There is an option which can avoid that, and that’s combined trees. Sure, Yugoslavia, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Ukraine don’t have enough indigenous vehicles each to create tech trees. But between them, they do, far closer to Sweden than to Israel or low/mid tier China.
It’s important to point out that there is still a great deal of untapped potential from nations not currently in game, and I would really hate to see these vehicles locked away behind limited time events as we’ve seen recently. WT needs a constant stream of vehicles to add to live, it makes no sense for Gaijin to hard limit themselves to only the nations in game. As long as we persuade them to avoid more low effort trees like Israel, it could work.
Sure, you could put Yugoslavia, Poland Czechoslovakia, and Ukraine together in one tree if you wanted, but the point of a tree is for the main tech tree portion of it to be a collection of vehicles from nations that are more related to each other than having close-ish relations and being in geographically the same general region.
These vehicles should not be locked beuind events, I agree with that, but as I suggested in this post, subtrees. Finland, South Africa, and Hungary are great ways of doing this. Through subtreesm, they can add only the unique stuff from each country without having to do a bunch of extra copy-paste and those unique vehicles work to bolster existing lineups and fill a lot of holes in the tree.
It’s very simple. Gaijin is running out of possible vehicles able to be added to the game. The most effective way to offset this is to add a new nation which comes with the benefit of CTRL C + CTRL V already implemented vehicles. Least effort / max profit. They do not care what it does to the game. Some people like fighting F-16 in their F-16.
IMO game was better when we only had 5 nations and historical matchmaking.
Gaijin has to add new content for the game to grow, and you can only add so many subtrees to a nation before it gets extremely bloated and even more painful to grind through.
New minor nations won’t be as good as the big 3 that’s for sure, but there’s a huge amount of new content in them for Gaijin to make profit out of, and saying people won’t play them is just a guess.
So where would these nations go then? Ukraine in particular is a rather big issue, as the previously obvious answer is now solidly off the table for fairly apparent reasons.
The others aren’t much better. Do we give them all to Russia? Russia doesn’t need them, they have vehicles that’ll perform very similarly to the modifications made, which makes them less distinct, and there’s the obvious political issues of having more modern Western equipment that those nations use. Give Russia a Leo 2PL, see how well that goes down with the community.
No other nation has any distinct connection with most of these potential additions, and those that do are invariably either the US and the Soviets, two trees that absolutely do not need more variety. There’s also the previously posted issue of:
Now, I don’t buy this as a hard limit forever. I refuse to believe that a UI issue is so hard coded that it could not possibly be fixed. But it does seem as though Gaijin aren’t willing to add more than 5 lines to any one nation, regardless of the reason.
I tried to be fact-based in my other post but here is my opinion post.
The options are to either blot the tree with unneeded vehicles(and you know Gaijin will make the grind as hard as possible) or add new trees(with about the same level of grind other trees have now) I rather the new trees.
Also, War Thunder is perfectly set up for underrated nations in military games to get that. And with them also repenting everything a nation used with the more than a handful of C&P updates we have had now.
2024 should not be the last year for new nations unless they want to see the game die. with the small contact with the devs, that got the info from early learned I’ll take their word.
Like, the are more than three “Minor” (note I hate the word as it’s used to erase nations that were key to victory) nations that I would play than any other in the game right now. Like, after I’m done with my current grind I might just stop after all collect all the vehicles from the nation I want. unless they get a tree.
What about BeNeLux? They have lots of unique vehicles - for ground, air, helicopter and naval.
And most vehicles aren’t even added to the proposed TT.
If needed, they could get indonesia, congo and suriname as a sub-TT.
In my opinion there are a few indepent trees left to add.
BeNeLux, ASEAN, Swiss and Combined middle east TT (arab-iranian-afghan-iraqian).
I’m very much with you - and TEC has plenty of good videos on this - we shouldn’t see any more independent tech trees in the game. For the reasons you listed, but there are even more.
However… I wouldn’t be so sure about your interpretation of Gaijin’s article. Playable nations does not necessarily mean independent tech trees. If Italy is any indication, their focus is very much on sub-trees now, and I’m expecting to see that be the theme of many future updates.
I think it’s time we moved beyond “national” tech trees, but given the way War Thunder tends to do these things, it will be a slow, gradual process. Not a grand, sweeping change.
I mean, “Italy” is already almost a misnomer for that tree at this point.
