2 Likes
Now the question comes will we see actual unique stuff fill gaps or a prioritization of fluff that fails to fill gaps which is worst case scenario
1 Like
It’s only C&P because devs wanted so. BeNeLux has got tons of interesting and fairly unique vehicles that could be added, but they decided to go the easy way.
And personally I’m against “adding X thing because it’s needed”, as long as it adds variety and makes sense, it should be welcomed. Many unique vehicles are not being added simply because they wouldn’t apport anything and that’s a shame.
Anyway the addition of subtrees has been horrendous, with the exception of South Africa.
2 Likes
I’d argue that even South Africa was. But unlike the clear-cut, domestic/unique vehicles, being rarely added outside of unobtianum.
It’s a case of replacing domestic British(or domestically operated) lights and others for years. With a straight-up worse vehicle, too. From what I heard, according to the Russian stream, someone high in Gaijin believed the UK didn’t need the AS-90 due to the G6. But sadly, people think “unique = good” when it outright removes full domestic vehicles of the host from coming when it takes up space/fills the same role. Oh, and there were better picks that could fill more than the single hole they filled with the Gripen(the only hole they/could have filled) with the anglosphere dominions.
2 Likes
This exact logic is already applied to a lot of subs that’s not unique to Britain.
Norway literally cut Sweden from having their own Mossies for the sake of adding Norway then locking Sweden behind a paywall with the worst version of their own Mossie.
Rather than fixing Italian Ariete armor they added the Leo 2A7.
We could keep going but that’s never been exclusive to ZA
I’d say it’s more so a case of gaijin trying to get attention for that subnation and have players that are fans of that nation flock to the nation that their vehicles are going. We could talk semantics but that’s not really again exclusive to ZA we see it a lot in every tree we even know that’s how this works internally with the devs.
1 Like
We just have the issue of techtrees barely having enough space for one nation that now have to fit multiple. It just isn’t enough space.
1 Like
I’m aware, it a inssue most don’t know about.
But people think “unique = good,” so ZA is treated as if it is not as bad as the others when it is. As a unique sub-tree in a nation that had no need is often as bad as a pure C&P one in a nation that needed one.
1 Like
Eh some trees definitely have space but some tress like Britain definitely don’t (not without a lot of foldering)
1 Like
It’s almost like the sub-trees need a major rework for space, something like foldering nations instead of vehicles 😉.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
Britain, obviously.
This is an interesting and practical idea! I would be pleased if such a feature were implemented.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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
3 Likes
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.
3 Likes
I’d kill for gaijin to rename a lot of export vehicles by their domestic names rather than export standard nomenclature
4 Likes
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).
1 Like