Idk most of their vehicles are pretty solid and do offer a bunch of unique playstyles. Besides it does seem that we are seeing more domestic ground for the UK but it’s hard to say for sure given the new focus on AU for air at least.
As for the focus of the subnation over domestic vehicles I will say imagine if ZA had been added with like 3 unique vehicles and the rest were copy and paste and anything with a unique model was made into an event vehicle or premium?
Again that’s kind of the curse of subnations with gaijins implementation. They want people to go to a nation and spend money so they add more of that subs vehicles than domestic but at least, ZA was unique. The current subs really don’t get that treatment while still either taking away from actual vehicles that could fill a role or simply were added for the sake of gaijin needed some fluff to add for that update.
I’ll give ZA some downsides especially given how long it took to see very anticipated vehicles that eventually be added but I personally will never accept the view that they are or were anywhere near equivalent to the current subtrees we have today.
Honestly subtrees are just a wide spectrum of different issues.
There’s vehicles that take up the already limited space for options of the host nation, there’s subtrees that just don’t get any unique content or have them locked to the premium section and so much more. The real difference is the unique mix of problems for each nation.
I wonder which nation would receive the French sub tree, but French sub tree would be wayyyy to big. I hope France would be a standalone tree instead of subtree.
Saw this on top for some reason. Well, it wouldn’t be much and wouldn’t fix the number of major issues plaguing both sub-trees and homeless nations. It would be nice to have vehicle (and other things) names be what the operator nation called them and not the whatever (with priority for host tree) names it currently is.
I know Thailand is an easy example with all of its stuff names being wrong for what Thailand calls them right now.
And of course, I have Canadian examples:
M4A5 - This really should be Ram II or Ram II B (a change needed to the UK one as well if applied) if we want to be really correct. The B comes for a transportation document, as changes to the hull were made over time, and no one bothered to give the changes over time a clear designation.
C2A1 - C2 (MEXAS), that name C2A1 was used on that tank once, in what would be a secondary source, iirc. The said name was used on a FAL variant in real life.
I can send bug reports if wanted for those two.
Stuff is not incorrect, but I have an issue
Skink - I’d add (Polsten) to the name, but it is not needed until we get at least one of the other Skink variants.
Leo 2A4M CAN - I’ve grown to hate how Gaijin has gotten people to think that a 2A4M and 2A4M CAN are the same tank when they are not. Anyone who has paid attention to Leo naming at least, would know M stands for mine-protection, not add-on armour, as it “M CAN” that gets you the tank the premium. It’s gotten so bad, people think it’s the same for the 2A6M and 2A6M CAN, which are also different tanks.
Hidden as only semi-related rants, but stuff I need/wanted to say.
Gaijin naming in general is very confusing, and at worst, damaging to the vehicle’s reputation outside of the game. My favorite example of this is the Gepard 1A2, a simple official designation that implies the “A2” model added Stingers found on the in-game model, whereas said model is actually based on a specific test vehicle or two.
This misname quite possibly led to a chain of misinformation (through Google search results of Reddit and other forums) that culminated in the developers of Battlefield 6 adding the Gepard 1A2 with Stingers as a stock mod, even though it should’ve been an unlockable to represent its real life experimental status.
I probably sound like a conspiracy theorist, but once you see someone use a fake WT name elsewhere on the internet, maybe you’ll understand where I’m coming from
Oh, I fully understand that issue. I’ve been affected by it too.
Due to the M4A5 name, people think the Ram is a Sherman variant, and people where refureing to it as such, in videos that cover the Sherman family or even the Ram tanks themselves outside of WT. (It’s even called as such in WOT)
When the vehicle is at worst a M3 MT variant, but more accurately a domestic Canadian tank based on the M3, much like the Sherman is an evolution on it. So indirect relations at best, no direct like an M4 and M4A3 76 is.
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
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.
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…)
