Is that confirmed confirmed? If so, not to be that guy, but I’d like a source for it.
(I’m aware this discussion is a little off topic to here, so sorry bout that)
This was one case that was brought up. While it does not say that they’re will be an Indian Sub-tree here, it does acknowledge that there will be more Commonwealth vehicles (including India) added to the British tree, confirming that there will be more than two nations with the Brits. There’s another post I’m looking for.
2 Likes
To be fair that could just mean more premium Australian or Canadian etc vehicles (Think Avro Arrow or CA-15 maybe), not necessarily a whole new line in the TT.
I understand, but I think what’s going to happen is the Arjun’s are going to follow the TTD, they’ll insert the Abhay in the LT line, etc. it’s not going to be an actual new line but mixed in with the existing tree. I could be wrong.
I could see that happening, definitely. Make the South African line a more general Commonwealth line. Maybe they could do similar for the air tree too (Although Gaijin please try not to add too much copy paste stuff from other nations like ZA/AU Mirages etc)
1 Like
Considering that War Thunder is a commercial project, whose main task is to make a profit, we can immediately say that there will be no such unified research branches. Since it is very stupid to include the most famous tanks and their modifications in one research branch and at the same time lose the profit itself and the principle of the project.
The reality will be such that these countries will be scattered to existing countries, in the form of additional research branches or individual machines (And yes, you don’t need to write about the huge potential, the game does not need all the country’s equipment, only the most interesting projects). With the possible exception of Czechoslovakia, due to the huge potential in terms of earning
1 Like
Not every tank in this proposal needs to be added for this to be a viable tree, it can survive without destroying the identity of other nations. And if you think it’s bad for profits to have multiple nations’ MBTs in the top ranks, Gaijin clearly doesn’t based on what they’ve done with Sweden and what they attempted to do with Britain. I think the only “reality” here is that you want these vehicles in existing trees because all you care about is buffing your lineups.
What facts are you even basing this on anyway? How do you know Czechoslovakia has a “huge earning potential”, and how do you know that this tree, as proposed, would hurt the game’s profits? The answer, of course, is that you don’t.
5 Likes
The answer lies in the economic analysis of the same internal store, and simple observation of the company’s actions.
What’s better? Put all interesting military projects in one branch of development? or distribute them to other branches of development, so that people have an interest in them and spend money? Why do I then need to download Germany, the USA, the USSR or UK, if all the interesting equipment is already in one research branch?
Based on the same Sweden, we can say that the company wants to attract new players to this branch by adding interesting vehicles and selling them, not forgetting the 4 main countries. Counterbalance, Japan, which few people play and spend money on, accordingly, it gets less attention than the above mentioned country.
Very well done put together, i absolutely support this tech tree, it would be a great and refreshing tree to see in the game!
3 Likes
Out of all European trees, this is only one worth adding as it will provide variety of all types of vehicles. Including dreadnought ships!
5 Likes
Great tech tree I have to admit but Im wondering if Gaijin would add such a tech tree. +1
2 Likes
Interesting tree, but regarding the Moderna, there should only be one vehicle with a researchable modification that would replace the dual 20mm with a singular 30mm as the Moderna has only had one pilot vehicle made, onto which the two different systems were tested.
1 Like
Definitely an option as well. It also provides an entry way for the T-72M2 into a research tree since the standard 30mm version is an event vehicle.
I think that TKD should be at br 1.0 because this vehicle gun has very poor parameters because the muzzle velocity of the APHE that TKD fired was only 395 m/s with mass of projectile of only 2,08 kg so the amount of penetration will be very low (somewhere about 20mm-30mm of pen on 10m). But on the br 1.3 can be the TKS-D with have the same gun as the 7TP or some Swedish low tier tanks. (I made a post about TKS-D)
2 Likes
Sounds good, I’ll make the changes 👍
1 Like
I also think you could add a Polish amphibious tank PZInż.130 (it was planned to install a 20mm WZ.38FK cannon) the tank without a cannon looked like that:
Sources:
http://www.1939.pl/uzbrojenie/polskie/pojazdy/pzinz130/index.html
I think that this tank can be a intresting premium
5 Likes
I’ll be updating the tree soon, real world caught up 🫡
Hey!
As the old forum’s Visegrad Group suggester, feel free to contact me. I am rarely active now, but still here if you need me for… basically anything.
Im here to share my old tech tree. I updated some of the battle ratings (in the ground tree only) today just to follow the BR changes made since I last visited. I also added some new vehicles, as it turned out the Hungarian modifications of T-55A SZRP and T-72M1 Currus are making enough differences to be represented in my tree. Newly delivered systems were also added, like K2, M1A1 FEP and KF-41.
I also added a very new vehicle, im pretty sure most of us never heard of it - OT-62 GROM. This is a modification of the well known Czechoslovakian OT-62 with the main armament of the BMP-1. Thanks for @AftiksPL for letting me know its existence. After many years of research its hard for me to believe there is anything new for us to see, and here it is.
5 Likes
Thanks mate, I tried reaching out to ask if you were going to repost it. I wanted to make sure the idea didn’t disappear. Fantastic idea for a combined tree, I was a fan on the old forum lol. If you have any ideas to make it better, let me know. I’ll be updating the tree in the near future when I have some time. 🫡
2 Likes
Yeah I saw it, didnt know what you were speaking about and found out there is a new forum :D Since I cannot be as often here as I was before, I dont mind if someone else actively advertise the idea.
What I was doing back then were:
- constructing a tree full as possible, with a lot of good lineups
- keeping copy pastes as low as possible, using mainly unique vehicles where its possible
- at the same time enough copies for easier implementation for developers
- not mixing vehicles of different eras and different sides of war, as players dont usually like that
- for Gaijin, providing a large tree with a lot of interesting premium/event vehicles, for which - and for premium time - they can get a bag of money
- all that with vehicles that were at least functional prototypes. Very, very rarely mockups, but only if its interesting and it fits into some kind of gap where you cannot replace it - like in case of Tas or Skoda-Kauba V5. With pictures, devs need to model them.
As far as you keep doing this and you can keep both players’ and developers’ interests, you will also keep the chances of the implementation high.
What I can see, you are mixing vehicles of different eras and sides (for example: Shermans, T-34s and Panzer IVs easily in the same lineup). As long as players does not complain, its fine, but be vigilant. Its easy to start a rumour that V4 tree is a full copy paste, or an unnecessary mix like Chinese tree, and things like that. Look out for that.
You are still prone to add vehicles that are not able to be in game - like 75 mm AA trucks of Poland which had no ammunition onboard.
PZInz.130 is another one actually, it was planned with a 8 mm machine gun, not a 20 mm gun. Somehow tho people think that its able to carry a 20 mm FK-A. NO! There are models of it, yes, but still no.
Be doubtful with everything, as well as strict as a developer.
Contact me if you are not sure of something.