Why though. Genuinely, why? If you want to grind out events with a dedicated dogfighter, there are already premiums for that. Not in the US tree, but I don’t see why that matters when it comes to premium aircraft.
Only, the A6M2 doesn’t need replacing. The tree is genuinely better off without it, and it never added anything as it stands.
The only “”niche”” it filled was being a premium turn fighter at tier 3, which is not something that needs to be filled.
And if your really are so desperate for a turnfighter in the US tree, unfortunately, the US already has a copy paste Spitfire in rank 4.
I thought it was removed from sale, as all copy paste premiums like it should be, but apparently not.
It has very good SL and RP modifiers, can farm events and BP missions, and has the extra bonus of being usable to grind out rank 5 jets.
No, it’s not rank 3, but get over it. You want a rank 3 premium spit so badly, you can get it already in other trees. Seal club over there if you are so desperate.
You know a way you can LARP as a Soviet lend lease vehicle?
Camos.
Not the best solution either for SIM either, I know, but still better then bloating trees with copy paste.
No, I’m saying that the US doesn’t need more premium aircraft period. We have plenty as it is, even if we expunged all the copy paste from sale.
No, I’m saying that resources spent on copy paste like this would be better spent on things such as giving the Russians of all nations an indigenous Rank 3 premium aircraft that isn’t locked behind an event.
And yes, we should remove lend lease vehicles from the premium sides of the trees as there is way too much of it. As said before, the entirety of Russia’s rank 3 air premiums (I’m not including event vehicles) are copy pastes from the American tree. France only has 2 out of its 7 prop premiums as indigenous aircraft, only one of which is usable to grind out events. Italy is slightly better with a premium RE.2001 in rank 2 (though you can arguably say it has 2 with the IAR-81C, but that is Romanian, not an indigenous Italian vehicle). I could go on. People shouldn’t be forced to play another nation’s vehicle if they want to grind out that nations tree at any of their ranks, and mains of those nations shouldn’t have to go into another tree just so that they can use a premium version of an aircraft they like.
I also don’t feel that simple use is, or should be enough to make a proposal a good idea. We apply that to every possible addition, and huge swaths of trees, US and Russia especially, will end up in other nation’s trees. Therefore, there should be high standards for when copy paste is used, either because it is actually historically significant (if you want an example of which, that would be a UK Mustang. The mustang was initially built according to UK specifications for the UK, and further developments of the Mustang heavily involved the UK, with them being the ones to first start working on Merlin conversions, and being the ones to first get a Merlin powered Mustang in the air. The UK was incredibly significant to the development of the Mustang, on top of making extensive usage of the aircraft through lend lease. The same cannot be said for the Spitfire or 99% of copy paste. And even then, I’d rather have the Mustang Mk X instead) or because there is literally nothing else that can fill in a major gap in the tech tree.
So a minor nation having a gap in their tech tree -an actual gap, not the malarkey that is the US lacking a ‘dedicated dog fighter’ - is equivalent to the US receiving a copy paste premium?
Because, as I have said before, said repeatedly, there is a massive difference in a minor nation receiving copy paste because they literally don’t have anything else that can fill a gap, and copy paste being done just because it can be.
An American Spitfire fills no gaps, and the US has plenty of premiums as it stands, with no need for more, even if we were to remove the copy paste from the tree.
This as well. While I love prototypes, and think they are a great way to maintain a tech tree’s uniqueness with the growing issue of copy paste, prototypes shouldn’t be the only things that make a tree unique. While I understand that, for minor nations, and even for Germany, often times there just isn’t another option without having a massive hole in the tree, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take efforts to minimize it as much as possible.
Meh, I’d disagree with that. It added a neat vehicle with some fascinating history, which is one of the reasons I bought it. Plus, it has a somewhat different gameplay flavor from the normal US fighters.
Generally, I’d prefer camos to be historic aircraft of that particular nation and not LL or Captured aircraft (like the Ki 45 having an American camo or the G8N1 having it)
I’d disagree, especially for the Soviets. Lend Lease has its place in-game, especially since War Thunder is, at its core, a historical-based video game. I think it would be pretty odd not to have LL vehicles in-game. If we take the Soviets, for example, why should they be denied stuff like the P-39 and the P-63, given that they were the ones who flew them the most?
