I get exactly where you’re coming from. It’s like how since WT the F-16J is referred to as "F-16AJ, a name only used in one F-16J brochure and only used in the context of showing the differences between single and twin seat variants.
More likely it would follow the F-15J logic where only the twin seater gets the added letter, but this is somehow the one thing Gaijin didn’t change from that brochure (If you can call it a change when the brochure says F-16J too).
It makes sense for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. To be in the USSR tree right? ( I don’t even know if they all have vehicles)
Edit: I totally looked up what broke of of the ussr
Not really quite a few of these nations have closer ties and used equipment from neighbor states most of them would likely be grouped into one big TT rather than just for the USSR which has no need for a sub tree given it lacks any holes that it can’t fill itself
Especially estonia and the Nordic states lol, that’s probably the only other non Nordic state that would make sense given how close they are with us even when we joke about them lol
I’m wondering what warthunder was like if it had the combined nation research lines like they do in the mobile ground mode.
Could you imagine the Swedish, French and British all being in one tree alongside all their subs?
(Poor Japan as well, iirc they were the only nation that wasn’t paired with another)
Not necessarily among subtrees at the time, but before the French and Swedish trees the only vehicles we had from them were in the British tree.
For mobile it’s probably just a matter of saving space, which actually looks like it could be an advantage for Japan/Thailand/Indonesia/Malaysia who then have more space compared to Britain/South Africa/India/France/Belgium/Netherlands/Sweden/Finland/Norway all sharing the tree.
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).