Just because a problem exists does not mean we should make it worse. if we make it worse, it means suggestions for alt-history (What if U.S joined axis?) lobbies become bogged down by impossibility of IFF.
There’s nothing limiting people from playing all nations at prop tiers. They’re fast to grind and unlock unlike jets, so keeping things pure and sensible has no drawbacks while the current model brings negative consequences for no benefit.
Okay, but I’d argue captured vehicles create way bigger issues than historical lend-lease aircraft—at least when it’s Allies vs. Axis. But we’re getting off-topic here. You’re bringing sim battles into a discussion about historical Allied reverse lend-lease, so let’s just agree to disagree.
Then, at best, so is your stance about it being a valid addition to the game ‘subjective’. That goes both ways, you know.
I also find the prospect of not understanding the position of copy paste actively harming the game absurd. It actively makes both trees less unique, diluting the US tree with a foreign design when it isn’t needed, and gives less reason to try the British tech tree. It’s one thing if this is done to fill a gap -an actual gap, mind you, not ‘play style’ gaps in a thick tree that already has plenty of good vehicles as it stands, with many more possible additions-, and another to copy paste a redundant premium into an already stuffed tree.
As for AB, as said before, the US already has a ton of really good aircraft at the tier, and with the buffs to performance aircraft get across the board, any supposed ‘need’ for a copy paste spitfire is lessened.
You actually illustrated one of my issues with premium copy paste. Instead of grinding out the Italian tree with Italian aircraft, you did so with a British aircraft. Because of the bonuses allotted to premiums, once you acquire such an aircraft, you lose any objective reason to play Italian aircraft, which not only makes the point of grinding out the tree -to use Italian aircraft in this case- somewhat redundant, but also makes it so that you aren’t actually prepared to use the nation’s aircraft in question. While Italy has good turn fighters, so the Spitfire isn’t as bad there, in other trees, like the US, where you aren’t really supposed to turnfight with their aircraft, calculated maneuvers aside? Actively detrimental as it’s teaching you the wrong lessons for the tree.
Because the Spitfire is a good turn fighter. While there are situations where US aircraft can outperform it in a turnfight, such situations require set up to do. This is an issue because the first instincts of new players is to enter into turnfights, regardless of what aircraft they are actually flying. Instead of discouraging those instincts, the Spitfire encourages it, which is an issue when much of the tree, especially the iconic aircraft people will be beelining for, play very differently to what you would expect of a Spitfire. Good newbie aircraft teach new players how to play the nation’s aircraft, which is something the Spit does not do and actively encourages behaviors and habits that run counter to what you should do with the vast majority of US aircraft.
Not in this specific case, but it holds true for just about every other copy paste vehicle of its kind. You are also assuming that Britain and US will always be on the same team in SB, which can’t be guaranteed. Alternate History SB matches are far from an outlandish possibility.
While I agree to an extent, simply saying Go play Other Tank/Plane game isn’t a good counter, especially when the only things they share is that they use military vehicles. Personally believe that copy paste should only be done when either absolutely necessary or if it, somehow, supports an actual cause or museum. In this case, it is neither necessary, nor does it help anyone outside of lining Gaijin’s pockets.
Not really. How you crack the egg is different, but the end result is the same. Just look at Italian ground where they have both Panzers and Shermans. All of the Axis nations flipped to the Allies post war, and frequently made use of American and Soviet kit as the US and USSR had so much surplus and wanted to prop up their new allies. It’s better in the sense that they actually used it, but, as WT is performance based and doesn’t care much for era, the end result is the same.
F-15IDN suggestion when lol
This is true for Rank III.
But this is a conceptual & design disadvantage which was also an irl issue. But in deviation to irl - in wt almost nobody is able or willing to invest time in learning tactics how to play vs slower, but better climbing and better turning aircraft.
It is also true that the US air tree has the most fighters with interceptor & air superiority spawn (similar, but different) in the WW 2 range in order to counter this disadvantage - together with artificially lowered BRs (in Air RB) of non-air spawn fighters due to the high number of rookies.
I see the US Spits as historically justified, but also kind of detrimental for development of pilot skills of fresh pilots as planes like Spits or captured A6M2s / Ki-61s/ Ki-43s allow them to skip the learning experience of USN pilots in the Pacific or USAAF pilots in Europe - they managed to reduce their combat losses by using teamwork an tactics.
Nevertheless: +1
3 things on top:
As there are 109s, P-47s and P-51s in all hell of different nations - a second Spit would not kill the immersion - outside the known issues for SB pilots (still a niche mode) immersion is already dead. I mean if i see US players in premium 109s on Iwo Jiima or Saipan (or land based short range UK Spits and Typhoons) you might confirm that there is no immersion.