France having only two of the seven props as indigenous aircraft is odd, but I’d chalk that up to Gaijin not adding more aircraft to France. Most of the other props have good historical reasons to be in-game, especially the Yak-3 from the Normandie-Nieman Squadron. Italy is in the same boat and also has to accommodate two Sub-trees aircraft-wise for better or worse.
At the end of the day, though, the vast majority of the C&P is premium and doesn’t need to be used to grind the TT; it’s simply there if you want it. No one is forced to play it at all if they don’t want to.
The NMUSAF, 21st, and 52nd Fighter Groups would probably disagree on the Spitfire not being historically significant enough. It was extensively used in combat operations by both the 31st and 52nd, who achieved most of their aerial victories in the Spitfire until 1944. Not to mention that not one but two Spitfires are preserved in the US’s own National Museum, which should be sufficient evidence that it’s a significant enough aircraft. So, in that light, I’d say it probably has enough significance to be added. But that’s just my two cents.
I do acknowledge that too much C&P probably isn’t a good thing, but I can’t support denying something historically significant like the P-39 to the Soviets, or the Yak-3 to the French, or, in this case, the Spitfire to the US simply under the idea that C&P=Bad
Oh, hard agree on the Mustang Mk X. I love that thing. That said, which particular variant would you be interested in? I’m honestly torn between AL963, AM975, and AM203.
Because it’s a competitive asset for the US, and I desire to play it to support the struggling US teams as a dogfighter backup in low-tier Air RB matches. This aircraft fits what I need, and I know others feel the same way.
What an odd thing to say. You “accuse” me I would seal club over there. Well, the 3.7 BR range is already super competitive in my experience with both AB and RB. It’s where people bring their favorite strong WWII aircraft. I’ve seen way more overpowered planes at this BR range that dominate everything, far stronger than this little Spitfire.
Cool, but that’s not what I want, unfortunately.
That sounds like an extreme proposal, and I know this Spitfire suggestion isn’t extreme despite what you like to believe. You’re trying to take these options away from everyone who need them. Hard pass from me.
That’s not the point. We literally had someone comment here about getting shot down by a Chinese P-38 due to IFF issue. Whether you see China as minor or major nation doesn’t matter - this same issue applies to other minor nations using foreign aircraft to fill gaps. Those can cause real problems in sim when you can’t tell if they’re friendly or foe. I’m still confident this US Spitfire won’t cause issues since the US and UK are always on the same team in sim battles, permanently.
While I won’t deny that captured vehicles are neat and fascinating provided you read a good account of their story, the issue with implementing them is when you take the practice to its logical conclusion. You would basically have every vehicle in the game being in either the American and Russian tech trees, with any identity the trees had diluted into nothingness.
As for the flavor they provide… They don’t provide any. I don’t understand why people bring this up as though it has any weight at all. It’s a regurgitation of content already in the game and discourages playing minor trees.
The problem is, copy paste isn’t content. It’s regurgitation of already extant content that provides more overall value to the game if it were to be a skin.
It’s a historical based game, yes, but it’s not reality. There are liberties taken to make the game play better. The problem with lend lease, and vehicles with justification through similar means, is that, like with captured aircraft, if you take it to its logical conclusion, you’ll have massive portions of tech trees be present in others, the US tech tree being especially affected by it as they gave out a lot of equipment both during the war and after it.
It’s not so much ‘odd’ as it is a slightly above average case of the rule. Italy isn’t much better off with only a single extra indigenous vehicle. Russia, while better, only is so when you reach rank 4. Out of their 12 premiums between ranks 1 and 3, only 3 of them are indigenous.
As for the other props? No.
To be clear, this is not including those in tech trees that fill genuine gaps that, otherwise, would not be able to be filled. While the French Yak-3 has an interesting history behind it, it isn’t enough to warrant being in the French tree. The French played no hand in the development of the Yak, so they don’t have much more of a claim to having one then any of the other countless lend lease vehicles that countries acquired during the Second World War. The same with the Italian Spitfire. While the Italian civil war is very interesting, it isn’t enough to make me think that its inclusion was a good idea.
The only copy paste aircraft, to my knowledge, that is a good inclusion is the British Mustang as they were the first operators of the aircraft, were the original customer of the aircraft, and played a major role in the aircraft’s development, being the first ones to successfully install a Merlin into a Mustang.
