I get the idea and I understand your concerns, I just don’t think it applies to certain nations.
Like realistically, where would a nation like Yugoslavia or Poland go?
2 Likes
I’d be surprised if that were the case, he’d look at America producing Shermans and call them copy paste xd
1 Like
“look we designed and built a T-72 locally”
Where would Yugoslavia or Poland go? Truthfully, I don’t have an answer to that. I don’t know. But I think them being a subtree is better than an independent one.
Vihor isn’t based on the T-72 just as ZTZ-99 isn’t.
Get over it.
1 Like
Of course it has. They have lots of stuff to offer.
Understandable, I am a fan of subtrees too. But when there is a T-55 with a British 105mm cannon, Israeli ERA and overhauled FCS, is there any country it can truly belong to?
Why stuff Yugoslavia into a country when it historically flip-flopped between every side? Why subject the M-55S to be a USSR player’s fourth MBT option when they’re out of vehicles, and not match it with a domestic IFV, a domestic TD, a domestic SPAA and a domestic attacker jet, all designed and built from scratch in Yugoslavia?
4 Likes
I agree that Yugoslavia does not fit well in the USSR. I don’t like Yugoslavia in the USSR. I do think it is the most appropriate option though because the independent tree has too much copy-paste to be a worthwhile tree. I don’t think it going to the USSR is a good option, I think it’s the least bad option.
For Poland the most logical on a surface level would be USSR, due to their vehicles historically being Soviet derived or in similar doctrine, but USSR doesn’t need any sub-tree at all. Same goes for the German idea.
Yugoslavia is a similar case but they would in a fair part also thematically break USSR alongside the Soviets not needing them.
Italy? Much the same story, plus they already have a sub-tree.
Of course, I don’t wish to pressure you into answering, but I hope you understand my concerns.
This, combined with the sheer volume of vehicles these nations could provide, would in my opinion form some fine independent trees.
I do wonder, are there any current trees you’d remove from the game or that you wished simply never got added? Where would you put them if anywhere?
3 Likes
I understand. I think every minor nation needs a subtree before any major nation gets one. China gets North Korea, Japan gets Thailand and/or Indonesia, Israel gets Chile, and France can get Switzerland. Then we can have subtrees for major nations.
As for trees I wish were never added, Israel. Israel is a bad tree. It could have a huge ground tree that would be very full, but it would always have a terrible air tree and a nonexistant bluewater fleet, even if its coastal fleet is pretty good. I don’t think it should be removed, I think it should be made the best it can be, but I don’t support any more additions like it.
Here is what Israel would look like with Chine because Israel kept Chile’s military afloat for 40 years.
1 Like
Oh, I see. Now it is based on T-72.
Stop talking about ignorance… you’re the biggest one here.
Here’s a fun homework. Name a single Vihor component used in the T-72 other than the gun.
Is the gun proof enough of copypaste? Then remove the Leopards, M1 Abrams, Type 74, Chinese T-55s as copypaste.
Is it just "the shape vaguely reminds me of a Soviet tank and I don’t like them? Then remove every T-series tank after the first T-64.
Hull? Built from scratch in Yugoslavia with 15% higher thickness.
Turret? Designed from scratch.
Engine? Yugoslav-made, in fact stronger than any engine fitted to the T-72/T-90s in Russia.
Transmission? Again, new.
ERA? Yugoslav-designed and produced.
Optics? Guess what.
It amazes me the lengths people will go to, to detract Gaijin from adding a popular tree no one is forcing them to grind.
5 Likes
Aye, that’s fair.
I di disagree on the DPRK choice for China and that France needs a sub-tree, but your main point on sub-trees for current nations being a priority is very agreeable.
And yeah, Israel really doesn’t surprise me as a loose end for you.
1 Like
Comrade, do you know why the Vihor project was made?
It was because Yugoslavia didn’t want to be dependent on a foreign license to produce their tanks, but they were happy with the M-84A. Because of this they created a tank that was similar but not based on the M-84.
What a joke.
I don’t think North Korea is great for China, but I think it’s the best option China has. France should also be the last of the minor nations to get a subtree because it has a huge ground tree already and a pretty big air tree. The order of minor nations that need subtrees still are Japan needs one the most, then Israel, then China, and then France.
1 Like
To me, sub-trees are a double-edged sword.
Yes, they help nations without enough to have a home in the game but there are also times when in keeps countless things from that nation and its host nations out of the game.
Like with the UK and SA. With SA the UK seemed to end up never receiving its domestic lights and IFVs.
Well SA had more than enough to stand on its own. The best of all the dominions followed by Canada.
Or it did the last time I looked. looking again I’d put Canada first and them second.
3 Likes
Though I am of the opinion that China can function very well without a sub-tree, we will never get to such point that they will have 5 full lines anywhere, thus I do support the sub-tree concept there.
Personally I’d pick Pakistan over DORK, because I feel that DPRK and ROK could work wonderfully as an independent Israeli styled tree. Seeing your opinions in this tread tho I imagine that this isn’t one of your most popular ideas, so the DPRK choice makes sense in that context.
For France I find that they just need more support from Gaijin, as they have some of the most growth potential of any tree already in game.
I find Switzerland can stand on it’s own too, so that’s a sore combination in my book.
1 Like
Answer the question Nuit. What by your standards makes a vehicle unique? I’m legit trying to understand your pov.
4 Likes
Switzerland can’t stand on its own because its naval tree doesn’t exist.