I do agree that the 3.3 (Air RB) F6F-5 is an outstanding turnfighter - as soon as the UK premium version returns to the War Bond shop i will buy it simply because the premium version is Rank III.
If your goal is to improve the US prop TT - adding new aircraft is imho not really the right path - a major improvement would be to upgrade some aircraft to Rank III. A lot of actually quite good and capable aircraft were reduced to Rank II in the recent years whilst other nations have them as Rank III premiums. Imho gaijin is just milking US rookies with this strategy.
Of course. I am aware.
Okay, I still disagree that adding the American Spitfire as a “copy-paste” vehicle would harm the game. We already have other copy-paste vehicles that don’t negatively impact my gameplay as much as you claim, in my opinion. Maybe it’s different for niche air sim battles, but that would require specific solutions for IFF and other issues.
Like I’ve said before, American Spitfires make up just a tiny fraction of historical lend-lease additions. They don’t dilute the US tech tree’s uniqueness or negatively affect the British tree. Britain will always have more Spitfire variants, and the players will have reasons to play it. The US tree would never offer the same depth of Spitfire options.
Just to clarify, I didn’t use my Italian Spitfire to grind the entire Italian tech tree. I started from Rank I and worked my way up, spading each aircraft. However, later after I got my Italian Spitfire, I did enjoy using it to earn Silver Lions and complete Battle Pass/event tasks.
I understand your concern about players using premium Spitfires to fast-track research, but that’s been part of the game’s design from the beginning. It’s no different than if Italy had gotten a domestic 3.7 premium fighter instead. You’d certainly support that, just because it’s not a Spitfire.
“Because the Spitfire is a good turn fighter.“ At the end of the day, the American Spitfire is both a good turnfighter and has historical significance, which justifies its inclusion. The American version would provide a nice low-tier filler and alternative type of fighter before players transition to energy fighters at higher BRs.
I won’t comment on things about behaviors and instincts. You’re free to vote against it if you want, but this suggestion offers potential gameplay variety.
As for sim battles, maybe your concerns apply there, but they don’t really affect other game modes in my view.
The problem is they do, they very much do harm the game, and the issue only gets worse the more copy paste you bloat trees with. It’s especially a problem with iconic vehicles, as those are the vehicles people grind out trees for. There isn’t any point in grinding out a nation if you can just throw some cash at Gaijin and play your desired vehicle in your favored tree. This may not sound like an issue, until you consider that a big reason why the ‘minor’ nations are neglected as they are is that people don’t play them anywhere near as much. Copy paste aircraft only exacerbate this issue on top of everything else, especially when it happens as frequently as it does in-game.
So you you like it because it is premium then. Last I recall, after you hit rank 3, every vehicle counts towards event progress and BP challenges. You could have grinded out the events/challenges with a normal Spitfire instead, the only difference would be SL gain. There is no reason it has to be in the Italian tree, it would be better if the Italian Spit were removed from sale, replaced with a comparable Italian aircraft with a premium Spit slotted into the same BR over in Britain.
I don’t think you understand my issue here. The issue at hand isn’t that someone paid Gaijin money to ease the grind, it’s that in order to ‘efficiently’ grind out the tree, the best option is a foreign aircraft. You bring up me not having an issue with a premium domestic 3.7 fighter as if its some kind of ‘own’ when I wouldn’t have an issue with it, and would vastly prefer it to the alternative of foreign copy paste. There isn’t even an option period for any sort of rank 3 Italian premium, they are all foreign aircraft. If I want to play Italy, I want to play Italian aircraft, and I’d imagine that’s true for most of the playerbase.
A justified inclusion and being low tier filler are two things that are very much mutually exclusive when it comes to copy paste aircraft, regardless of being premium or TT. If it’s filler, it is unneeded, and therefore unjustifiable. If it is justified, then there isn’t anything else that can fill in a gap, so it is needed.
As for ’transitioning to energy fighters’, you know what would be great for that? A premium version of an indigenous fighter, with the benefit of teaching a new player how to effectively fly American planes.
You repeatedly saying that does not make it true, you do realize that, right? Britain has an entire tech tree right there, one choked full of Spitfires. You aren’t locked into one tree. Believe it or not, you can play multiple trees, and for practical purposes you are going to get everything this slop can offer by playing the Spitfires in their actual tree. The only thing this can provide is a relatively cheap way to get a premium Spit, but if that’s the justification you want to use, it would be better for Britain to get their own premium spitfire in a tree then giving the US a copy paste aircraft that they don’t need in any regard.
