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.
2 Likes
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.
3 Likes
- No room in the current big nations for subtrees. (unless folders or tabs are used)
- Placing a subtree diminishes the potential of the Host tree
There are at least 16 nations that I can think of or have been mentioned here that would be great additions in the game, not as a singular vehicle, but at least as a group of 60 or 100 unique vehicles. Notable examples for ‘combination trees’ that would be almost filled out at launch, but could still be xapanded by gaijin include ANZAC, BeNeLux, Switserland with austria, Middle East tech tree, a yugoslav or Poland-Czechslovak (maybe Ukraine with them), etc. We are talking here about at least 500 Unique vehicles alone, noth withstanding modifications of imported or leased equipment. (Which, depending on who you ask, can be counted as Copy-paste or unique)
-
War Thunder prizes itself on the gigantic amount of playable vehicles in mixed combat
-
‘Minor’ nations still have a playerbase that’s between 1/3rd or 1/10th of the active playerbase of the US or USSR.
-
Sweden is currently the 4th most played nation since 2021.
-
Playerbase is extremely gamemode specific: in GAB we see the most variation of nations, while in ARB it’s US versus USSR: with the third most played nation being played almost 15 times less! (and sim is even sadder, but the playerbase is too small to make a viable estimation with the open source tools and data I can use, though from what I can see it reflects ARB a lot.)
-
While some nations might be less popular, they have ALL been able to get a stable playerbase. Gaijin has definitely been able to make a profit from adding them, even looking at the amount of premiums of the ‘minor’ nations have been played the last month.
-
More nations give more choice for newer players to start the game
-
While playing one nation can be almost the limit for most players, stifling growth for other nations, in fear of having you nation’s growth be lessened is very selfish. (I’m looking at the US and USSR mains here)
-
Having a wider spread of nations makes the game more unpredictable and thus more fun. (historical matchmaking has now been a thing long of the past, unless you play SIM)
-
More nations will mean Gaijin will help them to stay relevant.
Tl;DR: Minor nations aren’t really minor, they have a stable playerbase that still creates revenue after the investement into them. Having more of them would not be bad for the game.
6 Likes
Of course. I just find it a little silly to frame it as if Gaijin is a vampire that requires permission before stepping over the threshold. If they want to do it, they’ll do it. First will come the intention, and then the “how”.
I will take the cold hard evidence we have. From what the Devs have told us(I’ve linked a few times.) To how all the sub-trees follow the same pattern.
I will never take an anti-new nation stance as we have too many nations with 100+ vehicles that can still come. Locking a nation to a sub-tree means you get at most 10 of those vehicles.
And think of all the money that could be made by adding trees. Selling to nations often ignored nations in video games is and nice way to make lots of money fast.
Also the only “Major” and “Minor” in War Thunder are what the match maker checks for first then fills all holes with minor nations and that is why it seems no one plays them. Or that’s how I observed things.
4 Likes
Oh for those who say make it scrollable here is Dev’s comment on that:
2 Likes
I would like to add to this: ‘minor’ nations are far more likely to spend money on the game. It is a good direct/immediate cash flow into Gaijins pockets.
4 Likes
My stance is not “anti-new nation”, it’s “anti-new independent tree”. I know it sounds like a minor distinction, but it really isn’t.
Vehicles that are difficult to implement notwithstanding, I think in principle it’s a good thing for War Thunder to include all AFVs or at least most AFVs in military history. By extension, that obviously means that the nations who made them will also be in the game.
Where I disagree is on the “organising principle” of it all. I think nations-as-trees are a leftover from when WT was still in its infancy. I think the fact that most trees have some element of multinationality at this point is evidence that that transformation is already occurring; and that the future is to make tech trees be a “superfolder” above nations, if that makes sense.
I’d love to see South Korea to be added to the game, but I personally think they shouldn’t have their own full tech tree.
United Korea :D
3 Likes
i would like to present a compromise. a solution dare i say.
feel free to add new tech trees for ‘minor nations’
BUT
implement a system, that the vehicles in the minor tree that are operationally no different from pre-existing vehicles in other tech trees, need to be researched the normal way to unlock the research rights to this minor tree, within which, there will only be unique vehicles.
the problem with this that arises is lineups.
a solution to that is.
that we allow these ‘minor trees’ to be something like hybrid trees. they will be able to place the vehicles that they actually had in service or similar, into their lineups from the other pre-existing trees in game.
this way, we can have players who have, for example:
already have researched the M48 series of tanks in USA TT. they will have the option to utilise their research points into a minor tree that had M48s and research up from there.
they will also be able to bring their US M48s into their minor tree lineups but under the minor trees flag.
granted, this will take some possibly heavy rework and code, but if warthunder wants to be a game that lasts for at least ten more years…
i think this will be a necessary step we have to take.
Might a discount on the research (modifications and the vehicle itself) be enough? (like I have an USA M41A1 in the US tech tree, but I’d like to get the one in a future BeNeLux tech tree, that has a modied M41A1 with better sights and night vision). Or I have the IS-2 in the USSR tree and I want the same IS-2 in the Chinese tree: I’d only have to research maybe 50% to get the export variant?
2 Likes
yes that could also work! but in this case full implementation of ‘minor’ nations will be needed if we exclude the hybrid nations comcept
2 Likes
That’s the point, it would enable minor nations to have politically and historically correct enough lineups instead of a Hungarian and Italian tank in one lineup like we see in game.
1 Like
I don’t understand the hate behind new nations in game. If a country has a good amount of vehicles and most of them are unique then I don’t see why they shouldn’t be in game. Besides there are countries that you can’t just turn into a mere sub tree. There are nations that you can’t just put in a another country.
5 Likes
Imo South Korea doesn’t fit as a sub tree as they have been an military powerhouse since the 1970-80s, developing and creating a lot of new aircraft, vehicles, ships and weapons.
Of course South Korean alone might barely make it but an United Korean Tree will possess more vehicles then some minor tech trees in-game then it definitely deserves to be it’s own tree.
1 Like
Eh, not so much on the aviation side of things. It’s really the ground portion that’s of interest
The Air Tree would be underwhelming for Players that are primarily interested in aviation as the majority of the aircraft in the United Korean Tree are foreign aircraft.
However most of these foreign aircraft have undergone extensive modifications to increase their effectiveness some prime examples are the KF-5E or MiG-15/17/19 but i agree that United Korean Tree is mainly looked at for their Ground Tree.
1 Like
Much the same case for Israel.
Many modified aircraft but not to very interesting extent.
1 Like
oh no, its closer to 95%, anyway, my point on benelux being israel 2.0 but somehow worse still stands