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.
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.
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.
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.
Seeing as how that would practically make it so that lend lease vehicles never happen? I’m down. In theory, copy paste will eventually happen, but by the time it is, we’ll either both be dead, or world peace will have been achieved.
Which this suggestion will accomplish neither. It’s already in the game, right there in the British tech tree. The only vehicles that will actually expand variety are ‘new’ aircraft that have yet to be implemented, notably the numerous awesome prototypes that have yet to be added. I genuinely can’t comprehend how you can consider an American Spit ‘variety’, when it is literally putting lip stick on a Spit and calling it ‘new’ content, when you can get the exact same experience if you exit your tree house and walk 10 feet to the treehouse on the right.
Here we go again, just because it could be added doesn’t mean it should, especially when it’s as nonsensical as the tree not having the specific play style you want. If BnZ fighters don’t interest you, just play Britain or Japan, both of whom have awesome indigenous turnfighters.
You don’t need to bloat the US tech tree with unnecessary copy paste for hollow variety when the solution is 10 feet to your left.
Ah, yes, because 2 nations not being handed a Spitfire makes all of the difference. Clearly, it’s not a Sherman situation so long as it doesn’t go above 80% of the tree. Clearly, the issue with the Sherman was being 20% over 80%, not that it was handed out like candy, being done simply because Gaijin COULD as opposed to thinking on if they SHOULD.
Ah, so despite there being genuine flaws with the philosophy behind the suggestion that actively, and clearly, make the suggestion, and every suggestion like it, worsen the game for some players (ones who Gaijin repeatedly ignore, I might add), those flaws can be ignored simply because you don’t play that mode of the game. I didn’t know that, by simply ignoring the issue, it goes away!
It’s not so much that there can’t ever be copy paste, unfortunately, that is something which is inevitable without opening up major gaps in trees. The issue is that there’s a difference between copy-pasting a vehicle because you can and because you need to. This proposal, and every proposal like it, is not necessary. The only ‘need’ it can hope to fill is being a way to print SL, which is already filled twice over within the same tier with far better aircraft.
And what happens if they aren’t? If Gaijin decides to do more alternate history matches?
Ah, yes, because an issue existed in real life, that means it’s a-ok to actively make that issue worse in game for literally no reason other then a specific subset of people who want to play a vehicle, but can’t be bothered to walk 10 feet to the left and get the pig from the sauce. I can see absolutely no flaws in this logic whatsoever!
There’s a simple solution to that admittedly: get Gaijin to add in an “Ace” version of the F-4 as a Premium.
We do have a Premium Yak-3 in the form of that Ace one from the event a few months ago, but that said, it would be nice to have a couple more Yak-3 premiums.
There have been suggestions for potential American premium versions of said aircraft.
You’re mistaken. Gaijin consistently mixes new domestic and lend-lease additions in almost every update.
This Spitfire suggestion brings meaningful variety and a new type of the fighter to the US 3.7 lineup across multiple modes. It’s not purposeless.
According to the suggestion rules, it’s completely valid to propose historically-used aircraft like this. And in my view, it serves as a US dogfighter candidate for low-tier matches. You’re free to vote +1 or -1; that’s how this works.
And no, this wouldn’t bloat the US tree.
Ok.
It’s Gaijin’s responsibility, and also the sim players, to propose solutions for their issues. I am not informed enough nor played enough sim battles to present the solutions for their issues. This is getting off-topic for this aircraft already. In all honesty, it belongs to a separate topic discussion.
Until matchmaking changes, debating alternate history matches is pointless and off-topic here.
Again, Gaijin has made their stance clear: they can add vehicles based on real-world usage. This means if a nation historically operated an aircraft (whether captured, lend-lease, or otherwise), it’s absolutely valid to suggest. At the end of the day, Gaijin has the final say in the implementation.
First of all, that’s an issue, secondly, that’s not the proposal you gave.
You have yet to illustrate any of this ‘variety’ to me that can’t be found by walking 10 feet to your right. The only mode I can think of that can get any sort of “variety” out of this copy paste would be ground RB, which I would hardly call ‘meaningful variety’, especially when the US tech tree does have a few good turnfighters in the lower tiers if you are that desperate for a US turnfighter. No, you won’t be able to grind out events, but if you want a turnfighter that can grind out events, and are willing to shell out cash for it, I’m certain there’s a premium out there you can buy to fill your wish. That, or you can just grind out another tech tree up to rank 3, and use a ‘free’ turnfighter there. Crazy, I know.
