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
1 Like
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.
4 Likes
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
1 Like
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.
1 Like