BTR-4 has many targets destroyed, two T72B3 and 1 BMP-2 and several BMP-1
ONLY one car in the city of Maripol did it. Search for videos on YouTube
No, I’m just realistic. Ukraine doesn’t operate Ka-52s, and we’re going to get all the listed aircraft in the Soviet Union, of which Ukraine was a major SSR.
We already have the Mi-24s as well. So there’s nothin in your list that’ll be unique let alone fill a tree.
At this rate however, if the Ukrainian SSR is forgotten about, can always be a subtree for Poland.
I respect your opinion as there are some weaker branches.
My thoughts on it outside of the Ground Tree. They lack a blue water fleet, however a sufficient Coastal Tree can be generated with indigenous watercraft and the pinnacle being their frigate. For aircraft, Ukraine has developed upgrades for it’s old Soviet-era aircraft to include new fire control systems and new missiles such as the Gran air to air missile. One of their most advanced indigenous fighters is the MiG-29MU2 which can fire the new AA missile on top of air to ground missiles making it a true multi-role aircraft however they lack suffiencnt numbers. They’re going to receive the F-16 and likely the F/A-18 Hornet as well as continue to evolve their Air Force through foreign procurement and indigenous modifications as time goes on. The same can be said of their helicopters. The two that stick out the most are the Mi-2MSB and the Mi-24PU-1 (can fire the RK-2 anti-tank missile with high tandem penetration) which are enhanced, however Ukraine is weaker in the helicopter section currently. By the time this tree could become an option, significant changes and procurements are likely to have occurred throughout their military. Likely will receive more Western variations which isn’t a foreign concept as Germany and Sweden Tree’s have both East and West-inspired vehicles. However, again I appreciate the feedback. We’ll see how things go as time goes on.
This is a cool idea, but realistically, I don’t see it happening, there are many Ukrainian projects that tie into Soviet projects and it gets weird. I’d personally like to see an easier route with this and just throw them into an existing tree, perhaps they come fork the tree in some way to make it work for everyone. All the political nonsense aside please.
I believe they would’ve introduced Ukraine into the game awhile ago but since the community is so split on a solution and events currently taking place it probably will never see the light of day, but I’m still hopeful.
For your potential compromise
And for the western equipment bit
I am not voting for this, at least not right now, but by the end of certain events I might think about voting yes.
It’s way too early to talk about Ukraine as a tech tree. Not in a game sense - But in real life too. We still don’t know what’s on the table for potentially one of the nastiest ground lineups in this game. Yes, by the end it will up one of the craziest top tier trees (just like Poland rn) but what’s happening right now is not seeming to end, at least so far.
Ukraine tech tree will, in the end, turn out to be by far be one of the most interesting lineup (and Poland too, perhaps) that is purely ground focused and lacks viable CAS option (given their only best heli is a Mi-24P) and has a strong ground only lineup that consists of all sorts of great SPGs, MBTs, LTs and AA systems.
The tech tree, though? Nah, it’s actually mostly copypastas :)
Again, unbiased posting for those not privy to the discussion. The “compromise” section I made needs to be updated but I think having it be a togglable option to swap between the Russian portion and Ukrainian portion would be the best compromise because it keeps them under the USSR tree but separates them enough to prevent major issues. I just don’t know where they would forks right now since the tree is pretty full even when they inevitably create Rank VIII. Where would they get placed at?
That’s true.
I have some ideas, perhaps I’ll DM you those ideas here in a few if you’d like.
Sure, sounds good. I can add more to the Compromise section.👍
It is getting better right now, when the post only got posted it had 58% against for no reason
Try and keep references to the conflict out so the thread doesn’t get locked
I do not personally like this re-envisioned UA tech-tree.
General comments:
The new layout bugs me! It should be as it was >:(
Heavy → Medium → Light → TD → AA
I still don’t see any point for much focus on Western Vehicles - especially considering the fact that they have proven to be a point of contention in this suggestion’s discussion.