And, honestly, now that I’m specifically looking for it, the game has way too many foreign premiums, like it’s genuinely absurd how many there are and it is a genuine problem. The fucking Russians have an entirely copy paste tier of premiums.
I don’t recall ever saying that it couldn’t be added, only bringing to light that it shouldn’t. And it very much would be bloat. US has more than enough premiums as it is, we really don’t need anymore. Those resources would be better spent replacing all the premium copy paste bloat with indigenous aircraft premiums, because it is a genuine issue when premiums are the best way to progress.
No, it’s an entirely valid point and concern to bring up with any, and every proposal that features a foreign aircraft, even if it’s modified, and especially if it isn’t. I don’t care if Gaijin caused this problem, that doesn’t justify making the issue worse for literally no reason.
And? That somehow makes this a good suggestion how exactly? Like, a big issue I have with this proposal is that it reeks of being based off the logic of ‘we could’ as opposed to if it would actually benefit the game. The resources that would be spent on this copy paste could be better spent on creating indigenous low tier premiums for literally everyone else.
It also doesn’t address the fundamental issue of it being a copy paste premium, which, when there are already excellent indigenous premiums that are far better and provide real variety, and not this vapid variety you seem so obsessed with, there is no other word to describe it then bloat.
You’ll only find these in Rank II and below. Like you said, they can’t help with Battle Pass or event rewards. That’s exactly why I proposed this US-operated Spitfire Mk Vc/trop for Rank III - it’s the solid candidate for the US.
With the American A6M2 gone from the US tree, this Spitfire makes perfect sense as a replacement since both are turnfighters. It would likely be a premium lend-lease option, so I am looking forward to this.
I’m specifically looking for a Rank III dogfighter for the US, and this Spitfire stands out as an obvious choice.
That’s too bad for you. I personally appreciate lend-lease vehicles like those in the Soviet tree. They’re historically accurate, as the USSR really did use that many foreign aircraft and tanks. It lets me roleplay as a Soviet pilot flying alongside comrades in both domestic and lend-lease vehicles.
I partially disagree with your stance. Yes, the US should get indigenous premium aircraft, but that doesn’t mean we should remove or replace historically significant lend-lease options to make room for the indigenous aircraft.
It’s a valid concern, and I acknowledge that even I am not the sim player. But if we’re going down that road, you need to consider that minor nations often need foreign aircraft to fill critical gaps when no domestic options exist. That’s part of the same issue you’re raising.
Since US and Britain team up in sim anyway, I’m confident an American Spitfire wouldn’t worsen identification problems, and it’s just joining the many Spitfires already there.
I was just saying that Gaijin will add what fits their agendas. The US would benefit from having another competitive low-tier Rank III dogfighter with a completely different playstyle than usual. That’s the main appeal, as it has gameplay variety plus historical value, in my view.
We can’t possibly know Gaijin’s resource allocation unless they disclose it. They likely have separate teams working on different vehicle types simultaneously. I think arguing about “better uses” of their resources is purely speculative when they have their own long term plans and schedules completely unknown to us.
I can say I’m completely confident that this Spitfire would require minimal effort, just texture changes and wing adjustments. I agree we need more original low-tier US indigenous aircraft, but I still desire this Spitfire added eventually, even as a low-priority item.
You have your zealous obsession with opposing the lend-lease vehicles when domestic options exist, yet I see this low tier Spitfire as a feasible option to give the US an appropriate Rank III dogfighter. It’s something the US domestically lacks in that department. At least it is not far-fetched and doesn’t cause problematic concerns, unlike the captured vehicles and American A6M2. I reject the gatekeeping mindset that insists US players should only fly BnZ planes when the US had historically employed Spitfires.
Being relegated to obscure variants and prototypes is pretty bad too, why cant famous stuff be exclusive like P-51 and B-17 for US and Spitfire and Hurricane for UK
They already have the Spitfire LF Mk IXc, not sure they need more Spitfires but I am not against it either. Germany has two P-47 Thunderbolts so why not?