That’s a weird way to say ‘I want all the dutch unique vehicles in the German tech tree’. Don’t make numbers up which can be easily refuted.
4 Likes
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.
5 Likes
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