In my opinion, they also work to contradict the argument of the UA techtree not being copy-paste.
We have them in game, they aren’t all needed for competitiveness, and overall (slightly) dilute the concentration of actual Ukrainian vehicles in the Ukrainian techtree.
I understand an M2A2 ODS, as a noteworthy, and effective (BUSK kit with BRAT ERA) IFV we dont currently have - But a fully standard Leopard 2A6, a fully standard Leopard 1A5?
(IV)
I dont see why the BRDM-2 2A14 was removed as a Georgian premium - and replaced with the BTR-80 Joker in rank V
The Joker serves as a heavier, less capable, (per mobility, IMO), larger light-vehicle with a lighter main armament and a difficult to use/aim SPG-9 gun system.
I fully understand such a functional & effective SPG style system exists in game, but I simply fear the Soviet/Post-Soviet curse of lacking gun depression for the only really useful weaponry on the vehicle besides the other disadvantages of the BTR-80 chassis.
(V)
The only concern I have with this rank was voiced - the BTR-80 Joker replacing the BRDM-2 2A14.
(VI)
I dont see the need for the BMP-3 within the tech-tree line, considering it wont be serving with the same advantages as the Soviet BMP-3 we currently have.
The Sodema thermal imager it uses was not included until the 2010s, and as such the UA one would lack it, one of the major advantages it possesses over any light vehicles UA can already have.
I do appreciate the foldering of the T-55AM. Thank you!
I voiced my concerns with the Leopard 1A5 (DK) within the general comments section - as a standard Leopard 1 tank, similar to what we have in game, it serves little purpose within the techtree and dilutes the focus.
I’m not saying it should be replaced with the T-72A, but I wouldn’t be opposed to that if it was. Although this might make the rank very, very large.
I personally do not see the need for the T-64B1 if it is Object 437. As far as I can tell, it is just a T-64B without a laser rangefinder and the ability to fire GL-ATGMs.
I believe that it only makes the rank larger and grindier, with little purpose.
The addition of the foldered T-64BV zr. 2022 is very much appreciated as further love to indigenous, modern UA vehicles!
I understand the replacement of the BTR-3E CPWS-30 with the BTR-3E Fire Support Vehicle as it much better suits the TD role with the new cannon, but I dont understand the complete removal of the BTR-3E CPWS-30mm entirely.
I vote to replace the SBA Novator “Amulet” Premium with the BTR-3E CPWS 30, as the Novator is a very very light, modern MRAP vehicle with little to no protection.
Realistically, coaxial light machine guns are capable of destroying the Novator despite the claimed protection and I just personally dont see it fitting correctly - it’s a new class of vehicle we haven’t seen, with a modern and capable weapons system at a low BR, fighting M48s and T55s!
The BTR-3E CPWS wouldnt be a great improvement on this time-warping thing, but hey.
I know, realistic vehicle eras has already been destroyed, but I don’t see why we should damage it more.
This is just me of course, my opinion, with little basis in game balance.
And the BTR-3E as an accessible, easy to use & effective premium vehicle would feature modern thermal sights, fitting with the current BR situation (thank you BMD-4, BMP-3, etc) and a great introduction to the Ukrainian tech-tree for new players.
A wonderful first look at the backbone of modern UA APCs, and a (IMO) UA playstyle - “ratting” due to lack of newly produced MBTs/Other vehicles which sit on the cutting edge such as Leopards, T80s, Abrams’.
(VII)
The T-62AGM could certainly be a viable vehicle competitive for it’s battle rating, however it would be dependent on the ERA used and the Armament/FCS adopted. Love to see it!
I dont agree with the introduction of the Otaman-3 IFV as a premium - from your standalone suggestion on it, it would be a capable IFV with a good amount of mobility, but I just believe that the BTR-4MV1 would serve this purpose better. I dont know, it’s more authentically Ukrainian, more realistic as a vehicle, I like it more. Just my opinion and not based at all on which vehicle would perform better.