They do, they very much do. As for other modes, they aren’t particularly relevant to my counterpoint as we are talking about SIM, not RB or AB. As for how AB and RB are affected, both suffer from the issue of making other trees less appealing, in this case the British TT as you can just get the most iconic fighter of Britain in the US tree. That aside, RB is also negatively affected as it makes matchmaking more and more of a molass of aircraft, and what nations you are playing with and/or against less and less relevant. What point is there when there are so many captured and lendleased planes when almost any plane can come from almost any nation? Would this happen as soon as the US gets bloated with an unnecessary Spitfire? No, but it isn’t just the single aircraft that is the issue, it’s the philosophy behind it’s inclusion that is. Mindless inclusions being based off simple ownership that slowly destroy the identity of trees over time. It’s one thing to implement a copy-paste aircraft because there aren’t any indigenous options, it’s quite another to do it just because.
Maybe so, considering they were allies, but it makes no sense to move an iconic airplane to another tree already top-heavy in the first three ranks, where the supposed American Spitfire would go.
Sure, they served in American fighter groups, but that is because they were allies. This sort of precedent would only aid in the creation of diffuse, convoluted tech trees, especially given lend-lease policies.
For example, if this were to be added, someone could argue that given the American Spitfire’s addition, Russia could receive American planes as well, considering the various lend-lease deals. The circumstances would be the same, yet no one would want to have to face Yak 9’s and P-51Ds at the same time.
Perhaps it’s not as accurate, but there is a reason tank barrels don’t have collisions. It streamlines gameplay, and makes the user’s experience better, for the cost of what–a minor detail? For clarity’s sake, keep iconic vehicles in their respective trees.
Very true.
China kind of already simulates it. One of the best experiences ever is flying into a crowded dogfight as allies, seeing a p-38 with its distinct shape above and behind you - thinking you’re safe and covered - then being sawed in half by said p-38 because it was chinese.
I think the way china and sweden and france were implemented (they are nations without significant WW2 aircraft production, sweden the least with their wacky prototypes) was a massive mistake. They should’ve followed a more Israel-style design where you start at rank 4 with optional unlocks of the low-BR prototypes and interwar/early war designs.
The US aviation tree isn’t bloated with copy-paste aircraft, and I expect some captured premiums will be phased out eventually. This leaves room for both iconic domestic designs and historically significant reverse lend-lease additions.
If minor nations are neglected, then our job is to research and suggest appropriate vehicles, both domestic and necessary copy-pastes, and promote them here. That’s how we get Gaijin’s attention.
Yes, I leveraged my Italian Spitfire’s premium status for SL and Crew XP gains in AB/RB when playing well. I still enjoy revisiting Rank III occasionally when I feel like it.
Ok. Actually, Italy has potential domestic 3.7 premium candidates. I suggest consulting experts on Italian aircraft if you are interested. But that’s off-topic here.
Copy paste that, copy paste this. In my view, it’s justified because the Spitfire actively served with the USAAF 31st and 52nd Fighter Groups in the Mediterranean theater, proving their worth against the Luftwaffe. The US tree lacks dedicated dogfighters, and this would be one of their first proper turnfighters rather than the American A6M2, even if you think otherwise. It’s filler because the Spitfire model already exists and could be reused for the US. All it needs is to have its wing type changed to reflect the Mk Vc/trop model and new USAAF textures. Not necessarily becoming a premium option, it could replace the removed American A6M2. This isn’t top priority, but it’s a sensible addition that properly represents the USAAF units that flew these aircraft in combat. That’s why I’m suggesting it for the US tree - not as another British premium but as part of America’s authentic wartime aviation history.
Sure thing. I’d like to see that.
I don’t care because it’s my opinion. I suggested it for the US tree because that’s who operated it. Not by Britain, as this Spitfire I suggested served with the 31st and 52nd Fighter Groups of the US Army Air Corps.
However, you can suggest it as one of the skins for the British Spitfires if you must be adamant about not wanting the copy-paste vehicles in the game. Be my guest.
Copy-paste doesn’t erase a tree’s identity. They have iconic domestic vehicles that preserve uniqueness while historical lend-leases add flavor. I’d only agree with you if core vehicles were deleted and replaced by foreign ones.
War Thunder markets itself as historically authentic, featuring real vehicles from all eras - even when matchmaking doesn’t follow historical alliances. These Spitfires fought for the US historically, so their inclusion fits the game’s stated vision.
I’m a huge supporter of lend-lease vehicles, whether for Britain or standalone nations like Canada and Australia, because they let me create historically mixed lineups in Air Arcade and Ground/Naval battles to reproduce the real combat units. This applies to the USSR tree, too, which I play regularly. In all my time with these vehicles, they’ve never negatively impacted my experience.
