All of this could be solved if everyone understood this simple image…
3 Likes
America researched and made the Stingray. That’s the important detail when it comes to tech trees, AKA research trees.
Thailand has 0 history significance with the Stingray. After 40 years, then only used it in a single war. Japan also has nothing to do with the Stingray.
It’s actually quite unneccessary in almost every single circumstance.
So, you make yourself sick.
An American Company researched and developed it for export use. the US looked at it and then decided they didn’t want it and then Thailand bought it and used it themselves while US rejected it for service in the US Army, henceforth why the US needs it less.
i feel like I am arguing with a brick wall xD
Also THAILAND actually has more history with the Stingray than US
3 Likes
Yes, Gage Cadillac researched Stingray PRIVATELY for EXPORT REASONS while you guys had fun with cool-looking junk such as Sheridan.
I really wonder why the heck you keep oversimplifying the goddamn problem ffs.
Of course, it is an important detail when it comes to tech trees, just like how we should receive Mustangs, which WOULD NEVER BE BORN IF WE DIDN’T ORDER a Kittyhawk copycat to North American.
Just like how Stingray SURVIVED thanks to the Thailandians.
No, as an intended exaggeration take, just for mirroring your take, the USA has 0 history significance with Stingray, because
YOU guys TESTED FIVE YEARS LATER than the Thai army, as a part of goddamn AGS projects, and Congress and MoD dropped her, AFAIK.
Too heavy to be used as an airborne tank.
After 40 years, only used a single war?
It seems Thailand still has obviously better legitimate than the USA, which has no service history and has not been used in any war at all.
I am fine to see Stingray(US) while Thai keeps Stingray(Original), but, if you really want to push your reasons, which you brought up to gatekeep American vehicles in the name of [better war thunder by no C&P vehicles], if we really need to remove one of two.
then US one has less legitimacy than the Thai, so Stingray(US) is the one which needs to be removed.
Double standard, again.
You rationalised those ‘C&P, which is being added with like Italian M24 and M4 being added for a proper lineup’
Oh, don’t ever think about playing the ‘ALMOST’ card just like how Slick Willie does.
You already disapproved nearly every C&P which exist in japanese tech-tree no matter how it fills gap or not.
I reckon that this is a typical example of projection. I don’t make myself sick because I didn’t made double standard about C&P.
I think I explained my stance well in the comment written to @RDXRooster63.
Oh, of course, the one which YOU QUOTED. It seems you didn’t read, but you just skipped it to nothing but find a weakpoint-ish points to veto any vehicle addition to the Japanese tech tree.
2 Likes
Thailand bought it, and used it once in 40 years.
American designed it, tested it, redesigned it multiple times, and sent prototypes to multiple countries for evaluation.
America designed and built the Stingray. The Stingray’s very small page of history is fully due to America.
I agree, both nations should keep their Stingray. However, the Stingray has very little legitimacy in Japan’s research tree due to its lack of history with Thai, and due to Japan already having a competent 9.3 light tank.
The Thai tree has only really served to add more copy slop to Japan’s research tree.
Projection.
The M24 and M4 added to a BR that already had Italian tanks but not enough for a proper lineup. The M19A1/42 and M24 added to Japan tree were added to a BR that did not have any Japanese tanks, and thus only served to fill a gap they created.
It’s almost like nearly every C&P in Warthunder doesn’t actually fill any gaps, and just serves to bloat Gajin’s numbers.
Projection.
No, not in the slightest. You’ve been constantly going back and forth on whether copy paste is good or bad, based on whether it’s a nation you like, rather than if it’s actually helpful to the game.
That “one little war” is 100% of the stingrays combat history. U are conflating Gage Cadillac and “America” then basing your entire claim on that
3 Likes
Except for the research and developement which went into the Stingray (y’know, the whole point of a research tree) and the fact that the Stingray wouldn’t even let alone have a history if it wasn’t for America.
I guess let’s put all the American tech in the British tree since if it wasn’t for them sending boats across the Atlantic, the US wouldn’t exist. You do realize the flaws in your argument right???
3 Likes
Congrats on defeating any reminisce of validity in your argument you might have had 👍
How so?
Why is it controversial for a vehicle exclusively operated by Thailand to be given to Thailand in-game.
I don’t really get it.
:/
3 Likes
America =/= Cadillac Gage.