Two problems with this.
First of all, most prop tiers have ONLY copy paste as an option if you want a premium aircraft, which is a massive issue if you want to grind a tree with an indigenous aircraft. In addition, new players who simply want to grind out trees, and don’t know any better, may buy these copy paste premiums and learn bad habits for said nation’s vehicles, which is especially an issue for the US tree which doesnt have much, if anything, in the way of turnfighters after rank 2. Its also an issue in Sim, where the learning curve is far more oppressive.
Granted, far fewer people play Sim, so that’s not as much of an issue.
Secondly, I still have to fight those copy paste vehicles, so regardless of if I like them or not, I have to interact with them regardless of if I pay for them or not. While this isn’t much of an issue in AB, where there is no regard for what nation you play, it is a bit of an issue in RB and where they generally split nations up into teams, sometimes along historical lines, sometimes not. Which team gets which nation (who are your allies and who are your opponents) becomes less relevant to know when any nation can have any aircraft. And in Sim? It’s a massive issue that is easily abused, especially when teamkilling is punished so severely.
I don’t see why that would make it significant enough. It runs into the same issue as all other copy paste. We bring it to its logical conclusion, then massive portions of tech trees, US especially, get put into other trees as it’s following the philosophy of adding because it can be added as opposed to what should be added. For copy paste to be added to War Thunder on a historical basis, it should be done so with a high standard, not simply because a vehicle was used.
Don’t have a specific one. There isn’t really a bad option, though probably AL963 if I had to choose one.
And that ‘need’ is very specific, and sounds more like you just don’t like the play style of US fighters, which, if you don’t, you are better off playing other trees as we don’t really have any. The tier has P-51s, the Black Widow, P-63s, P-38s and so on, all of which are very good aircraft, with very competitive craft such as the XP-55 and XP-40. The reason why low tier US struggles is because noobs will turn try to fight everything they come across, even if that fighter is a Zero and they are in a Black Widow.
So you don’t want to LARP?
First of all, I never said it was an extreme proposal. I’ve said that it is a bad proposal that doesn’t provide anything to the game and only exacerbates ongoing issues.
As for people ‘needing’ copy paste, if you need a copy paste vehicle from another tree, when there are perfectly good indigenous options, then that means the tree isn’t to your playstyle, and you should find one that jives with you better.
And if you are trying to lump in copy paste that is done because there is literally no other indigenous option available with premium copy paste, don’t. If it’s premium, it is not needed in the tech tree. Saying that there is a ‘need’ for a vehicle and then going around and sayin that it should be a premium are inherently contradictory statements. The only exception to this is if the need is for a premium vehicle, but that should go without saying.
First of all, this assumes that I think the Chinese tech tree should have been added in its current state. I don’t, and hated it when it was introduced for being loaded with copy paste, and I still hate the tree for its extensive usage of copy paste.
Secondly, yes, I do acknowledge that minor nations with copy paste also contribute to the IFF issue. I have never said otherwise. There is, however, a major difference between copy paste that is there to fill in gaps, and copy paste for the sake of it.
One of these is done because there isn’t anything else that can fill in a gap.
The other, such as this proposal, is done for no other reason then because it can be done.
These two are in no way the same.
As for Sim, you, in no way, can guarantee that the US and the UK will stay on the same team forever. Nothing is stopping Gaijin from deciding to start doing alternate history events. At which point this aircraft would then become an issue like every other.
F4U-4 (Jack of all trades, equal to all german props up to 5.7), F4U-4B (jack of all trades, equal to all german props up to 5.7). F6F-5N (one circle turnfighter)
If you don't believe hellcats and corsairs to be competetive dogfighters..
We’ve come full circle already. Firstly, I’ve flown P-38s, P-51s, P-61s, XP-55s, and P-63s at that tier. They’re fantastic planes, but their playstyles feel similar, such as always needing careful positioning. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t dislike them and their playstyle. However, if played right, they’re practically untouchable. But I seek any possible US options that reward aggressive turnfighting. Indeed, the XP-50 is sorta like this and could reward this way, but its airspawn in ARB feels too cheesy for me to fly. Hence, the American Spitfire clicks for me, as it fits that natural, scrappy playstyle with some challenges I’ve been looking forward to. It can complement a strong US team with mixed playstyles in ARB matches.
