Those I said that I liked.
They’re original. Even if they use the vickers suspension like many other tanks, they fit well with wartime italian tanks that also exclusively use that kind of suspension. They also in my book don’t qualify as copy pastes since they look completely different even from tanks that use the same kind of suspension. Good call of adding them to Italy.
And there you have it, my trap is sprung, for little did you know that the Turan series is a direct development if the Czechoslovak T-21 rather than being a full domestic project.
According to your previous logic this should he classified as copy paste. After all, it “just has new armor” and “just has new armament” right?
Once more your ignorance and lack of research is proven.
You don’t fail to amaze.
2 Likes
To clear up any misconception on Yugoslav vehicles, the M-84 are quite literally T-72M clones, M-84A being a T-72M1 analogue. For example, I have a yugo manual that doubles up as a M-84 and T-72 manual because of how similar they are. Though, the M-84 had an up-rated engine up to 840 hp and on the M-84A was up-rated to 1000 hp. The most notable thing about the M-84s are the FCS, DNNS-2 which is a licensed modified Bofors FCS. It being digital and dual channel (day sight and night sight on one unit). They are interesting but a important part of it isnt a feature that can be modeled in WT currently.
The M-91 Vihor is quite different than what people give it credit for. Has modified stronger armor, for example, the angle of the upper front plate is steeper at like 73 degrees versus 67 degrees iirc. The engine is uprated to 1200 hp which is interesting enough, but it also had hydromechanical transmission, or at least it tested out one that was able to give mobility similar to western vehicles. There are also a bunch of other little neat things.
One minor correction: the Vihor never had a formal designation like M-90 or M-91. It’s a very common misconception that I was guilty of until recently.
I mention the suspension and I’m the ignorant? I knew about it. I literally said “many tanks in the game use it”. And there’s no T-21 in the game. The only similar czech thing you have is the Pz 35 in the german tree which looks nothing alike beside the suspension.
Okay, let’s go through this one by one.
First of all, I’m not sure what “data” you have, but one of the forum moderators on the old forums explicitly said that Italy was no longer the least played nation because Israel is less played.
Second, you are entirely misrepresenting my point. I don’t want minor nations to be removed. I think all minor nations should get as much stuff as they can. I even said that in the Hopes for 2024 section of my 2023 in review thread.
My issue is not current ones. I want current nations to get bolstered as much as they can. I know Israel could have a massive ground tree. Here is a tree I made showing what it would be like:
Israel should get all of the unique things it can. It could be a super unique tree. But what we have is mostly some combination of copy-paste and mild modifications. Included in that is Israel’s 15 M48s/M60s. I know Israel has real life unique content. But there’s also an issue here. Trees are more than just ground. The ground tree could be really strong. But the helicopter tree has 4 more helicopters left to go before none more exist to add, the bluewater fleet tree is exactly 3 destroyers, the coastal fleet tree is actually pretty good, and the air tree has always and will always be lacking because the needed stuff doesn’t exist.
As for your example of the ZSU-57-2, I’m not claiming it’s the same as the WZ305. It is the same as the Finnish, Soviet, and Hungarian ZSU-57-2s though. I am not trying to say that Israel should be removed or anything like that. I play Israel a lot. But I am using it as an example of exactly the types of problems that come with more minor nation trees.
I haven’t been able to update it yet, but I will write based on the updated version.
Total: 80
Unique: 32
— An independently developed aircraft or one in which several improvements have been made to the aircraft itself, excluding armament, resulting in significant differences from the original.
Slightly Modified: 30
— Cases where a unique Suspended Armament was operated or the aircraft’s own Offensive Armament was replaced.
C&P: 18
— Cases that do not use unique weapons and have few differences from the original.
There is a lot of talk about Switzerland being a sub TT under Germany’s TT, but Switzerland’s connection with the French aviation industry has always been much greater than that with Germany.
On one hand a lot of “several improvements” sort of stuff isn’t really unique. Upgrading the FCS and engine isn’t that amazing, especially if the original nation had similar upgrades.
On the other hand some suspended armament isn’t really “slightly modified”. Guided ordinance in particular can totally change the role of the vehicle, IRL and in game.
I’d add a major modifications grouping for those two categories.
Even so I don’t think its the best mindset. The focus when Gaijin is making a new tree shouldn’t be sheer numbers. It should be about a tree having enough indigenous bones to care about before looking at the rest. Modifications can trivially be added to an existing tree if they’re really interesting. But the Tejas or the Pucara are the sort of thing you can hang a tree around.
Since we know they want to do more trees those are the sorts of vehicles I’d be looking for in a proposal. Unique things that don’t have a real home elsewhere that might make someone grind out their 5th Sabre or MiG-21.
This is not a terrible air tree. Not sure why it’s called the Alpine tree when it really is just a Swiss tree with an Austrian line, but it’s not a terrible tree. Switzerland also has a pretty decent ground tree. The issue is naval. A nation needs to have some form of air, ground, and naval. Switzerland and Austria both have practically no navy.
Also I do think Switzerland should go to France.
Then WTF is Chinese, Swedish and Israeli TT?
But still a better way to emsure all unique vehicles fo get added not as one off gimmicks but as workable lineups
Benelux.
I most support this approach.
2 Likes
Actually, SA ground vehicles in the UK are now in two of the five lines.
reported for trolling
Israel’s issue is not fundamental. It is created by Gaijin’s lack of consistent content.
The issue you should be looking at is how Gaijin gives more content to the lines that bring money and less to the ones that don’t. This creates an endless loop of decreasing content for nations other than the big 3.
I do not speak for Israel’s aircraft tree, but when it comes to helicopters, there are plenty which can be added to the game. Even if that number is under 10, it’s still acceptable compared to other nations like Sweden. You don’t need a large helicopter tree to have a good helicopter line.
Israel doesn’t need a naval line. It shouldn’t be a requirement. Not enough people play Naval to justify that.
I have said in the past that I don’t think we need more nations at this moment, but I still believe Israel was a good addition with great potential if given the right content. It brings something different than every other line to the table, which is good enough.
Sure, maybe the M48 or M60 isn’t an Israeli made tank, but the Gal Batash, despite being bad, is still a completely different beast compared to the AOS. Even a modification as simple as the Sho’t at 7.7 is enough to change how you play.
To wrap this up, I want content other than Magachs. I’ve made a list previously, and I will share it here.
Achzarit IFV, Eitan IFV, Namer IFV, M113 60mm HVMS, AMX-13 60mm HVMS, Pereh, Jeep TOW, Tiran 5, Tiran 5Sh, Tiran 6, Ti-67, Chieftain Mk.1, Shot Kal Bet, Sholef, Sabrah, Carmel, Sho’t Meteor, Merkava Mk.4 Barak, Merkava Mk.3D (Early), Merkava Mk.3D (Late), Merkava Mk.2C, XR-311 (106mm Recoilless Rifle), XR-311 (Hughes TOW ATGM system), M-60 Sherman, M-50 Sherman.
1 Like
do i care?
i was kidding!
how dARE YOU
Changes nothing comrade, you lose
1 Like