With your CURSED take, at THAT theory, I can counteroffer that CV90 and Strv 122 could be british vehicle and need to be removed from sweden tech tree because the manufacturer of those(Hägglunds) became part of BAE Systems.
Stop the wordplay between the nation and the company.
GAGE CADILLAC RESEARCHED IT PRIVATELY. The United States of goddamn America doesn’t give a damn about it. ffs.
If Thai hadn’t bought it at all, there would be a chance that the whole project would be cancelled, just like how MBT-70 did.
You agree about that because nothing but I didn’t disagree about Stingray(US)?
If I completely dismissed Stingray(US) you might disagree with me, right?
Because you just want to maintain privilige of the United States in War Thunder.
Has more legitimacy than the USA. I wonder why you’re just saying the same goddamn thing when everyone else disaproved your opinion and explained WELL?
No? I think I explained this part in both this topic and another topic, which was about copy paste of Mossies.
Thai Tree was added because,
1- Gaijin dismissed the SK sub-tree of Japan.
2- But Japan needed more modern jets because Kokkai and JASDF didn’t bought much of modern jets.
3- So Thailand got selected for filling gap in the air. I clairified percentage of air/ground vehicles of thailand sub-tree.
Wrong, others explained about this multiple times.
M19A1 and M42 act like 4BR SPAA with 40mm when there are not many other options. Domestic 20mm light-tank-ish SPAA, such as So-ki and Ta-se, aren’t good enough to compete against counterparts in 4BR.
Also, M24(JGSDF) works for perfect light tank when there are no other Light tank remain in low BR.
And, I think I explained that M24(JGSDF) could be used for ‘form a deck’ in GAB as 3.3BR in Arcade Battle, M24, Chi-Nu, and that 75mm tin-can truck Tank destroyer, which I forgot the name. Na-To maybe?
Hmmm… ‘nearly’… seems you’re creating an escape route by playing word even further.
If you really believe like that, Logic isn’t a skill of yours, aren’t ya?
I explained about it with the British vehicle because of nothing, but I am familiar with Vehicles from british and commonwealth.
1- I dislike the current way of Gaijin’s implementation
2- But I am not supporting the full stop of C&P because
2.1- guys like YOU enjoy those as a strong gatekeeping tool while gaslighting others as ‘copy paste is bad, so we need to fight against Gaijin’ to gatekeep yours.
2.2- if we stop now, some nations will enjoys ripe of C&P vehicles which are already being added, while others forever lose a chance to get their vehicles.
3- So I said about ‘priority needs to be reshuffled’. Non-C&P Unique one is best, C&P, but has heritage and needs to fill a gap in second, lame C&P whose position is completely filled is least.
I believes you want to listen and hear what you want, and ignore the rest.
2 Likes
I sure hope you’re not tryna say the government is the country. A country is the civillian people. It may be fair to say that Cadillac Gage is not the U.S. military, however civillian companies are more “America” than the government is.
And the MBT-70 is in Warthunder, under the U.S. tech tree. Are you tryna say that if the MBT-70 project continued with America, but they were sold to another country, then it would not be valid for it to be added to America?
Nope. Thailand was not the nation to research, design, or build the Stingray.
Wow, so gracious of Gajin to solve the problem . . . that they created . . . with copy slopping.
“not many other options” as in there isn’t even a single Japanese TT tech at 3.7 or 4.0.
??? It’s not word play or an escape route, it’s just the simple truth. There’s a very small number of C&P vehicles that actually benefit the game, plain and simple.
“someone else who I dislikes dislikes copy paste so I must like it”
Seriously, mate, seriously.
What in the world can a civilian company be called more ‘nation’ than the government itself?
I never knew that the Founding Fathers fought against us for Coca-Cola instead of the people. /s
Also, you simply ignored the BAE Systems Hagglunds case, aren’t ya?
I really wonder why you cannot undestand simple thing
I’m just telling ya that if Thai didn’t buy Stingray at all, there would be a chance that Stingray even failed to survive until the AGS project was up.
Private venture moves for money; they aren’t charity.
Also, ‘in YOUR pov, which you use for gatekeep Stingray’
If Congress and MoD completely dismissed MBT-70 as they had historically, but Germany kept developing solely, there would be a chance of no MBT-70 for the USA
Just like how No AV-8B(American Variants from McDD) is in our tech tree, even though we were the original ones who developed Harrier.