Every bit of data suggests very few people play minor nations, so that’s not just a guess… also just playing the game you’ll see a lack of minor nation vehicles, so it’s hardly just a guess.
Of course a big part of this is Gaijin poorly managing minor nations and still relying on their garbage formulas to determine BRs, which everyone understands doesn’t work well when applied to small playerbases… an issue that was evident over a decade ago, and whilst I’d the first to state the obvious incompetence from Gaijin, this is just malice to ignore it for this long.
So when you’re faced with picking a nation, do you pick the major nations with lots of choices and balanced BRs, or do you pick a minor nation with lots of BR gaps, again due to Gaijin’s poor decision making, overtiered vehicles also due to Gaijin’s poor decision making and making your life a lot more difficult than it has to be?
The game is bloated to all hell, who in the hell is going to be playing 10 nations in air and ground, 20 tree, even with a premium vehicle that requires $1400 worth and you’d still be ODL every game.
We have over 200 million RP in the game now but Gaijin refuses to even give us nation skill bonuses despite our RP gain being the same as in 2014.
M48A1 - Copy n Paste
M48A2C - (lCopy n Paste
M48A3K - Upgraded engine and 90mm able to shoot K241 APDSFS
M48A5K1 - Able to shoot the K270 and K273
M48A5K2 - similar to the K1 but lower profile cupola (no shot trap)
M48A5KW - premium version of the M48A5KW.
Honestly, you could just recreate the Little Entente and add Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia to France… Romania could go there as well, were it not already slated for Italy. :D
Given their close relations historically, and the French need for more vehicles, Poland and France is also something I wouldn’t object to. It’s certainly less explosive than the alternatives.
Every time I see a “game die” quote, my brain dies.
War Thunder has more players than it ever has had. The minor tech trees in question are problematic precisely because almost nobody plays them. So this claim is baseless.
Let’s leave the melodrama aside and look at the issue for what it is. No need for emotional appeals.
The Big Three are still the centre around which Gaijin makes almost all of their decisions about the game, and they retain an overwhelmingly vast majority of players.
There’s no point adding a new tree that people won’t play. Flesh out those that already exist.
I’m pretty confident Gaijin’s strategy in this regard is to go with sub-trees where feasible, and scattered event vehicles/battle pass vehicles/premiums for nations that have a small number of vehicles, which I agree sucks: the first Lithuanian vehicle to come to the game is an event vehicle for example.
But if you look at it from Gaijin’s perspective, you can see why they do it like that.
Question? How many trees can take a sub-tree? Oh 3 that’s right. Our other option is to be 1DL. without receiving a tree.
Don’t take my word take the devs.
Once I have the last vehicle from the nation the intree me that it I’m done. guess what that is one out of 20 that could get a tree. and not be screwed over by the sub-trees adding nothing but its C&P(What the last two sub-trees where work at least 50% of it.)
I know at least 50 people I could get to play by adding a tree.
In my experience, people who ask for the status quo for the screwed-over nations that could have a tree are from places that 99% of the time are in video games like this. AKA Yanks.
Gaijin said 10 playable nations when ten nations and two sub-trees already existed.
This means it was in reference to the independent trees, otherwise they would’ve said 12 playable nations at the time of the article’s release.
There is a false assumption in what you’re saying - that each sub tree would have to exist as an individual line in the tech tree.
If Gaijin wanted to add more sub trees to a nation, do you really think they would go, “oh, but we only have five lines! We are foiled forever and there is no recourse for us”? They would simply sprinkle the sub tree vehicles across the existing lines and/or increase foldering. Simple as.
Different people play WT for different reasons. For example, how many trees are in WT has little impact on the length of my stay in the game.
Good to know.
I’m Italian, so there’s that.
Personally, I don’t think even Italy should have been its own tree, so you can make of that what you will.
Besides… I find this patriotism applied to WT really bizarre. My life as a citizen of the republic of Italy is not any different because Italy is an independent tech tree as opposed to a sub tree. I don’t doubt that it matters to other people, but you shouldn’t assume that we all care.
The point is imho that too much is being read into this statement. Gaijin is not oath-bound to adhere to a literal interpretation of everything they’ve ever said and written.
You’re right, technically they could have said more than 12 even, because of all the individual vehicles from various countries which technically make that nation playable, but even that is not really the point. What actually matters is the part that is not said out loud. Does the statement mean,
“We have 10 playable nations and we have no intention of stopping there! We’re currently working on an 11th tree!”
