Subtree Rework - Nation Folders

Suggestions MM/Eco/Prog
127

No offence, but you kinda are.

Alone the British air tree can fit at least 8 full lines of vehicles itself without any subtrees and with quite a bit left for Premiums, that’s for the British tree which isn’t nearly as big as some trees could be. Take the US for example, here is an old reddit post showing just how big the US tree could be on its own

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/12hnckk/extended_american_air_tree_br_decompression_v2/#lightbox

^this is excluding anything other than pure american designs btw

hell look at BeNeLux’s tree suggestions, there you could fill at least 3 lines of tech to which couldn’t possibly be put within France without taking away from french vehicles (who still have a considerable amount to add)

6 Likes
128

Yes, it could be considered a “clutter” however when it was a stated game limitation that “trees cannot have more than 5 lines” I think this is a good solution for ever decreasing space.
Especially if they try to organize trees by the country (see Hungarian and South African sub-lines) which will leave space for the “original” nation to get more stuff.

As well as that, foldering should only be done when its similar vehicles, and not to fluff trees. Adding in folders to literally everything does nothing but increase the use space of vehicles that may or may not be similar depending on the BR, like when the BMP-1 was foldered with the Marder 1A1(-) instead of said Marder being foldered with the Marder 1A3 right after it.

Also this seems incredibly selfish. Being against an idea for improving the game unless they make an “optional” version just because you want your stuff to stay the way it is currently is very short sided.

Besides, the original post specifically mentions foldering nations.

If you want a specific vehicle but don’t want to switch the nation viewed, you have the search bar.

5 Likes
129

Sadly, being what they state as a game limitation, I doubt this is an alternative they consider, which they have been very clear with in the past.

I don’t fully understand how this would work either. Sticking with the India example, how would you fit hundreds of vehicles that such a tree can hold into not even dedicated lines of the already filled British Aviation and Army trees with that option disabled?
Or even ignoring numbers, how would progression be handled? Players could either “jump” vehicles using that option, or have entirely nonsensical progression in one of the display types.

I have already considered ways to possibly make this an option to disable, however all would just add more clutter and compromise the benefits this suggestion is intended to provide, so I don’t see this as possible.

1 Like
130

8? 8x8x3x3 = 576 aircraft.
It doesn’t even max out its 5 lines yet which is 360, and that’s before adding 4 or more vehicle slots per rank.

Except this also can’t be implemented due to game limitations.
Thus the easier solution is to change the code to allow more than 5 columns.

You claim it’s selfish to be against improved ideas, which I’ve never done in my life.

Exactly the problem. Regressing back in time.

Then your idea is dead on arrival as it can’t be implemented by your own argument here.
If fixing the game limitation of 5 columns can’t be fixed, then neither can the far more complicated limitation of one window per researching tree which itself is less ergonomic for players.
India also doesn’t have hundreds of unique vehicles. They have ~5 unique aircraft.

131

1- This is clutter and clunky.
2- This is segregation.
3- There are over 360 vehicle slots per vehicle type with 3 rows per rank, this is over 7000 vehicle slots for all ten tech trees air and ground. We’re not to 3000 vehicles in-game yet including naval and helicopters.
4- This idea is hurdled by game limitation, just like more than 5 columns.
4a- More than 5 columns is objectively an easier coding experience than this backwards moving suggestion.

132

Yes alvis, 8 lines just because it doesnt currently fill out its lines, doesnt mean its not capable of. this thread (made by me and many others) shows just how large the British air tree could be. And its still missing several major aircraft used by britain such as the Martlets, Havocs and more

I would also like to bring up the point others have made, you cant just throw vehicles in any line you fancy, otherwise is goes against your main reason for arguing against this, which means you are either a Hypocrite or arent thinking it through fully

4 Likes
133

The reason Gaijin do not want more than 5 lines is the low screen resolution of the hardware of many players.Unlike expanding with more lines, simply having more 5 line trees does not interfere with their reasoning.

One click in an easy to understand nation based system is more than worth the possibility of improving the quality of current subnations and many future nations that would otherwise not be able to receive their own tree.

They are still combined. You can make combined lineups as you could now.

However a nation is not another nations property. Subtrees are supposed to be the nations collaborating, not one nation being owned by another. This system in my opinion makes this very clear by representing independent nations that can be brought together in battles in shared lineups.

Sounds like a lot, until you realize it’s not…

Japan for example is one of the smaller trees, yet when counting Japanese aircraft not yet in the game there is already enough to fill those 360 vehicle slots alone. And that is assuming anything can be put anywhere, while in reality the first 4 ranks have to fit disproportionately more than they ever could.

