The German and Finish T-72M1s very clearly share the same model, with some boxes tweaked so the tanks look different.
Capturing in a battle, as the Jpanther, Jtiger, and Maus where, or how Sweden bought their Tiger II p from the French government.
Finnish sub-tree very much counts, because it’s an integral and large part of the tree.
The more options in each tree, the better. The faster access every player has to a wider variation of vehicles, the better.
People are free to not play vehicles that don’t interest them, we have literally thousands to choose from, after all.
1 Like
So what justifies adding the Tiger 2 to Sweden?
1 Like
Finland is an acceptable example of copy-paste. Copy-paste isn’t inherently bad, useless copy-paste is bad. The Finnish subtree is an example of good copy-paste because it allows Sweden to build actual proper lineups.
4 Likes
It was bought from a foreign government, not captured in war, and I could care less if the others got those, as they captured them.
2 Likes
So you think Sweden should or should not get this Tiger 2?
I think UK should get a T80U
1 Like
Should
1 Like
Why should they?
Same reason they have the T80U
Assuming you are trying to join the discussion I’m going with, I shall respond. The T-80 UK was trialed for service by Sweden as a replacement vehicle. The Tiger 2 was not, it was aquired for weapons damage testing. Completely seperate reasons. It would make sense to add it if the Tiger 2 was being trialed for performance, but it was not. They wanted it to test weapon effects on heavy armor.
It doesn’t make any sense to add because of the reasoning that they had it. Unlike some of the single protoype vehicles that have been added, this tank was never going to be used as anything more than a target. Other vehicles they have added provided research and development to a nations AFV programs, but not to be simply destroyed because it was heavily armored. It would make more sense to add the Jagdtiger to the US tree because they actually captured one. Captured vehicle variants are in the game and make sense because they could have been used for combat.
If you want to justify that the technicaly owned a Tiger 2, which is correct, as the justification, then there are many, many more vehicles that would need to be added under that same justification. One great example is the Prinz Eugen cruiser, it would need to be in both the German tree and US tree because the US took ownership of it after the war. Same with Britain and Tiger 131. The logic needs to make sense for the vehicle (the Tiger 2 in this case) but also not apply to multitudes of other vehicles that would cause unusual spots within the tech trees.
Because they purchased the tank
1 Like
No one cares dude, if you want it added make a proper suggestion with a proper template.
Simple as is.
Making a discussion is not gonna add it especially if you’re spamming it.
Because they purchased it, ok. So does this logic apply to only purchased vehicles or does it also apply to vehicles taken as trophies or were captured? The intention for the purchase, I’m assuming, is irellevant? What does this mean for the British and the Panther since they actually finished producing them? Where does the line need to be drawn to make nations have some sort of uniqueness?
Intention, like doctrine, is always irrelevant to War Thunder. This is just a collection of vehicles in a big sandbox, to play around with as the players see fit.
“Sweden had a Tiger II”
This assumes the premise, one which clearly not all agree with. Where you see nations “being less unique to each other”, I see a higher degree of diversity within any given tree. Two sides of the same coin.
Ok then, add the Jagdtiger to US, Tiger 1 to Britain, Panther to Britian, Jadgpanther to Britain, Prinz Eugen to US, Maus to Russia, T-72 to US, T-72 to Britian. Probably a Leopard or something for Russia at this point.
Don’t misunderstand, I’m not against the vehicles being added as much as it is the logic being consistent. If mere ownership is enough, lets do this. Prove that a nation at one time had possession of a vehicle and you can have a chance for it being added? My first vandetta would be the USS Prinz Eugen for days. I think it would make some games weird, sort of like the 4.0-60 portion of props where every nation has almost every other planes. It would just bother me if people said “Sweden should get the Tiger 2 because they had one, but Britain can’t have the Tiger 1 even though they had one.”
2 Likes
Sure. This isn’t a “gotcha”, as I have no inherent opposition to that.
That being said, whether these sorts of additions happen mostly comes down to whether they’re “interesting”/“different” for those trees, and if they fill a “hole”/etc that’s otherwise there. We could certainly see USS Prinz Eugen added, but while she would make for an interesting novelty event vehicle, seeing as the Americans certainly aren’t hurting for present or to-be-added ships of similar role/capability in that BR range, it’s probably not especially likely. Or at least, less likely than something like Sweden’s Tiger II.
The Tiger II checks a lot of interesting/unique gameplay/BR/etc boxes in the context of the Swedish tree, which is why it’s something we’re seeing added. It doesn’t “open the door” for the kinds of examples you’re giving, as that door as always been open.
1 Like
It is actually being added? I thought this was a theoretical kind of thing, not an already in the works kind of thing.
Well, I somehow misread this whole post. I wouldn’t have went on about this logic shit like I did. Sorry bout that @Zyranovos and @Mytho-GR1, apparently I can’t read right.