I treat this as a “Case on Case” basis
The US, USSR, GER, FRA, CHN & even ITA flat out do not need subtrees since they have more than enough vehicles to make a relatively complete TT
JPN, SWE & ISR need them since they have massive gaps in their TT’s which cannot be filled up on their own even if you account prototypes and unfinished vehicles. That being the Subtree nation must not only make sense to add, taking several aspects in favour and it shouldn’t be excessive in terms in copy n paste.
Also denying new TT’s is very stupid since there is still a lot of unique vehicles that would be missed out doing that and Gaijin all of a sudden stop adding vehicles let alone new TT’s and Subtrees is not going to happen where ever you like it or not, Gaijin’s business model makes it an impossibility
2 Likes
You actually made a good point, but maybe i mistakenly titeled the topic as it was a request to Gaijin…when actually it was more vocalization towards other players…
I don’t doubt even for a second which path Gaijin want to follow…i would like sometimes them to be more honest in that regard becuse cleary their choice are made in order to fulfill their business model…the problem i have with it is that they are altering more and more the nature of this game and im not talking about new mechanics or such (which I always look forward to see - minus drones :P) but the “flavor”…i loved this game becuse it offered me faireness through choices, not faireness regardless of choices. It filled up the gap between a sim and arcade games (i’m speaking about SB and RB) and with time passing, in order to reach out more and more people, even the more casual ones, is leaning progessively towards becoming “more generic” and more arcadeish (again only speaking about Sb and Rb)…but alas it is what it is…
You claim that tech trees are no longer unique.
Tell me… which tech tree can I play a Leopard 2A6, a Strv 122, and a T-80U in the same lineup?
Which tech tree can I play M1A2 SEP and HSTVL?
Which tech tree can I play Leopard 2A7V and 2A5?
Which tech tree can I play Leopard 2A7HU and Ariete?
And so on and so forth.
The tech trees ARE unique, and sub-trees do not diminish uniqueness, and in-fact most of the time add uniqueness.
The first and only copy-paste sub-tree was Hungarian air.
You’re one to talk trying to add it to the game…
Nothing about sub-trees is unrealistic as that’s not what realism or lack of it is.
War Thunder’s identity is and always has been: A realistic war games vehicle game.
At not point did they claim anything else.
So projecting your vision of the game onto the game will not do anything.
1 Like
Benelux air is all copy paste except for the fokker g1, and f16am, which was made in the USA. that will make 2 once update releases
I actually agree with the sentiment but not entirely. When they add sub nations it makes you have to wait much longer for your main nation vehicle you always wanted to come to the game. For example how British tree is getting South African, Indian and possible other commonwealth nation vehicles when all I want is actual British vehicles in my damn tech tree. I waited 5 years for AW159 Wildcat but we got Rooivalk instead. Britain still doesn’t have a light tank to complement it’s top tier Challenger lineup but they instead prioritise adding premium tanks and indian T90 (which has no place being in british tree…). Other nations need subnations though such as Japan which is why I understand why they did it. The truth is when they add minor nations to your tree you can expect your dream vehicles you want to come to the game to be pushed back in years.
That is a very forced and instrumental interpretation of my words…you tested ground forces so you played long enough to understand what i meant…why a new player should waste time in grinding Germany or Ussr if he can get basically half of those tech tree by playing Italy or Sweeden…the uniqueness was in tech tree having their own flavor…
Lowkey they should’ve cut off the Japanese air tree after WW2 and give tech tree F-40 sabres to US. For the very few indigenous designs keep them but remove the rank based RP penalty
This is exactly what i was arguing about and i agree 100%
1 Like
BeNe has 7 unique aircraft, and 3 copy paste.
@GafTheRed
Italy and Sweden are still unique, all tech trees are.
Like what? Isn’t it F-104, British planes, American planes, and 1 truly unique aircraft, the fokker g1
F-16A Belgian edition, F-16AM [neither of which are in the US tech tree], Mirage 5BA, Gladiator Mk1, Fokker G, Spitfire FR MkXIVe [new 3D model and higher resolution textures over the ancient inaccessible one], and possibly Firefly MkIV.
Just because it isn’t in US tech tree doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be or isn’t an American jet. The f-16 is American, Belgian ones are basically the same, honestly they should’ve gone to US, and the rest of the planes except maybe the mirage, and the fokker are just planes from other countries which do not belong in france
Except USA already has unique options for those BRs.
That and the attitude “x tech tree shouldn’t get y because of insert nationalistic reason here” is silly.
That doesn’t make it unique, just newer. It is quite literally identical in every other way to the British Spitfire FR Mk.XIVe.
Is the Swedish Tiger II (P) unique too? What about the Israeli P-51D-20, or the Swedish Bf 109s? Those have different camos (and possibly newer higher quality models) so I guess they are unique.
You could make an argument for literally every single copy paste vehicle being unique if you’re going to say the new camouflage makes it unique.
Also, I’ve already mentioned this before with you, but the “new” Firefly has identical performance to the British Firefly FR Mk.V. There are no actual differences.
3 Likes
False equivalence fallacy.
Camo and 3D model comparison is not equivalent.
Getting mad at a 3D modeler for stating facts about what copy-paste is in game development is silly.
If there were no difference they’d use the same 3D model.
A new 3D model is not a unique vehicle when the vehicle already exists and the new model only provides higher quality.
The Yak-3s having their models updated in this update doesn’t make them unique. The Swedish Tiger II (P) having a new model doesn’t make it unique. The Israeli and Swedish P-51D-20s having newer models than the US P-51D-20 doesn’t make them unique. Because none of these models change how the planes feel, or even change their overall shape, they are just improvements in how the vehicle (that already exists) looks.
You can appreciate the work that a developper put into the vehicle to make it look better, but that work doesn’t make a unique vehicle.
1 Like
Bad example tbh.
Its a depiction of a specific Tiger 2 (P). Over the one in the german tree its a specific early production 2 (P) with its own completely new model.
It is essentially textbook on how Gaijin should add vehicles of similar models.
1 Like
Almost like small differences in model and texture when the overall vehicle is the same not making the vehicle unique is my point.
😐
1 Like
And where do we stop cutting vehicles because vehicles need some arbitrary amount of differences to be added?