You said, copy slopping is bad, aren’t ya?
But the nation which paid for building the Stingray.
Without Thailand, Stingray wouldn’t be seeing the daylight, just like how we both cannot be born without either father or mother. I really think this is simple logic, but I wonder why you cannot understand this.
Or maybe you are just ignoring it because of your bias.
So, are there any other options to fill japanese modern air branch without giving any copy-pasted vehicles?
Except for fake-ish vehicles such as F-16AJ or ‘combine those with Chinese tech tre,e which cannot happen at all’. which you suggested a few days ago.
Seriously, I never knew that there was a rule that forcing player not to use any single vehicle which isn’t has same BR as others in the deck
Have you ever imagine 4.7 deck with two Chi-To as top dog?
Japanese players need SPAA for that deck, and Sub-I-II(Type 73 APC works as SPAA) stuck at 5.3BR.
So, if we imagine that there was no 4.0BR SPAA in japanese tech tree, just for arguing’s sake,
They need to use So-ki with 2x 20mm at 3.0BR when building a deck with Chi-To sisters.
While you americans has right to choose either one of T77E1, M19A1, and M42.
And if we also imagine removing M24(JGSDF) for arguing’s sake, there isn’t any light tank with scout capability until M41A1(JGSDF) in 6.3BR show up.
So you want to put some selected C&P which you can accept, such as Italian M24 at ‘honourable American’ slot, while just simplifying and gatekeeping other vehicles?
No no no no no. Did you really think that I argue with you because I personally hate you?
Christ. I really wonder how I should explain this again and again and again.
I argue against you no matter how I hate you or not, I argue against you because you are wrong.
You forgot about the discussion about erm… death-evading at the airfield?
Which you probably suggested the option that forces players not to J-Out at the airfield after some time at the ARB match, to prevent stat-padding?
I reckon that I agreed with you at that discussion.
1 Like
The US should get russian naval vessels cause of pepsi /j
4 Likes
Pepsi Harrier as a premium vehicle when? :D
1 Like
I don’t agree with many/most of your points, and I don’t feel lile arguing will get either of us anything but more wasted time. But I do have one question that I don’t umderstand.
You keep trying to argue there is no hole at 3.7/4.0 by pointing out the big hole at these BRs, what’s the thought process here?
1 Like
Civllians make a nation, not the government.
No1’s gatekeeping the Stingray. I think both TTs should have it. You’re the first one to mention removing the Stingray.
paid =/= research, design, and build.
Yes.
Not sure why you’re talking about rules an players. We’re discussing copy slop, which is related to Gajin adding it. There is literally 0 reason for M24 and M19A1/M42 to be in Japan tree. If a lineup is going to be exclusively U.S. vehicles, then just play U.S.
No, I want coy paste that actually helps
If the only way to have tanks at a BR is to import a lineup from another nation, then just don’t have tanks at that BR.
I guess when you don’t have any friends to play with and don’t use aircraft this probably makes some sense.
Though especially the M24 is a vital part of lineups with Japanese vehicles all the way until the M41. And even M19/M42 are important for 4.3/4.7 lineups.
I’d just say I disagree and we’ll leave it at that.
1 Like
Sir, Sir? Are you gish-galloping?
Theory of social contract by Rousseau? Leviathans by Hobbes?
Either way, the government is a representative of civilians, so I reckon that you are misusing that term.
I never knew that I can invent relativity when I wrote E=mc2 at blackboard. :/
You told us that copy-paste is bad, and those need to be removed because they have no uses
Then, ‘In your theory, by your definition’, Stingray(US) might need to be removed if we really need to push your Idea.
Was it too difficult to distinguish the idea and take?
No shit sherlock, Of course, mother=/= father. But both are essential to create new things.
You cherry-picked that sentence from the full reply, I mean, there wouldn’t be Stringray existing at all if Thai didn’t buy those at first place!
Saying yes without proposing the replacement…
How so? Using a blue police box or a stainless steel car to change history?
You didn’t read the reply, didn’t ya?
Others and I explained why M24 and M19A1/M42 are needed for the lineup to fill the gap.
You are just ignoring it.
Then back off, M24 and M19A1/M42(JGSDF) actually helps japanese lineup.
2 Likes