I agree with that no nation should be locked behind a paywall.
But at the same time, I see where he is coming from, as if it takes being locked behind a paywall for a home, I’d take it(even if I’d rather it be free)
3 Likes
I see where he is coming from too, and I support options to skip unlock requirements like how it is when buying Israeli premiums.
But I also think making an entire nation exclusively paid goes against what this suggestion is meant to do. I don’t like subtrees like Finland where most unique domestic vehicles are locked as premiums or old events, and this would be a more advanced version of that.
I understand Gaijin want to make a profit, but there is many more reasonable options through this reworked system than making paid nations.
3 Likes
For sure, but as StormRyder said, if my options were paying for access to a decent representation of Australia and Canada versus what we have now, I’d pay up. But free would be better.
2 Likes
Fair, I’d pay for a rework too if I could. I just don’t like the idea of forcing this onto players that don’t care as much, even if it already sort of happens with nations that only have premiums in game so far.
But there’s not much of a chance Gaijin would do this anyways. I think it’s far more profitable to keep making money by just selling premiums for these nations. Especially once we get to unlock requirements, where Gaijin could leave the option to skip them to buy a premium.
I think most players would rather buy a premium vehicle that also unlocks a tree compared to paying to just get access to the tree without getting a premium alongside it.
And at the same time keeping all nations free generally will paint them in a positive light too, so people might be a bit more inclined to spend money this way too.
1 Like
I may get about shared research if it’s GRB, but how about Air RB where you only play 1 vehicle and dies with it? (unless it’s like you research what you picked on like we have rn)
1 Like
Shared research here only means you select one vehicle to research (per type, so air, ground, naval, etc.) and your battle reward from all vehicles of the same type goes towards that, same as you have now. It’s not split again by nation.
Sn air it just works as it does now, you select one aircraft to research and that’s where your reward goes.
2 Likes
Indeed, this way, three major camps can be sorted out: Pan-Asia, NATO, and the Warsaw Pact. Meanwhile, export vehicles like the T72AV can be attributed to the country of origin or placed in a separate small camp for players who have reached that level of research to develop.And something like this, a major controversy over the VT4, will not occur again. The only issue is that it might affect profits.
的确，这样可以整理出泛亚，北约与华约三个大阵营，同时，像T72AV这类出口金车也可以归属于原产国家或者是在单独的一个小阵营中供已经研发到那一级分房的玩家研发。而且像这次这样关于VT4的巨大争论也不会发生。唯一的问题就是可能会影响到赚钱。
4 Likes
At the same time, this can also enhance the playability of each branch and complete the navy forces of each branch.
同时，这也可以使各系可玩性上升，并且补齐各系海军
1 Like
I have just 2 questions:
-
What about African and Southern/Northern American vehicles, were would they go?
-
Would this apply to ww2 vehicles as well?
2 Likes
Are you a bot? Why do you need to use any other language on the English forum besides english? >:(
2 Likes
我能说是因为我英语不熟练且使用的是机翻所以把自己写的原始内容也贴了上来吗 
Can I say that because my English is not proficient and I use machine translation, I also posted the original content I wrote
4 Likes
that’s some evil ass emoji
3 Likes
This is indeed a problem. If divided by the Allied/Axis powers during World War II, and then by Pan-Asia, the Warsaw Pact, and NATO during the Cold War and modern era, it would also bring many issues. (Alternatively, using a phased research approach: after completing the research of one nation’s tech tree in the Allied/Axis powers, the research access to the corresponding post-WWII major tech tree of that nation would be unlocked.)
As for African and South American countries, their faction affiliation (in fact, due to the military nature of this game, involvement in political elements will be unavoidable) can be considered from the perspectives of their colonial ownership before the end of World War II, foreign trade vehicle exporters, and geopolitics. The same applies to South Asia and the Middle East. (However, the self-developed military equipment of a populous country in South Asia is somewhat hard to evaluate; if such equipment were actually added, it would probably only become an obstacle in the tech tree progression.)
这的确是个问题，如果在二战阶段以同盟/轴心的方式划分，而到冷战与现代阶段以泛亚，华约与北约的方式划分也会带来诸多问题（或者采取分段研发方式，同盟/轴心中一条国家线研发至线末后解锁二战后对应国家所在的大线研发权限）
而非洲与南美国家则是可以从二战结束前殖民地所属/外贸车辆出口方/地缘政治的方面来考虑假如哪个系（事实上，由于这个游戏的军事属性，对政治要素的涉及将是难以避免的），而南亚与中东也是一样（不过南亚某个人口大国的自研军备这种东西有点难评，不过那些东西真加进来可能只会成为开线路上的拦路虎）
2 Likes
In China, we call this type of emoji “sweating soybean”.
在中国，我们将这一类表情称为流汗黄豆
3 Likes
Personally the system was designed to give nations that otherwise couldn’t get it a proper research tree. This can be done to existing and future subtrees, but also techtrees.
For example where now Britain got certain Indian vehicles, they would instead be placed in an Indian tree. For gameplay these nations can still share lineups like subtrees, but there is no main nation. They are treated as equals, where neither is forced to be combined with the other.
Of course this only works for nations Gaijin place, since they would need to make research trees for each of them, so nations without a home are still split until they find their place. But in the end I hope that as many nations as possible can get their own identity in game instead of being spread out, to allow players to properly play these nations.
Anyways thank you for the support, if you have ideas for imporvement feel free to share them here!
3 Likes
-
If you mean Canada by North American vehicles, they can go either way really either USA or UK Commonwealth, the thing is it shouldnt matter too much where they end up being added as theyll be a distinct tree under a larger group of trees that make up both US / UK parent trees.
-
Now for Africa, its a bit tricky, not a whole lot of them can even be considered a subtree on their own. Maybe for North Africa in a separate Arab Nations Tech Tree but thats about it I think.
-
It really should affect WW2 as well as this is a total reorganization.
2 Likes
In this reworked system vehicles are still divided by nation, so specific conflicts only indirectly matter.
They matter for the consideration of where to place a nation initially, alongside general player appeal and gameplay concerns, similar to subtrees now.
The difference is that once a nation is placed it’s not a subtree of another nation, it is a national tree simply sharing a gameplay faction with another nation.
I’ve also thought about going into old War Thunder lore about mercenary factions repairing and using old military vehicles to maybe establish these factions a bit more, but I’m devided on this and not sure what players would think.
2 Likes
Well I assumed Canada would be in the allies and Nato factions in their respective time periods but I was mainly wondering about smaller countries like Cuba .
1 Like
Tbh, this proposed system reminds me of how world of tanks did post war vehicles, splitting it between east bloc (USSR and China), west bloc (NATO and Japan iirc) and neutral (Mostly Israel and Egypt).
1 Like
You’ll find most Canadian wouldn’t be too happy with being put under the US, even with the pseudo independent trees, nation folders bring.
(Mix of historic and current events)
Rereading this conversation, this is about the “NATO, WARSAW, etc trees” which I think is a silly as a “Commonwealth tree”(this suggestion dose allow something like it to exist without the glaring problems with the idea most people seem to miss.) and not what this suggestion is at all.
2 Likes