I’m talking more about a distinct version with the AAM-5 and AAM-4B and such. Similar to how they did it with Eurofighter w/ and w/o AESA. Leave the current one at 13.7 and add another with AAM-5 and AAM-4B as they’re better missiles that’d turn the F-2 from a good 13.7 to a bad 14.0+
HMD still needs to be proven. We have zero evidence of it besides rumours and the Shimadzu HMD (that im pretty sure we have no proof of being tested on an unmodified F-2 either)
1 Like
Adding modified vehicles is more unique that copy pasting vehicles.
Yes, sadly racism is stopping us from having better tech trees.
Yeah thats our current one. We need a distinct early, not a distinct late.
Even the premium one we have is a late model.
1 Like
So, in your POV, every exported vehicle should be modified to be ‘unique’
Such as…
-Changing some features (M109 variants which give similar gameplay with slight differnce on machine gun.), or even removing it(Finnish F-18C which is Finished, or Finnish PzIVJ which removed anti-air MG34)
-changes ammo belt (from P-51D-20 to J26)
-or limit some ammunition, which technically could IRL (M61 APCBC-HE on QF Mk. V, APDS limitation of British Firefly, AIM-7F of F-4JUK, or AIM-120 of JAS39C SAAF, as an example)
Right?
Sounds a bit more like ‘you guys shouldn’t have superior vehicles than us’, no matter how you paid us.
and maybe THAT is what ‘tech-tree uniqueness’ truly means to YOU.
I honestly don’t think rationalising a big problem with only ‘racism’ is a good sight for seeing the problem.
If we suggest you join the Greatest-Commonwealth-Tech-Tree and be a sub-tree of UK… I don’t think that is a better tech tree…
Either JP+CN+Thai, or UK+ANZAC+US.
I think we’re on different pages on what the word “unique” means.
The Ro’em is a unique modification.
The Achilles is a unique modification.
The M4A4 however, is not.
Two of those have a modification which changes the way the vehicle is played. One of those is just a slight nerf that really has no meaningful effect.
Yes, the word “racism” oversimplifies it, however the main idea is not lost. That is, combining the Asian trees would lead to very angry Asian players all around due to societal tensions between Asian nations (and even between territories within the same nation).
You are completely missing the point of combining trees. Britain is a decently fleshed out tree, and does not need copy paste. Britain has continued developing new weaponry through the post-war period. There is 0 reason for US to be a joint tree with UK.
Japan and China, however, were both stunted as far as military technology goes during post-war (heck, even pre-war for China) and thus lack the number of real-world vehicles to properly flesh out their trees.
Nice defence, quite impressive.
I agree with your point on Achilles.
I am a bit wondering about the effectiveness of the chimaera-ish 155mm version of Priest wannabee with HVSS chassis in gameplay-wise, it would act as a sidegrade version of M44, which acts a bit inferior on the gameplay side. Uniqueness? yes. Worthful to play? unsure about it unless it gets significantly lower BR than M109.
And, if Ro’em gets significantly lower BR than the current reserve-ish M51, there would be another problem, which it cannot form a solid deck because there are lacks of vehicles at israel tech tree under 6.0BR. We might need another vehicle to fill the empty rank 1~3 gap of israel TT if we want to see ro’em, and if we consider the history of IDF, the lower ranks of israel TT will smells bit similar to the current Chinese TT’s low ranks, if it happens.
If we push Ro’em, you will eventually end up with more C&P vehicles. I am fine to see them, but I am a bit wondering if you can accept it.
Also, about the Japanese tech tree, which was origianl topic of this, there aren’t many ‘truly unique vehicles which also fit gameplay-worthy’ left in the WW2 era, and you also know there are not much dometic vehicles left for them in the post-war.
I agree that reshuffling priorities of adding sub-tree vehicles is needed for Gaijin (Which is never gonna happen). A more unique-ish vehicle is better, but we also need those C&P ones, either.
If we completely dismiss the C&P cards from this game, with your stances, minor nations will run out of vehicles real quick.
This part was the main idea of why I counterargued with the silly idea of the UK-US combined TT.
Their history is even more complicated than we do. no matter how we want to combine it or not. Combining JP-CN-Thai is never gonna happen, invalid idea.
I don’t reckon that I completely missed the point, but well, I admit that I partially mistook the idea.