That said, I respect that these kinds of additions might not be your preference.
Or, and hear me out here…
We leave copy paste vehicles at the door and don’t advocate for their implementation. There are plenty of indigenous vehicles we could use instead, we don’t need copy paste lend lease aircraft when the game has way too much copy paste as it is.
Both trees come out stronger for it, players are encouraged to play minor nations, thereby boosting Gaijin’s interest in providing them content, and literally nothing is lost as, if you want to play with Spitfires, you have a perfectly good tree choked full of them which you can enjoy.
No, not on their own. They do, however, dilute it, and will inevitably turn the big 3 into the big 2, both with their subsumed in a tide of copy paste, the minor trees too subsumed but without the robust MiCs of the US and Russia. That is the end the game will find itself in if we go down the road of implementing based off of if you could, not if you should.
So far, your entire justification relies on ‘we could’. ‘Dedicated dogfighter’ is a massive reach for straws. The US already has excellent aircraft at that tier. If you don’t like the US fighter selection at those lower tiers, tough because most of the tree consists of boom n zoomers, and if you want something new, try other trees. I don’t like this fogged idea you seem to have that every tree must have everything, when that’s part of what makes tech trees unique.
As for flavor they add? They don’t add any, especially if we apply it consistently. What flavor is added when everyone and their mother has a Spitfire? A P-51? A Lagg? A BF109? Because all I can taste is molasses with a hint of the tears of Sim players everywhere.
gib
honestly stuff like this should be a skin
Ok, then let’s prioritize adding indigenous vehicles first. Once those run out, we can bring in historical lend-lease vehicles. You will find that I’m fully on board with implementing them when the time comes. Hate to break it to you, but I’m firmly in the lend-lease supporters’ camp.
You’re making too big a deal about this, especially regarding the US tree and reverse lend-lease. It’s not like these additions will flood the US tech tree. At most, maybe less than 5% of US aircraft would be lend-lease? That’s hardly enough to “dilute” the tree.
Never said that I dislike some US fighters at the lower tier. I am more interested in having a different type of fighter for the US and want more variety. The fact that American fighter groups actually operated the Spitfire Mk Vc/trop allowed me to suggest this as the dedicated dogfighter for the US, which is a completely different type of fighter for the US. It is one of the good candidates that meets that criteria, in my opinion.
Adding this low-tier Spitfire would give the US tree some flavor with a proper lend-lease dogfighter. Germany or Japan will NOT get their captured Spitfires (except that MesserSpit hybrid for Germany), so we won’t have another “Sherman situation” where everyone gets the same Spitfire.
I’ll be blunt. It’s not my problem to worry about those issues for the sim players.
Exactly this. We could delay C&P but wouldn’t keep them from being added forever.
To you anti-C&Pers, I don’t know why you guys think this game has tech-trees based off of industry when they are not, they are basses on the actual military and the vehicle services of the nation’s. And WT has embrace this fact from day one(with giving nations both vehicles and foreign ones they operated), heck if I recall what I heard correctly the first ground vehicle was the German Sherman.
Indeed, heck I don’t get why these people seems to think vehicles them selfs are all a tree is. War Thunder is a line-up game, with all but one game mode have line-ups.
What makes a nation unique is the line-ups you can make, like it’s very hard for two nations to be identical. Like maybe they are the sole operator of a variant of a vehicle or more likely they have a handful of prototypes they can only get.
Because it’s awful to fly germany and face bf109f4 premium spam.
Because it’s awful to want to fly a premium bf109f4 and you have to play U.S
Because it’s awful to want to fly a premium yak-3 and have to play france while fighting russian yak-3s and getting teamkilled because you look like the enemy.
Because it’s awful to see a P-47, assume it’s your buddy and then get sawed in half because it was the enemy.
Because it’s super fun to see a B-25 as germany/italy/japan/ussr, land a long-range shot and then get hit with -45K silver lions because it was a russian… then you hold your fire approaching the next b25 and get shot because it was american in the same match.
Because it’s awful that I can’t have a premium corsair/hellcat and play america and must play UK.
One of my last favourite experiences was a guy flying a silver P-47 near my team’s airfields when I wanted some mustang flying. You think it’s a friendly, so you go and enter landing pattern and get shot.
We don’t need more of this
+1
I dont see how this has any actual negative impact on sim or any other gamemodes, as most of the time the US and the UK are on the same team.
I would like to see more Lend Lease aircraft in the UK tree and Vice Versa.
Its called “Simulator”
Please, nobody tell this guy about aviation in the Korean war or he will have a heart attack