This is one of the smaller nations, yet there is already no more space for any subtree vehicles unless you take away from possible Japanese additions. Properly representing a whole other nation is completely unthinkable.

Now apply that to nations such as Britain or France, much larger nations in terms of available vehicle variety to add, both already having multiple subnations.

360 vehicles a nation may sound like a lot, but in practice it is not, especially when “a nation” is trying to be multiple.

It is, but that wasn’t Gaijins issue. Their issue was how intuitive it would be on lower resolution screens.

With this system you have a nice, convenient 5 line nation that looks as proper on any resolution and aspect ratio as current trees, with a nation selection that is no less intuitive on such screens either.

2 Likes
134

The easier solution is not always the best solution.

How is this regressing in time? Are you incapable of opening a menu?

It isn’t really all that different from what we currently have. For example see the helicopter trees. It’s just that but looks different.

You still get all of them, again look at the helicopter trees.

This only works if you assume that the Rank system is abolished and you can put anything anywhere in any line. There is only so much space per Rank per line under the current, very well organized I might add, system.
But of course it isn’t like that is it? Early Ranks inherently have more things because the technology was both cheaper and simpler. There were 24 variants (marks) of the Spitfire, and some of those had sub-variants. There were only about 5 variants of the Tornado, and yes those have subvariants but do you see the difference?

The ability for tech trees literally already exists. It’s just foldering them. Hell, they could consider it separate trees in the code if they allow them to all fit together.
And yes, more than 5 columns is objectively easier, but once again, just because it’s easy doesn’t mean its good. Personally I would rather not have to scroll endless amounts of lines left or right to find a specific vehicle that I want. And again, if you want one thing, use the search bar. That exists.
This suggestion is actually incredibly forward thinking. I literally don’t get why you think it’s backwards. Backwards would be like removing trees and lines entirely. This is comparatively good, and leaves open future growth potential, which is exactly the opposite of what “backwards” does.

2 Likes
135

I fail to see how this is a bad suggestion.

I’m probably repeating what I said before but it’s a win-win for all involved. heck the worst of it would the maybe two new UI needed with everything else just being stuff in-game needing to be put together like:
“The two most difficult parts of this would be making the new UI and making sure the code doesn’t implode after being stuck together.”

Like the UK getting all major commonwealth members as a sub-tree is a popular idea however all the major members have enough for 4+ trees.

Staying with the UK example:
It gets room for a domestic light line well at the same time it can get all the major commonwealth members as “sub-trees” without any taking away for either. Heck, on top of that, you can just grind a sub-tree without doing the host and just have a line-up of them or do more than one and make a combined line-up.

Heck, it solves the other sub-tree problem over line-ups that are basically a 2.7,4.0 and 6.3 vehicle because that’s what the sub-trees have to put together for a line-up for that nation. whereas this all of all 5 lines and in turn stuff like a full 2.7 line-up over just one vehicle. Under this, I could click the UK group and just grind Canada or I could also do the ANZACs (or all of them) making full line-ups of just one nation or two or more depending on the number of nations in a group.

What this suggestion does:
A. Makes room in the trees with current rules
B. Makes sure sub-trees aren’t treated as band-aids to the host tree
C. Both host and sub-tree tech are to be represented without being an event.
D. Treats both host and sub-tree as if they were new full nations well also keeping the other part of sub-tree with combined line-ups.

1 Like
137

+1

Also, I would like to see modern-day flag icons and nation names in the game.

image
image1920×262 41.4 KB

6 Likes
164

Damn I’m late to the party : (

1 Like
165

You didn’t miss much, a lot of it was off topic. I’ll probably need to ask a mod later to clean up a bit…

Actually a lot less off topic than I thought now that I look at it again, I probably did that myself mostly with what could’ve arguably been DMs to Alvis instead.

2 Likes
166

Quick question I just thought of.
Would East Germany and West Germany/Federal Republic of Germany be split like this, if it’s implemented? Should they be split?

1 Like
167

Under this system, they should for consistency.
Making exceptions leads to quick real double standards that people falsely claim War Thunder already has.
I can only imagine the ammunition those people would obtain if this system was implemented AND exceptions were made for the Russian Federation or Federal Republic of Germany.
Screams of Russian and German bias, and double standards, this time true.

Why should the Soviet and German tech trees be kept whole when everyone else is stuck segregated and non-inclusive? Non-included? With sub-nations made 2nd class “citizens” to the main tech tree…

I wanted to say that from the start, but didn’t know how to phrase it while keeping it entirely internal to this topic.

