The South African sub-tree should be redistributed throughout the British tech-tree. Having a dedicated branch of the sub-tree is stifling the development of the tech-tree, as there is not a place in the tech tree for domestic light vehicles

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
1
Would you like the British tech tree to be re-structured in this manner, with the goal of creating more space for light vehicles.
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

This may be a controversial title, but please give me a chance to explain. I am not suggesting removing any of the South African (SA) vehicles, just a reshuffle of the tree. Currently, the SA subtree occupies the rightmost column of the British tech tree, and the rest of the British tech tree is structured as follows:

WW2 era:

image
image1158×653 152 KB

Post WW2:

image

(Note: there are obviously individual exceptions to these rules, and this is not including reserve tier, which is organised independently from the rest of the tree.)

Now there is a relatively large problem with this arrangement- there is no place in the tree for domestic light tanks and wheeled vehicles. Currently the SA subtree is home to the majority of the light vehicles in the British tree, which is fine from a gameplay perspective, but it means a lot of domestic vehicles are missing.

It leaves the tree in an awkward spot. For example, in the WW2 section of the tree, where could domestic wheeled vehicles, like the AECs, Staghounds, Coventrys, etc be implemented? Nowhere!

It’s the same problem with modern light vehicles. There is currently no place in the tree for modern domestic light vehicles like the Saladin 90, Scorpion 90, Fox ARC and many more.

The only two domestic post-war light vehicles are the Vickers Mk 11 and Warrior, which have been squeezed into the Vickers column and ATGM column, respectively.

The solution

I want to make something absolutely clear: the SA vehicles are a fantastic addition to the tree and are generally a joy to play. I am not at all suggesting that they are removed, just redistributed, to create more space to implement light vehicles in the tree.

This would be achieved by moving SA tank destroyers and ATGM vehicles (the G6 and Ratel 20) out of the sub-tree column and into the TD/ATGM column. The same would be done with SA MBTs (Olifants and TTD), these would be placed into the Vickers/Export column, which is in pretty dire need of more vehicles anyway.

This would leave only light wheeled vehicles in the 5th column, with a shed-load of space for new additions. This would then no longer be a dedicated sub-tree branch, but instead a light vehicle column for both domestic and international vehicles, giving plenty of space for future additions.

1 Like
2

Alternatively they could move the tanks to their own dedication commonwealth section of the tree. Like how coastal and Bluewater ships are separate.

I am slightly against your idea as where would you even put the ZA vehicles after the shuffling.

The entire tree though is a mess and my OCD is not happy.

1 Like
3

This would be achieved by moving SA tank destroyers and ATGM vehicles (the G6 and Ratel 20) out of the sub-tree column and into the TD/ATGM column. The same would be done with SA MBTs (Olifants and TTD), these would be placed into the Vickers/Export column, which is in pretty dire need of more vehicles anyway.

All the light vehicles (SARCs, Rooikats, Concept 3) would stay where they are, the tank destroyers would get moved to the TD line, and the MBTs would get moved to the Vickers/export line.

And I agree right now the tree is a horrendous mess.

4

Ratel 20 is an IFV so that should also stay in this light tank line along with the warrior and the Ajax when it comes eventually

5

Currently anything with an ATGM is in the TD line (except the ratel 20), and without IFVs the TD line is going to be extremely barren. But that’s definitely not a hill I’m willing to die on, I don’t particularly mind where they end up as long as it’s finally consistent.

6

There are armored cars, not tanks.

7

I’d rather ZA be removed from UK tree entirely.

Takes up the fifth line where UK could’ve had a light vehicles line while also taking away the option of a potentially strong independent ZA tree.

3 Likes
8

Gaijin kind of shot themselves in the foot with how they implemented the SA, Finnish, and Hungarian trees. It was clearly the easy way when implemented but just creates more work later on. The Light/Medium/Heavy/AA/TD line structure is far more flexible for future additions.

9

Yeah, but there is a 5 line limit per tree, software limitations don’t allow for multiple nations to have so many lines within one tree.

1 Like
10

Yeah, my point is that the sub nation vehicles should just be dispersed through out the tree using the normal vehicle line structure instead of using a separate sub nation line.

3 Likes
11

I thought subtrees would be a completely separate tab instead of a line in the tree. How can it be a sub-tree without branches. They should be able to add countries to other countries with a separate research tab that can allow for mixing the two into one lineup.

3 Likes
12

Subtrees have been a failure they create strife with “where” a vehicle should be added and they offer very little out of the whole 20 vehicles in the SA tree

British players will use, the Rooikat, ZT SPAA and the Gripen. It has allowed Gaijin to paper over deficiencies and not produce domestic models players actually want.

4 Likes
13

Similar to what Wargaming Red Dragon and WARNO does with it’s TT’s?

14

That’s a shame ,I would be up for removing them all : )

2 Likes