It wouldn’t be very reasonable to put Ukrainian tanks next to Russian ones hehe.
Captured russian tanks maybe
Because the BM Oplot in the picture is of early model from 2000s, it is also known under name T-84U.
BMP-2 Hull with BM-7 Parus combat module
They really like that turret dont they
1 Like
Shiiiiit, they really did this…
I just wrote this 4 days ago.
1 Like
T-72AMT with a mounted TBS-86 tank dozer in the Repair and Restoration Battalion of 61st Separate Mechanised Brigade ⚔️
9 Likes
not BM Oplot
but rather T-84U Oplot zr 2000
1 Like
No such thing exists
you very well know what i am talking about
but if being specific, would you prefer obj.478DU9, then?
I prefer Oppy-boi
Bulat and oplot projects never had concrete designations … always varied depending on documentation & project progression
The reason i chose T-84U Oplot zr 2000 coz … it reflects the upgrade and the year … can also be T-84U Oplot zr 2018 … if the Trimen’s TPN-4 upgrade is considered.
2 Likes
T-44M because we have common T-44 in USSR
im going to say it again, there’s no need for an ukrainian tech tree since most if not every single vehicle shown here were just modified soviet era tanks (that are already here)
we dont need more copy and paste or unoriginal tech trees since this could be just like benelux or hungary inside an already existing tech tree like italy and france, making another tech tree that needs to be filled with already existing vehicles or lend lease (china, israel) is not going to be good for balance in low to mid tier if we follow the history of Ukraine before WW2.
3 Likes
bro was dissatisfied with the lack of engagement on his first comment
12 Likes
i dont care about engagement to be honest but i just dont really want another copy and paste tech tree fiasco again (israel) and only seeing soviet era stuff with a new paint job or new name, im not opposing the introduction of ukraine in game but i feel like being a subtree is more fitting with the lack of low/mid tier vehicles that arent straight up copy and paste.
3 Likes
If Ukrainian vehicles are just Soviet things with new paint or name, then the US has been operating the same Abrams since the 80s. Then Leopard 2A8 is just a 2A1 with a different name. Then all those Challenger upgrades are nothing more than cosmetics.
For the aviation side, sure, a lot to be desired.
But for ground? Ukraine is one of the single most potent remaining countries in this area.
Explain to me how new engines, turrets, armors, sights and cannons are copy paste? Explain to me how heavy modifications such as Azovets are copy paste. Explain to me how BTR-4 is not a unique vehicle.
If T-90 isn’t just a T-72, then the T-84 isn’t just a Soviet tank either.
10 Likes
lets say that these vehicles are different and original, are these the only ones? to be fair the thread just showed modern IFV’s and MBT’s but i see a lack of WW2 or WW1 stuff for low to mid tier, the point of a dedicated tech tree is to have low and mid tier as entry points for balance (also to experience new vehicles)
with what tanks or aircraft will you fill up these gaps? (filling them with soviet tech tree stuff doesnt count)
1 Like
What vehicles does one even need to fill the low rank gaps when Israel is a country in game and doesn’t have these, even despite being well capable of having them?
Your statement is incorrect by virtue of looking at the playable tech trees.
Perhaps it is your interest in particular, with which there is nothing wrong, but you cannot project this as “the main point of a dedicated tech tree”.
11 Likes
“What vehicles does one even need to fill the low rank gaps when Israel is a country in game and doesn’t have these, even despite being well capable of having them?”
exactly thats why we shouldnt repeat the same mistake as Israel, the vehicles at least needs to be something original from the country or a bit of lend lease (not the entire tech tree like china) that could fit low tier or mid tier ground or air forces.
“Your statement is incorrect by virtue of looking at the playable tech trees.”
comparing already existing tech trees is crucial for balance, we can use them like a standard for new nations coming to the game and what to do.
1 Like
Unfortunately that isn’t up to the community to decide.
All the community can really do in this regard is to use the game as a reference on what is and isn’t a viable suggestion.
Israel set a new bar for tree suggestions and that’s what’s being followed up on.
Again, there unfortunately is no ‘we’.
It’s Gaijin and Gaijin only.
The most the community can do to sway their opinion is to protest as they already have, boycott that never happened and to just remain vocal.
Considering none of these ever happened in regards to tech trees, it means there isn’t a ‘we’.
8 Likes