Subtree Rework - Nation Folders

Suggestions MM/Eco/Prog
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
174

I’m saying everything being represented on one tech tree, one page, is inclusive.

175

Depends on how you look at it.

I’d personally say not having the space for the vehicles each of the two or more nations Gaijin currently confine in one tree is very exclusive. Sure, you include a little bit of diversity in one “nation”, but throw countless options out of the window.
On the other hand I proposed to have multiple nations with their own neatly organized separate trees to offer the necessary space to include the vehicles that in current subtrees wouldn’t have space.

For example, there is not enough space to fit the Indian Ground vehicles into the British ground tree.
If India had an independent but foldered tree, this would not be an issue, and players could create Indian lineups and play the nation without being forced to play Britain if they don’t want to, and without needing pay to get more than one of their vehicles in a lineup.
None of those options to play both disappear, lineups still function the same, but there is more space for both British and Indian vehicles. It’s a win-win situation.

Spoiler

(Provided overview from the suggestion, just in case you try to argue it’s “Copy-Paste” anyways)

Basic Stats of TT:

  • 126 Total Vehicles
    • 94 Researchable Vehicles
      • 75 Unique Vehicles
      • 24 “Copy-Pastes” (With the 1 event vehicle, 19% of Tree)
    • 20 Premium Vehicles
    • 8 Event Vehicles
    • 3 Squadron Vehicles
    • 1 Tournament Prize Vehicle
1 Like
176

Now remove all the direct imports and effective duplicates, and there are less than half of the ground vehicles.
The thing about a sub-tree is adding the notable vehicles of the nation without forcing in copy-paste to fill gaps.

177

I included this part for that exact reason. But even if you don’t fit the 75 unique tech tree vehicles, but go with a value “less than half”, let’s say 50 for the sake of the example, you will not have it easy to find logical places for them in the existing tree. And keep in mind the tree also includes Britain and South Africa so far, so there needs to be enough space for their vehicles still.

This is the exact reason people want independent trees. Rather than a few “notable vehicles”, players prefer all unique vehicles, perhaps alongside alongside less unique vehicles with historical significance to form lineups. Basically these people want to play a nation, not uncommonly their own nation.

This also once again brings up “double standards” that you accused this suggestion of.

Spoiler

To me it seems like bigger double standard to give one nation a right to be represented as a nation, while another is added as gap filling tool for another, or worse spread across multiple national trees.

1 Like
178

All nations are represented as nations in War Thunder.
Whether they’re the main focus of a tech tree or not.

And those stats they posted are inaccurate. A lot of the unique vehicles are copy-paste of the same vehicle… to fill lineups.
And of course I didn’t do a proper count of all the copy-paste, but I did get to 37 before stopping, and reduced it by 5 for margin of error in my post.