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.
It’s either in the files or may only be in the “reliable leaks”, but honestly I’ve lost track at this point. It’s not far off a sure thing, at least.
I hate the bias from the lead developer, who openly favours Sweden due to his personal preference (acknowledged by his enjoyment of playing Sweden).
Sweden receives literally everything such as the Gripen, eventually the MiG-29 too, Leopard 2A6, and the Strv122 (better leopard).
Sweden is essentially a better Germany in the game.
1 Like
I figure, as we have seen the German Sherman’s, might as well give all nations their captured vehicles, as for purchased vehicles, all goes.
It’s a no from me.
The Swedish having a lower BR T-80U and the Mi-28A ftom just trialling the vehicle’s is bad enough, more C+P isn’t needed.
2 Likes
if the vehicle was it into combat service then maybe. the swedish tiger was operationally a target.
3 Likes
Yeah that’s my stance also.
I understand why the Finnish tree looks like it does, I understand that things like T-72’s and Leo 1’s are gonna be everywhere because they got everywhere in active service.
But giving other trees the pinnacle vehicles of their respective BR’s (Tiger 2, T-80U etc) is a no thank you.
Vehicles with unique modifications should be prioritised to reduce overall C+P feel (think Finnish T-55M or T-72M2 Moderna).
2 Likes
Generally against copy/paste. If a vehicle was in two different trees at most, i feel like that would be okay. The Tiger also gives Sweden some nice heavy armor and buffs a somewhat empty BR. As long as we don’t get MORE Tigers, im happy with this addition.
Can’t wait for the US to get every single USSR fighter jet ever made then!
2 Likes
be cause they need it, lots of copy paste are justified be cause these nations got nothing else to put. same thing goes for sweden if there was anything besides the Tiger 2 that can be added in the 6.7 lineup and is actually good then do it, I know there is its the Kranvagn and to be honest I’d prefer the Kranvagn more but it doesn’t seem like its gonna drop this update based on the leaks, mostly gonna be the tiger 2.
1 Like
“sweden recieves literally everything such as the gripen” maybe be cause they made it? and others are in the service ? the Mig29 isn’t coming the finnish didn’t get it in time and No it won’t be added just be cause it was tested or something as it is not needed, other vehicles that got added be cause they were tested were actually needed at that point. the mig29 isn’t as sweden got gripen A,C,E and F/A-18 hornet in the future C and D, with the addition of the F35.
1 Like
In my opinion it should
Bro i was born the same year as the 39C started production. It is by far thr most modern and well equipped (irl) aircraft in game.
And yes i was ranting about developer bias.
No point arguing abt that even you must know abt it by now.
yes but dev bias is not for sweden. if it was we would’ve got the JAS39C for sweden instead of other nations.