Or does it mean,
“We have 10 playable nations and we have no intention of stopping there! From now on we’ll stick to sub trees only though.”
There’s no way for us to answer this question, so best to take it with a grain of salt. Companies always leave themselves an out.
Least popular does not mean unpopular.
Italy has seen a good rise in popularity in great part because of the support it had received over the years.
This applies to the ground tree in particular, because the air tree could still use quite a bit of work.
As things stand now, Italy has a good spread of BRs at all ranks and can thus make several fun lineups that are worth playing. The Hungarian sub-tree was a great help in this too.
This is a process that is and will continue to occur for all current and future nations too, and in time trees will generate enough interest to be worth it.
Even still, we have seen that nations such as China were already widely popular on release because it got inhabited by the Chinese playerbase that was happy to see their country in the game. I can definitely imagine much the same scenario for some other nations too.
Besides, you are comparing what was an underdeveloped nation at launch to those that were already very well established. Of course the playerbase will be smaller until the tree gets expanded on.
Clearly you haven’t /s
I find that there is very little explanation as to why Sweden was the last nation worth adding.
I get the explanation you gave before the quoted citation, but there are several nations (including the mentioned Yugoslavia) that fulfill such criteria too.
Sure, in certain areas it may be more or less unique than others, but so what? To use the nations that was mentioned for this example I could list most of low tier and several mid-high rank vehicles that could be gems in their own right.
Perhaps you have more to say on this?
While I get what you are saying, I find it a bit strange case as you praised what China turned into beforehand.
I agree what you are saying in the fact that it wasn’t the ideal nation to pick after Sweden’s addition, but I do also think it has a good future ahead of it, particularly in the ground tree. You already mentioned a few possibilities, but there is quite a bit more that hasn’t been touched on that would most definitely qualify as unique and interesting additions.
To come back to why I mentioned China just now: I agree that it is a fine tree currently, but I don’t see how Israel is worse to such a great deal. China for example only gets truly unique in the jet age. Yes, they have a few props one could class as unique, but those are still foreign exports that haven’t been modified locally, so they are on shaky ground.
The ground side of things in China is a bit better, but still not great. Unlike in Israel, in China one would have to grind up to a high rank until things get truly interesting but get heavily rewarded for doing so. The ranks you have to go through to get to said point is still absolutely dominated by copy paste to a degree that no new nation could likely even achieve in the first place.
To compare this to the nation we seemingly both like to mention: Yugoslavia.
In the suggested trees on this forum the nation does have some copy paste, but not nearly to the Chinese extent and is a way more mixed case where both unique things and copy paste are spread throughout the tree.
For the suggested Yugoslav air tree the only troublesome place regarding this is top tier, but that means you did get an entire quite unique tree before getting to said point, which I find makes it worth it.
On the ground side of things I’d say the initial two ranks are the “evildoers”, but those could get grinded by in no-time. And yes, I would say that those lower rank additions would be worth it because they would enable Yugoslavia to get their very largely unique low tier aviation.
I agree on this point pretty much in it’s entirety and I find that we must not forget these options for future nations to come.
To come back to Yugoslavia again: it is a largely unique proposal with a few issues concentrated in certain areas. A (for example) Romanian sub-tree for them could alleviate the copy paste “issues” found in the Yugo tree.
I’d say that new trees are very much worth it and will only help the game in staying afloat.
I may be mistaken, but I’m pretty sure Romania was confirmed by Gaijin as slated for Italy, alongside Hungary and other Axis minors. So Romania wouldn’t be an option for it in that case.
It was only an example of course, but I think that we can’t assume Romania to be added as an Italian sub-tree with how things are now.
Yes, Gaijin did make that statement, but we all know how much their plans change.
For every time Gaijin broke a promise they also haven’t delivered on another.
The main issue regarding this idea is that we can’t assume it to be the truth anymore. We have yet to see a tree with two sub-trees attached and thus I find we cannot assume Romania to walk the mentioned path.
I did read your point about sub-trees not having to be a line, but we also haven’t seen this other potential style of sub-tree being implemented in the game, so I don’t like to make such assumptions either.
TL;DR: we must work with the examples that we have and can’t assume how new features would function. Yes, this isn’t exactly a feature, but you understand what I meant.