Soviet camo/skin on US aircraft in my US lineup? No. I’d rather have actual lend-lease planes in my Soviet lineup.
As designed, premium planes exist to speed up research and boost SL/crew XP. Whether they’re indigenous, captured, or lend-lease doesn’t matter to me, even if there are too many examples.
Let me repeat. You argued, “we should remove lend lease vehicles from the premium sides of the trees as there is way too much of it.” I disagree on the basis of the premium status. While I want more indigenous designs added, the lend-lease premiums should stay, and there are some indigenous designs I absolutely don’t want to see receive the premium status.
That was just a hypothetical example I brought up. I was saying that a P-38 or American-designed aircraft could end up in another minor nation as a 100% necessary addition to satisfy the gap requirement.
Ok.
Sure. However, there’s no guarantee that Gaijin will ever touch the sim mode with the major reworks it needs. It remains unknown at this moment. For those who are the sim players reading this, I’m not trying to rub salt into the wound, but that’s the current reality, which is quite tragic.
Ahahah, no.
A. It takes the spot of domestic camos
B. You’re spending GE or GJN on a TT plane, real money on a non-premium plane.
C. Having it speak a language not spoken by the nation you want is a deal-breaker.
The only value here is someone’s ego.
And not representing historic vehicles isn’t one of them. This fact is basically in the ads for WT. So unless you’re willing to pay for Gaijin to remake its ads, tough luck. After all, Realistic includes all vehicles used by a nation’s TTs aren’t industry trees but the military. (It’s the USAF, USN, RAF, Luftwaffe etc., not any nation’s MIC)
“A nation can only get a vehicle if they were involved.” How about history tell you how bad of a take that is.
These “C&P” are often why a nation didn’t fall, but your ideal WT would let these nations fall just to be unique. You’re writing off the amour of a nation, but to you, a nation needs no military if it’s not unique, a goal that is costly(there is a reason why dead industries often stay dead).
On top of that, you’re saying it doesn’t matter how much history is behind a vehicle; it’s worthless. You are walking all over the men and women involved with it.
On top of that, plenty would like to buy a vehicle that a family member served in, with the proper operator nation. It’s one of WT’s charms. And it’s a truth that no nation only used domestic vehicles and had to use others for one reason or another.
So, you tell me? Wow do I make my LARP line-up when the foreign vehicles that served together(in the same units even), when both vehicles are in two different trees. Oh, wait, you can’t.
Let me tell you a secret: Operation Unthinkable. War with the USSR right after WW2. Guess what, the Soviets still have working Western allied vehicles and would be used against them, after spending years getting US, UK and even Canadian-built stuff and more. And with early MBTs production only starting with not even enough to do one nation(heck, many nations were still using WW2 stuff by the Korean War), WW2 stuff would still be used by both sides, heck, whatever is left from the Axis would likely be used by both sides.
Even alt-history has these issues, real-life issues in a game that wants to be realistic… who would have guessed.
I should clarify - when I say ‘dogfighter’ for the US, I’m using it interchangeably with ‘turnfighter’ in my own definitions. I am seeking a dedicated turnfighter for the US. Now, about that list you mentioned:
F4U-4 is an energy fighter/jack-of-all-trades, not a dedicated turnfighter. It excels at BnZ tactics.
Emphasis on one-circle turnfighter. It’s better if it gets into a 1v1 dogfight and finishes it ASAP; however, if it evolves into a furball without securing an exit plan, it becomes easy prey for the opposing lightweight turnfighters.
Another issue for the F6F-5N was extra weight from its cannons and radar (5.7t vs standard F6F-5’s 5.5t), which made it feel sluggish at its current BR 4.3. Until that gets adjusted, it’s not a capable independent fighter according to the current meta of the ARB with its 25-minute matches. At best, it behaves as a support fighter, which is the playstyle I despise to play as.
The standard F6F-5 is definitely better as a turnfighter at its lower BR, but it’s Rank II. If I want a more capable Rank II turnfighter, I’d pick the P-36G over it any day.
It’s a heavy fighter/interceptor with airspawn - great for BnZ. Indeed, it can turnfight briefly with flaps, but it relies heavily on altitude and teamwork. Smart enemies will just avoid a loner P-38 in its domain and wait for it to make a mistake and burn energy.
