an objectively bad idea.
I agree that it is pointless in the sense that Gaijin makes ad hoc decisions for every vehicle they introduce. It’s not pointless if you’re debating having a permanent criteria system, however. The whole point of having such a system is that it predicts future cases. If it can’t, it has already fallen apart.
That’s factually incorrect, Baum has already addressed why.
If it found one tomorrow, would you remove it from its current tree?
Because there is no system. They place vehicles where they feel they need to pad out a tree, or where they will encourage people to grind for it, etc. The rest is post exo facto rationalisations.
From the 2S38 to the Maus, the game is full of vehicles that were built but not accepted into service. If you accept the premise that base versions go to the designer and customised versions go to the customers, then there is no meaningful difference between the base Lynx and the base F-4E, since “in service” is not a hard requirement for a vehicle to be in this game. If you think it should be a hard requirement, then I guess we’ve got to start depopulating the Soviet tree.
Your points make a lotta sense and in a way it should be like that with national trees.
The problem is the national trees concept imo, ideally there should be “groups” or international trees. I guess the messy thing we have now is a byproduct of them starting with 5 large WW2 nations.
Seeing we got the mess i’d say continue with the mess or overhaul the entire tree concept. I do understand those that would wish more “clean” rules like you suggest.
Up until the Swiss Hunter, the general criteria I provided is fairly accurate and what has been followed. As a reminder, this criteria was not “created” by me, it is an observation of how Gaijin has applied vehicles without a definitive nation. There has been precedence about vehicle moves to new nations, more below.
Sure, if the nation exists on its own, including sub trees. Just like the Israeli Vautour, it was hidden from France and instated in Israel.
You are taking my quote out of context to what I was responding to, basically a rebuttal to what Baum said of removing the F-4E from US because Israel has a modified version of it. There is precedence in game for a vehicle not going to the nation that created and tested it, which would be the A-35B.
While I do agree that some kind of rule should be introduced regarding the adding of vehciles to different nations (tired of fighting 5 different versions of the T-54 and BMP while the soviets are on my team), the rules that you suggest seem a bit too restrictive.
There is precedent for most anything in this game, precisely because, as I already said,
You can still get the US Merkavas on the market, for instance…
Internal consistency is a virtue we can debate when it comes to discussing our own proposed methods of allocation. When inferring Gaijin’s decision making, there is no reason to bother. The Lynx is in the Italian tree because Gaijin (imho mistakenly) believes it is the only way to make people play that tree, and they needed a top tier 'star" vehicle to headline the update. That’s it. The end. Every justification given afterwards is an exercise in public relations and nothing more. Just like the Indian T-90 did not come to Britain because of Commonwealth ties, but because they wanted a top tier squadron MBT for Britain and that option was available.
Agreed. To be more specific: nations should exist in WT, trees should exist in WT, but the complete identity between the two has outlived its purpose and should be phased out in full.
This isn’t consistent with much of the rest of the point you want to make. Like if someone beside the main nations who invented them produces shermans or t-34s should be in their trees? No, hell no. Should at most be premiums and not in the normal tree.
Well, they didn’t like it, that’s why they moved away from it and started using German made tanks instead. infakt most of their t-72 (not all though) were bought from Germany.
Wrong company but otherwise correct. i actually didn’t know it was a joint venture.
BAE systems has HQ in both UK and the USA depending on the branches.
How do we then classify BAE system’s subsidiaries BAE systems-Hägglunds and BAE systems-Bofors? they only exists in Sweden and they are the only two parts of BAE that are working on the CV90. (Edit: correction, Bofors has operations in UK and USA as well.)
does this not create the problem of companies acquiring others from other countries mid development and/or post development? or even pre development? lets say company A in country 1 gets bought by company B in country 2. company A still exists and have their headquarters in country 1, but company B that gives them funding is in country 2. do designs from company A go to country 1,country 2 or both? and does it differ when those designs are pre, post or during production/prototyping?
I beg to differ
I go by logic that in order for nation to have certain vehicle, the first and foremost criteria that it has to satisfy is that the armed forces of said nation used it.
In my opinion, Gaijin handled some vehicles great (albeit, some others weren’t).
The ones I listed in post above are good example.
Japan, Germany, UK and Israel all have unique Phantoms.
Japan’s EJ doesn’t have Agile Eagle, but has slatted elevators. EJ Kai is truly Japanese upgraded beast of Phantom
German F-4Fs are lightweight turn fighting monsters, thanks to lack of 7th fuel cell and Agile Eagle slats (but they lack slatted elevators)
UK Phantoms are missile trucks with Pulse Doppler radar. They can’t turn but can sling Skyflashes.
Israeli base Phantom (Kurnass) isn’t much different than F-4E but you can’t deny uniqueness of Kurnass 2000. More countermeasures and Python 3 missiles along with improved radar.
Putting all these in US tech tree would make it overcrowded (since most of these are in BR range of 11.0 to 11.7) and other trees would lose uniqueness and incentive to research them.
Overall bad for players and Gaijin developers (if you know what I mean)
Just my two cents…
EDIT:
While I can understand the first table you posted
The second one makes no sense at all since some vehicle would be straight copies of native tech tree ones