Which is filled with non-meta vehicles. Loves those beauties, but hates them on the gameplay side.
Vampire, Sea Venom, Meteor and such.
I disagree. I think we need a bit of copied vehicles which can reflect our heritage and Lend-lease support from west.
Yes. There is zero reason for US to be a joint tree with UK.
Just like how CN cannot be a joint tree with JP.
I really don’t think mixing nations with controversal way can be a solution to solve the copy-paste problem. Maybe they would have a bit less c&p vehicles than now, but not that much better if we think about revenue.
Also, this cannot happen unless you change the history with some fancy blue phone box or car built of fancy stainless steel.
Agreed, but also the US lacks a US Stingray and instead just got the Thai model. Thailand configured it according to their needs. Just because it’s the only mass produced variant doesn’t suddenly make it a stock production configuration.
Only the M551 Stingray and the Stingray AGS were offered to the US military, but never the base Stingray. It would’ve made more sense to add both of these rather than adding a foreign operated tank.
Stingray AGS
The US could’ve also instead gotten either of the two prototypes, the first one being more distinct with the old cooling system, and the second representing the actual intended standard production configuration before the Thai order.
So I think the Thai service Stingray should be removed from the US tree and replaced with a model actually relevant to the US.
2 Likes
In an ideal world, Ro’em would be 4.0 whilst M44 (and most other HE slingers) would be higher. Not that players want a Ro’em for its combat effectiveness anyways.
If you saw the rank 1-3 Israeli TT suggestion, the majority of the vehicles would be unique modifications. The Half Track would also get a chance to shine.
Copy and paste is not the issue. I’m perfectly fine with vehicles like, the Italy M24 and M4 being added as they’re necessary to fill proper lineups.
The issue comes when 90% of the tech tree is copy paste, like Japan’s ground tree and China’s air tree.
Kinda Gajin’s fault tho :/
If it’s joint venture vehicles like the M22 or Cannonstang, then I agree. But if it’s just adding random BS cause the nation bought it at some point, then no.
Yeah that is dissapointing.
1 Like
In an ideal world, only in an ideal.
I reckon that both Ro’em and M44 maintain 4.0BR, and Israeli users suffer thanks to an inferior vehicle in the same BR if we think about F-16 Netz or the initial version of Sholef before it gets buffed.
Still, there would be some direct C&P vehicles which will be added to keep up the gameplay effectiveness, if it happens. And well, extension of the Israeli tech tree itself isn’t clear though
Gaijin probably just fills low ranks in the way which you dislike, or even there could be a chance of full neglect, just as we brits got about the SA sub-tree in air branches.
Hmm… seems you shifted your stance slightly. But well, Addition of Thailand subtree itself was designed to fill proper lineup.
Gaijin just choosed to give worse option than better though.
As you know, Gaijin’s taste is a bit… unique. Isn’t it?
This is a clear oversimplificating about japanese ground part.
There are 80 total vehicles in japanese ground tech tree, and if we exclude all of the premium/event/squadron vehicles, there are 64 ground vehicles exists.
And there are only 9 C&P vehicles in the ground branch.
-M16 MGMC
-M24
-M19A1
-M44
-M4A3 76(W)
-M41A1
-M47
-M163(Thai)
-M60A3 TTS(Thai).
‘9 out of 64 isn’t 90% of the tech tree is copy-slopped’.
And some of them are required to fill the gap.
About the Chinese air branch…
The Qing were literally doomed thanks to Two-empires-on-islands. so, there were no options to fill lower ranks without copy-pasted vehicles, unless Gaijin debunk the low ranks just as they did on the Israeli tech tree.
Necessary to fill the proper lineup, as you claimed.
Then Please hand over fancy mustangs with merlins along with P-400 to us.
If we didn’t order those from you, those weren’t born at all.
Well, I know the USAAF used P-400 in combat, because we didn’t received much of those, then the USAAF armed with those leftovers.
A bit similar to the US Stingray case, they changed the autocannon because we ordered it, and Congress didn’t want us to have 37mm, AFAIK. The only difference is that, unlike the Stingray case, we failed to get P-400 of our own.
This isn’t ‘just adding random bs cause we bought it at some point’.
Well, we wouldn’t argue at all if Gaijin were a bit more concerned about adding Thailand vehicles with some unique modifications.
1 Like