Indeed. Yet, it’s a dedicated energy “heavy” fighter with air spawn and a similar approach used on the P-38.
Like the XP-50, it’s a pure energy fighter through and through.
Mind you, these are my Air RB perspectives, as they may differ from yours in sim battles. I am aware those are the energy/BnZer fighters (except F6F-5N because it’s junk in RB at its BR, in my opinion) with excellent flight characteristics that permit it to turnfighting for a finite time. However, none of those are dedicated turnfighters that can float around and weave through chaotic furballs, which constantly happen in average ARB matches.
Other than zeros, I’m not sure anything fits your description (being able to sit in a furball and keep turning and never run out of potential). Yes, not even spitfires - they feel awful while slow and until the 5.0+ spits, their engines are too weak to maintain their ideal speeds if you get bogged down (which is why bf109s can counter them reliably by going into a spiral climb. My last match had this come up exactly - turning with unknown plane in G14, realize it’s a spitfire and start pitching up and then I ended up getting position behind it. my aim was horrible (I blame 160 ping), but it was still a victory. Lemme see if I can find it in the replay).
Edit:
This is what I mean by "Not even spitfires qualify." If forced into a climb, they lose all their speed and become sitting ducks. At 00:30 you can see the issues with spitfire at low speed (it couldn't keep turning with bf109 despite being behind me so had to disengage).
Germany by this requirement has no dedicated dogfighting planes.
Britain spits are somewhat close, but lack the endurance to qualify (you need 350km+ or so, you cannot get that back while also turnfighting without altitude).
Russian yaks maybe qualify? But they’re more about rolling and reversing than flat circle turns.
Zeros qualify with their low-speed turns and low-speed acceleration.
Edit cont:
I feel it’s quite prudent to include both “one-circle” fighters (bad/average sustained rate, very good instantaneous turn and very good roll) and energy fighters when discussing dedicated dogfight planes. Most planes fall in that category outside of early/interwar and japanese designs and even japanese props evolve towards more “energy fight” principles.) Especially given props are very fluid in their definitions depending on who they’re fighting.
I do concede that ARB meta kinda makes more complicated dogfights harder to execute due to way too many planes far too close, but that issue affects more than just america.
Did you accidentally use the wrong YouTube link? It takes me to a red panda video instead lol. That said, your Bf 109 G-14 gameplay against advanced Spitfires at 5.0 BR in ASB was taken to a different context about aircraft performance and opponents in different BR brackets.
I do get your point, though, and the tactics you demonstrated against Spitfires could absolutely apply to low-tier matches with early Bf 109s, too. Like I always say, every aircraft (especially BnZ and turnfighters) has strengths and weaknesses we need to exploit at the right moments.
True. However, this Spitfire Mk Vc/trop (almost identical to the Mk Vb/trop) at 3.7 BR in ARB possesses excellent knifefight ability with its tight radius turn, coupled with adequate top speed and fantastic climb rate (yay Merlin 45 ftw). I can outturn low-tier Yaks and outspeed A6M2 Zeros, so this turnfighter is acceptable to me as the requirement for the US.
And I feel it becomes more reliable at lower BRs (bf109F4 vs MkVb) since earlier spitfires have worse power to weight (gap is smaller with WEP, but both planes cook themselves pretty quickly with WEP) and similar handling.
I do concede that with mouse aim, spitfires aren’t as painful to fly at low speeds as with SB controls (in the video, I presume the person i fought lost control hence their crash). Mouse aim would’ve likely also prevented me from being able to react and reverse (I noticed the spit when it was like ~0.6 km behind me. In RB, you could easily land shots from that range).
And I feel XP-50 and american BF109F4 more than satisfy dedicated dogfighter requirements. While the XP-50 could be described as “heavy”, it has very good turn with flaps, roll and low-speed acceleration. Looking at ARB videos of it.
If the XP-50 and the Bf109F4 does not qualify, then germany has no “low tier dedicated dogfighter” either. Nor does Italy. Idk about china/italy/france. Russia has yak-3 at 4.3
(also shout-out to P-51C-10 and P-51 Ia. However, I won’t press the issue with those because IME mustangs fly very weird with mouse aim due to the rudder and are completely different without instructor.)