But I think it should be noted that most nations in game have only 3 premiums at a similar tier.
As such, I think the Otaman-3 and Kevlar-E should be removed for now and the BTR-MV1 placed as the premium to work with 2 MBTs, the T-72 SIM-1, and the T-64E perhaps.
(VIII)
I understand the unique focus on troop-carrying MBTs at the end of the line with the Object 488 and BTMP-84, but I don’t believe that the T-72MP should have been replaced into the Squadron vehicle area for this change.
The T-72MP is one of the most powerful T-72 modifications available, and shouldn’t be reserved as a squadron vehicle instead of topping off the line. I understand the Obj 488, BTMP-84 & T-72MP share similar engines and possibly armour, but it should finish, or be close to finishing the T-72 line of the tree.
The addition of the Tor-M AA is a great idea, allowing for variation if nothing else. Although I am sure there are differences between the platforms which would lead to one being used over the other in certain situations.
The Azovets is an interesting vehicle, however I think it would be a bit useless, really. It might not even be added due… political reasons, but i’m not sure what could replace it.
Love the work as always, more than I could ever do. Keep it up and I hope this techtree grows to be the best it can, with the most popular support it can get.
Edit : I tried to be pretty clear, concise and understandable, but I just, just, might be a bit dull! So please feel free to ask for clarification
Everything is still a WIP. I just wanted to share with everyone I’m still actively working on it. I appreciate the feedback as always
Here’s my bad microsoft paint rendition. Wow, making an entire techtree with 5 different colours for the BR numbers is a lot of work. Well done!!!
Maybe I should’ve switched around the lines to the order of the original suggestion too… I always thought this new one is confusing
Yeah it definitely takes time. The vehicles I took out aren’t permanent removed or anything. I’ve been working on better placement options in the tree. I haven’t had the chance to keep working on it yet due to IRL and another large project that I hope gets approved shortly.
So here you are right, and the axis is against basically “Russians”, as I wrote earlier, everything that was found in the USSR is attributed to oneself!
If you want, you can use the banners of one country from the country in the same union (USSR)
Well, the most unpleasant thing is that the “Russians” actively vote against, and advertise on their servers, their coordination is palpable!
I want to correct you a little a number of individual infantry fighting vehicles, clearly not in terms of their “rank” and Combat rank! BMP-3
I quote “operator”
If there was a gun with a BMP-3E on Bradley
Or the protection on the BMP-3E was the same as on Bradley! I think we would have another legend!
There are also no Russian tanks that were captured
T-72B3M
T-72B3
T-80BVM
T-80U. (Russian mod)
T-90A
T-90M
T-90M in KSSZ “Nakidka”
I think you mean the BRs on the vehicles? I mixed and matched the BRs from the old post which did not include Rank VIII vehicles so some of them do not reflect the BRs shown in the new post. But I didnt decide any BRs for the vehicles in either post.
I’m not sure what you mean by the BMP-3E, sorry.
Captured vehicles will not feature in the techtree for many reasons I think, but first and foremost the fact that they come from a very volatile and best avoided conflict currently ongoing!
Elder variant
3Е
CPWS-30
90мм
CPWS-30
The disadvantage (in my opinion) is armor penetration! Suitable for destroying lightly armored vehicles! But if you already start working in fortified areas, you need a system with armor-piercing! Shturm-D (Btr-3E) has a 30mm cannon similar to that on the BMP-1 Penetration 45mm But we also have an AGS-17 (grenade launcher) on board
Now on the shooter system there is a more perfect system
If the 30mm cannon has not been changed, then the Grenade Launcher has the ability to destroy UAVs and helicopters Due to new cartridges! The projectile explodes in front of the target, creating a cloud of debris called (graphite) The material of the striking elements is a secret.
Reminds me of shooting “Flashets”