168

See the issue here is that there is a very clear line from Soviet development to Russian Fed. development. It is very obvious. For example, T-80BV → T-80BVM, T-72BU → T-90 → T-90S, MiG-29S → MiG-29M → MiG-35, etc. It makes sense that they stay as one, because Russian equipment is a development on Soviet equipment. It is quite literally built off the back of development the Soviet Union did.

For East Germany, at least compared to the rest of the tree, such development progression doesn’t exist. It would essentially start at the T-55, which was not a German tank, and end with the T-72S or whichever one they ended with, which was also not a German tank.
Whereas for West Germany, they produced their own vehicles so it can be said that they at least learned from the past vehicles such as the Panther, King Tiger, etc. Not that they were direct successors, but the line of development actually vaguely exists as opposed to the East Germans who operated mostly imported equipment, and thus did not take previous development lessons into consideration. They physically couldn’t because they were not the “creator” of the equipment.

The same idea would also exist for the PRC and ROC, with again the same question. Should they be split like this?

Also, less serious; I’m not going to lie every time you say “segregated” and “bias” and “double standards” I am unable to keep following your point. How are they segregated if they’re under the same tree? Under your logic, every line in one tree is “segregated” from every other line. I don’t even know where the bias argument comes from here.

3 Likes
169

I hated the separation of coastal and bluewater, and still do. I liked everything on one page able to research things all one one page all with one style of vehicle.
Clean, fast, efficient… until it was no longer any of those.
Now, the original naval research tree wasn’t as efficient as a ground or air tree, just more efficient than today’s method.

A technology tree is derived from family trees, we see them in Civilization and of course War Thunder. Always encompassing one page… different sized pages, but one page none-the-less.

It stops being a technology tree the moment it’s not a single page, it’s no longer a derivative…
War Thunder in reality has 30 tech trees for helicopters, fixed wing aircraft, and ground vehicles across 10 named host entities that we incorrectly call tech trees.

This suggestion creates more tech trees. No longer sub-trees, or branches, just flat out new tech trees.
One of this suggestion’s hopes is you can have an “infinity fabric” [to reference AMD’s CPUs for lack of a better term] between the tech trees that allows you to research any of them with any of the same vehicle “type”.

That is why I say segregated; it segregates, de-integrates, excludes, sub-nation vehicles from the main tech tree.
Whereas currently all vehicles are treated as equals with the main-nation’s vehicles.

You may disagree with how I see these things, and that’s okay.
I have this strong unending feeling that I need to speak my perspective on this subject in a civil and articulate manner or I’ll drown in regret.

170

I agree there needs to be a clear line drawn, but in creation of this suggestion I clearly put it in a different place than you.

The thought here is that a single nation is not separated for shifts in its government, as a separation is generally not necessary when the previous form of the nation ceases to exist with the start of the other.

They could be if it is needed for space at some point if the system is there, but generally in this case it might be best to wait until it is necessary.

As for the specific cases @S3b5 asked about:

I do believe that East Germany in particular is an interesting case, being a split from the German nation that existed in parallel to West Germany, and later unified back into Germany. Here I can actually see a separate tab being reasonable, since it does reflect a very real split. I’d personally still wait it out until the space is necessary since it’s both Germany.

As for ROC/PRC, this one seems more difficult since it is an ongoing situation. It is comparable to the split Germany, however both of these still exist and it is very much up in the air what direction it takes. There might be reunification similar to Germany, or there might be a more clear split off nation of Taiwan, but until we know for sure there really isn’t any form of separation Gaijin can do that wouldn’t appear politically charged on something that is already rather controversial.
Here I’d say to keep them in a general China (neither PRC nor ROC in particular) tree similar to Germany, and best hold off any split.

Even then, there is no bias hese no matter how you put it. There is no benefit in having one tab over multiple, if anything having multiple allows for more space which means more vehicles as well.

There is no “2nd class” to anything. In this system the trees of (for example) Italy and Hungary are functionally the same. They are both fully independent trees that simply share a folder and with that lineups.

There isn’t even a “main” or “sub” tree anymore, since the “main” tree shown as the face of the folder is always the one the player has selected.

2 Likes
171

Anything that allows full new nations to be added that can still be used in conjunction with existing nations in lineups I’m in for.

3 Likes
172

You need a default tech tree to show up when the game launches each time, and that’s going to be the flags we see now no matter which system is used.

173

Interesting… So not being the nation presented when the game launches, but still getting the proper representation once selected makes these “2nd class nations”.

So what do you call not being represented at all, and rather being used as tool to fill another nation?

1 Like