I found two recent YouTube videos (not mine) that show strengths in Spitfire Mk. Vb models.
Start with this first video, demonstrating a usual furball in an average ARB match:
This might not be the best example since there are plenty of mistakes and luck involved, but it’s the only video I could find demonstrating close-range knife-fighting against Yaks and other turnfighters in tight dogfights. Could an XP-50 or American Bf 109 pull this off? Maybe not in such tight furballs - it depends on pilot’s skill and the battle conditions, as smart enemies avoid furballs entirely. This is exactly where a Spitfire could shine for the US in low-altitude fights.
Here’s another (second) video demonstrating Mk. Vb dogfighting against the Bf 109 F-4 in ARB. Disclaimer: This shows the non-tropicalized Mk Vb (better performance but overheats faster than the Vb/trop with its larger coolant tank). This person demonstrates workable mouse-aim dogfighting against a 109 F-4.
This is under the assumption that the Mk Vb and the 109 F-4 are at an equal altitude. If the 109 has altitude advantage, then the Spitfire will be in a hairy situation unless the 109 pilot makes mistakes; you’d need solid defensive flying and exit strategies.
I feel we have gone into too much detail about the use of tactics in the air battles, so it boils down to the pilots and their decision-making that influenced the outcomes of the dogfights.
Overall, the Spitfire Mk Vb/trop can prove that it is a competitive low-tier turnfighter with the ability to pull off in close-combat knifefights at low to medium altitude, which US aircraft often avoid the low altitude to comfortably stay in their advantageous positions in order to win the air RB matches.
FYI, I saw your properly linked Bf 109 G14 vs Spitfire video now.
MesserSpit (while not yet in-game) immediately came to my mind. It stands out as one of the strongest potential German turnfighter candidates. I haven’t dug into its exact flight characteristics or specifications yet, but I’m confident this hybrid aircraft would absolutely qualify as a dedicated turnfighter.
Italian Spitfire Mk Vb/trop, Re.2001 CN, and C.202EC (subjectively, this one’s more debatable - while it’s typically flown as an energy fighter due to its better energy retention, its armament makes it comparable to low-tier Spitfires. It could qualify as a turnfighter despite its worse turn rate and questionable BR placement).
For China, it’s Chinese A6M2 and Ki-44-II hei - the Ki-44’s turn/roll rates and exceptional climb make it a formidable turnfighter.
For France, French Yak-9T, Yak-3, and P-39Q-25 (subjective) qualify. The P-39Q-25 is technically better as a BnZer, but its low-medium altitude dogfight capability and its turn rate nearly match a dedicated turnfighter, so it’s a 50/50 hybrid to me.
I could have qualified French F6F-5 as a fantastic turnfighter only if it is not stuck at Rank II. Ironically, the British F6F-5 (Rank III) is one of the best premium turnfighters at its BR.
The thing turns? Tho, I guess I do primarily use it as a CAS plane… I should take it with no loadout, to ARB to see. It’s been by my best friend in ground and naval since I got it.
Very few things would make me give up the Hellcat Mk II, as its journey with me through the grind of multiple modes has made it one of my favourite planes in-game.
Indeed, it’s a seriously competitive turnfighter, and you can exploit its turnfighting strength in knife-fight dogfights. Just be smart about picking your targets and watch your energy state. When you know what you’re doing, I can guarantee at least two kills per match if you play aggressively enough.
Mmm, it’s such a reliable and versatile fighter, and it works great in ground and naval battles, too. I’m especially a fan of its torpedo runs in naval matches.
After all the aircraft we lent to Britain, I believe it’s fair the US gets at least one reverse-lend-lease low-tier Spitfire of its own.
…You are aware you don’t have to use airspawn, right? If the only thing stopping you from using the XP-50 is that airspawn, you only need to click on the runway to spawn there. I’ve done that with heavy bombers multiple times for the memes, so I don’t see why you couldn’t with the XP-50.
Which isn’t an issue in air RB where you can only ever take one aircraft to the battle.
And that’s the issue. Premiums only exist to print RP and SL, and that’s the primary reason people buy them. It’s not something that can ONLY be filled in by copy paste. It would be better to replace it all with indigenous aircraft, and while prototypes can do that, so too, and more effectively, can minor modifications, aircraft based off of an ace’s aircraft, one’s based off of notable examples, or just reflective of the aircraft used in a general battle/front/offensive/etc. There are ways to implement indigenous premiums that don’t prevent prototypes from being implemented into the normal tech tree and take the same amount of effort as copy paste.
