Yeah right, they just added all but one domestic aircraft before the subtree, which seems especially weird considering they usually plan ahead long enough to prevent this. Then the one that could’ve been in the techtree isn’t even there.
(Moved it to subtree discussion)
their treatment of Finland is very strange and seems low priority
It makes sense for the nation the tree is named after to have priority.
In this case it’s more about what vehicles are added. Finland got most of their unique aircraft as premiums while the techtrees lack unique options.
Basically instead of trying to represent Finland faithfully, they decided to go only for the easiest options to add. Even when many vehicles that have significant historical significance would be simple to copy from another tree they are missing like the StuG III.
It’s as if they don’t even research these nations at all, like how Thailand got the M163 when they never operated any (only M163A1).
It’s one thing to have more attention to Sweden, that’s just the nature of current subtrees considering Sweden is giving up space for the subtree nation, but that doesn’t mean the resources these nations do get should be wasted.
This. Sub-trees, where originally advertised as a way for nations that are heavily requested to join WT to join WT (even if it doesn’t feel like it when some of the most requested are denied a home).
When sub-trees are not properly treated as nations, and are treated leeser then everthing else, not having anything in game looks better.
It’s even worse when sub-trees could have been used to add something. France, an update or two ago, only got an Aircraft carrier, and nothing else, when nations like Russia also got 4+ vehicles in the same update, it got its new one. When it could have at least gotten a C&P or a variant of something in-game, which could have helped, the lacklustre BeNeLux ground or just fill a capability gap in the TT(looks at France and UK’s missing M24s…)
We’ll get our first Singaporean vehicle next update! But sadly this comes with another, less fortunate milestone for the game as well…
Singapore is now confirmed to be the third nation to be intentionally split, after Australia and Canada. This means that unlike regular nations that are only split out of necessity from not having a fixed home yet, but in many cases find their homes later down the line as subtrees or even entirely new techtrees, Singapore by design is planned to stay split.
I sincerely hope this is a choice they reconsider, I don’t believe this is a fair end goal for any nation.
I completely understand the frustration, but I find the case of Singapore somewhat unique in that it being split amongst separate tech-trees was/is because of player feedback.
Never forget that Gaijin’s original plan was to make Singapore a Chinese subtree.
Just imagine this devblog announcing the Hunter for China…
Yeah, it could’ve been worse. But at the same time even just a proper subtree for Israel wouldn’t be out of place. Even alongside Greece and Cyprus it’s not more subtrees than we’ve seen elsewhere, and it’s by far not more potential vehicle additions compared to other nations either.
I don’t think we’ll see Singapore added to China or even Japan in any way after the controversy, but even before that Israel was the most popular option by Singaporean players so this should’ve been the way to go from the start.
Tbf what did we expect, nobody else mentioned the most recent subnation got split with its AA system and possible future systems.
This is likely going to be a norm with subtrees going forward. Now to see what will be the third nation to get it’s vehicles split with multiple nations
Generally depends. I don’t think it’s good to only put new nations as subtrees in existing trees, but I also think there is still some subtrees that should be added here too.
Some are probably best fit in the existing nations, for example Denmark as continuation of the Nordic theme with Sweden, Finland and Norway. But also I think if we take all the nations not yet in game, most of them simply wouldn’t fit existing trees, and would be better to make their own techtrees (potentially together with other nations that aren’t in game). For example Poland and Czechoslovakia would be best placed in a new techtree.
So I voted new nations, but it’s not 100%
I definitely want to primarily see new trees, but in select cases I support do sub-trees.
But for the most part, I want new trees, mainly those that can start in WW2 BRs, eg. Canada and ANZACs or Poland and Czechoslovakia.
Tech trees
Hopium for an Iberian/Hispanic standalone TT. So many good, interesting and unique vehicles and concepts lost… Better to add more sub-trees that are almost entirely C&P instead.
I can definitely agree on Denmark being in Sweden.
One thing I still think about is the discussion on other nations vehicles being added.
I’ve always seen concern of new trees having the best of different trees meanwhile top tier Japan can now have vehicles of Chinese, Polish, German, Ukrainian, French, American and Russian origin alongside domestic vehicles all in a singular line up.
While I doubt Gajin will go to such lengths for all trees, it remains a possibility with the UK, France and Italy to get to Japan’s level without even introducing another sub.
I guess it’s also how different people define the minimum criteria for a ‘good’ tree (X% has to be unique to a specific degree, Nation must have extensive history, X has to have enough vehicles from one period to another etc).
To be fair this is just the reality for most nations. I think to some extent it’s unavoidable, but it also mostly balances itself out with a bit of care from Gaijin.
With a strong domestic industry, a majority of designs and their variants will not be found in other techtrees, and the techtree as a whole is more appealing as unique (unless gaijin skips most of the unique stuff, like they sadly do now too much).
In the long run these will also be the best for top tier, since there will be a point where others just can’t match them. For example while the US, Russia and China have their unique 5th generation aircraft, most others will be limited to either the F-35 or even nothing when looking at other in-game and future techtrees. So in that sense these are de-facto the “best” techtrees.
But with an import reliant military, while it might not be as interesting especially to players that have already played a techtree before (which generally speaking will be US or USSR most likely), can still be interesting though unique variations of these imports, unique lineup combinations. Most of the time there is even still domestic designs too, even if not as many as the major exporters.
But for this to work, we need Gaijin to be willing to focus more on vehicles that weren’t exported, especially for nations like US or USSR that share a lot of their current vehicles with others.
We might also need distinct loadouts, ammunition choices and maybe 3D models to make vehicles actually differ from nation to nation like they do in reality.
Good point. I think Gaijin also needs to streamline how research is done. Many countries that are viable, unique subtrees would require players to slog through each main tree from square one. This is especially true for nations that only really have unique modern vehicles and no WW2 stuff
Yeah. Personally I believe vehicles that are in game multiple times should get cheaper the more of them a player owns. That way the first is new for the player at full cost, the second is less new and cheaper, third even less new and even cheaper, and so on.
There’s a few suggestions of similar systems, like these great ones made by @Rowiek and @_SchwarzerPanzer respectively:
It’d also be nice to see Gaijin try to folder them more. it’s of course not always possible, but standard required progression should try to stay as unique as possible. Simple things like foldering an import M60A3 TTS behind a modified version could already help a lot to encourage players to play other techtrees.
Well, this point is relevant, more confirmation that the host tree overrides operator nation. As a book for US-used military stuff, it means the name will never be fixed, despite the fact that the name was never used on the Ram in service.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/rRjHUKbxG2sb
Australia is now officially no longer split!
And Gaijin seem to be moving away from the word subtree.
Their official reason is that they want to move away from people expecting a dedicated techtree line, which seems to fit ther reshuffled layout for South Africa, which is no longer a single line but spread in the tree.
This makes sense since it makes the available space more flexible to the benefit of all involved nations.
Still, I also see this as an important move away from subtrees as “lesser” nations, making them officially take up equal opportunity to the host tree, even if it’s only as far as future additions go.