Subtrees, yes or no?

Subtrees often add new and powerful vehicles to the main tree, gratly buffing the number and quality of lineups for players. However, their existence often means that vehicles exported from other nations are added. This results in copy and paste and less differentiation between nations. Some players would want different tech trees and not ones that are all the same, even if at a loss of lineup strength, yet subtrees aometimes offer unique vehicles. So, what attitude should the playerbase have toward subtrees

  • I would like subtrees to remain as they are and add new subtrees in the future
  • Yes subtrees, but no to copy paste or export versions
  • No subtrees
0 voters

*Laughs in Israel with no subtrees * (yet)

1 Like

what subtree could Israel get? Maybe Turkish given Israel modernized their M60s and F-4’s but IDK if Turkish players would be happy about that (much the same way a SK subtree in JP tree might be controversial)

1 Like

If you asked me, I’m iffy on sub-tree as they are right now it would be a no. As they are used as a band-aid to the host nation rather than representing the sub-tree nation.

If we get a rework that is something like this I would be far more supportive of sub-tree


Chile or Singapore are the options:


They are not even used as a bandaid. They’re used to avoid giving native designs that would take time to model.



And that seems to be the case for both the host and sub-tree. (as we could have had far less C&P on the recent sub-trees but Gaijin decided against using the domestic stuff from the sub-nation.

The same dev time could have gone towards fleshing out the native designs for France and gotten quite a few useful additions instead of what we ended up with.

1 Like

These 2 Chilean tanks are coming for Israel 🗿


1 Like

I want my sherman and chaffee to fire darts 😎

I mean that’s not confirmed yet. They could be added anywhere.

I believe sub trees are the best way to go for the vast majority of new nations.

It’s the only place they could go, or to the United States, but it would be a total waste to put them in there.

I also don’t think it’s a coincidence that they have just chosen the 2 Chilean tanks with the Israeli HVMS 60 mm cannon, I think they are going to put them in Israel perhaps as premium if they don’t come in the form of the Chilean sub tree for Israel

1 Like


Sub trees would have worked great if they actually added vehicles that the host nation lacked. But my experience is that they replace host nation vehicles and not augment. Not too mention the poor choices of which sub trees were added. I.e India for Britain


makes sense, Chile’s Kfir C.10 and Singapore’s upgraded Skyhawks would be cool, and fitting additions

Colombia has Kfir C.10, Chile has the Mirage 50CN Pantera which are cousins of the Kfir


Israel is effectively a post war US spinoff with how its implemented. Any Israel subtree will equally belong in the US tech tree and the US supplied turkey with most of their stuff

1 Like

A Chilean subtree would be awesome, but turkey deserves its own tech tree someday rather than being a measly subtree.

1 Like