Yes, and such an aircraft being necessary is radically different from an American Spitfire. I’ve said, repeatedly, that copy paste aircraft which exist in order to fill in gaps are not comparable to copy paste that isn’t needed, such as an American Spitfire.
Thing is, alt history wouldn’t be a massive rework. It would just be adding additional… set ups? To the current system. Hardly a rework.
A. Unlikely. Most is that it would be opportunity cost, but I highly doubt Gaijin is going to care about limiting skins.
B. Like, 200 GE at most IIRC… which is a couple bucks. The only camos with price tags higher are the user made camos, which are all community made.
C. That is the only actual issue, though one that can be solved easily by having those skins change which voices they use. It can also be fixed by just changing the voice files. Not ideal, I know, but it can be done.
You massively over exaggerate the historicalness of War Thunder. While it is, even to a great degree, there are numerous instances where the game goes solidly a-historical. For example, the BR system is based solely off of capability, leading to WW2 rocket craft facing solidly post war jets, and Isreali aircraft fighting against WW2 aircraft -the Sakeen is solidly at 3.3-. RB doesn’t care all that much about historical accuracy either. You can, frequently, see a-historical teams, such as WW2 Japan fighting with WW2 US against WW2 Britain and Israel and so on.
Like, there are foreign vehicles in game that were only ever evaluated by the nation they are in, such as Sweden’s T-80, AHS, Mi-28, Japan’s F-16 and maybe one or two more that slip my mind. While I don’t agree with their implementation, and don’t like that they are in the game at all, those vehicles are incredibly a-historical.
Gaijin’s justification for them is for the purposes of gameplay, as, according to them, those nations don’t have anything else that would fit. While I would hotly disagree with Gaijin on their necessity, that does not change the fact that they will go a-historical if they feel that the game would suffer for it.
Good thing War Thunder isn’t real life and just a game then, isn’t it? America not getting a copy paste aircraft it doesn’t need isn’t going to retroactively alter the timeline of the second world war.
War Thunder also isn’t bound by real world limitations. We aren’t bound to how much factories can produce, or the complicated logistical chains that affect decisions of procurement, as well as the soft factors.
I’m sorry, but I fail to see how not wanting copy paste in the funni plane game somehow means that I am walking over the memory of those who served. I’m not saying that these vehicles are historically insignificant, or that those who flew em were somehow useless. What I am saying is that the historical significance of a vehicle to the nation, and the significance nation to that vehicle, should be beyond simply using it, otherwise you will have a situation where massive parts of tech trees will end up in the trees of other nations.
While I understand that, that applies to literally every single vehicle in the history of ever, and also applies to literally every game with real vehicles. It is in no way specific to War Thunder.
In the context of air rb? lineup doesn’t matter. You just play those vehicles when you want to, with the appropriate skins
Your point? I am well aware Operation Unthinkable, and there are conflicts where you can make the same point that are very much historical. This in no way solves the issues of copy paste or assuages any of it’s issues. It’s adding things simply because they can be added with no consideration made to what such implementations would have on the game as a whole.
Welp, thanks for your thoughts, it proves how misformed you are on about WT, and how much you think your ego is how WT should be.
Because according to “anti-C&Pers” WT has only two modes, air RB and air SIM that works like ARB. News flash, it doesn’t heck, neither of those are WT’s most popular modes. Air Arcade is a line-up mode. WT is and will always be a line-up-based game. You LARP with line-ups, and you can’t do that if a vehicle isn’t in the same tree.
“C&P Problem,” you mean a problem you guys made up. If something that has existed from day one of a game is a problem, then you’re clearly playing the wrong game. The only problem is that Gaijin likes to add them first before domestic equivalents, but with them there, the foreign vehicles add options for the line-ups at that point…
Also, here’s a tip: Every comment made on a suggestion is more likely to get it passed to the devs. So, thanks for your guys support.
Well, I change my +1, the US Spitfires still have my full support, with having history among them. Well, I’d like lend-lease and other stuff like it still, not as part of a trade anymore, I’d like the US to just straight up get all it’s Spitfires it used.
