It’s not that I am discounting aircraft that weren’t built by the British. I don’t even main Britain, I main the United States. My issue is that, if we go by the simple metric of being used by the nation in question, then, if we apply this fairly (as in, everyone gets their ‘ultimate’ tech tree, not just Britain), we run into an issue where a ton of vehicles face the issues the Sherman has where they show up everywhere as the major victorious powers sold off a lot of their surplus to friendly nations, which especially affects the US and UK as most of the nations modeled in game are nations that were friendly with those powers. Heck, even during the war, the Russians received a lot of aid in the form of vehicles.
The end result would be nations losing their identity, and less of a reason to play multiple nations, or more specifically the US and UK, as you can play a lot of their most iconic aircraft in your main tree. It also isn’t very fun to have to grind out the same vehicles for the morbillionth time. You’d also end up facing a lot more of the same vehicles when matchmaking, like with what we see in top tier. While it wouldn’t be as bad, owing to there being a lot of indigenous aircraft at lower tiers, the issue becomes more severe if we expand ‘ultimate’ trees into captured aircraft as, at that point, there is little reason to play Japan or German air. By the time the war ended, and the dawn of the post war era came, the allies had captured pretty much ever single vehicle the Axis nations had ever produced. Not everything, of course, the capture of capital ships is annoyingly difficult, and some of the smaller runs of production aircraft or prototypes were all destroyed before the war had ended, but enough of them that aforementioned statement may as well be true. This includes aircraft such as the Kikka, ME-262, HO-229, Ki-83, Ki-87, Arado, and so on, and when those air trees already struggle with being worthwhile grinds once you get into the post war, the last thing that should be done is give the option to play all of their coolest, most interesting aircraft in another tree. Similar applies to ground, less players are going to bother grinding out Germany if they can play captured Tigers in the US, UK, and RU trees, especially if Russia gets their captured Maus.
And that’s just with WW2 kit. The Cold War frequently saw the opposing faction’s vehicles being captured by the other side. MiGs, F-16s, you name it. At one point, pretty much everything that saw use got captured by the other guy. And when the Soviet Onion fell? US bought a ton of advanced, top of the line Russian aircraft, either to evaluate themselves or to prevent adversaries from getting them.
At that point, you may as well do away with tech trees entirely.
I have read what you said, and I take issue with it and don’t think it would be a good idea, and everything you have written up top indicates that you have plans to make this into a suggestion once all of the aircraft have suggestion pages on the forums.
As for a US Spitfires, and other such copy paste? No. Two wrongs do not make a right. US getting Spitfires does not magically make the copy paste better.
My line is copy paste should only be done either when it is needed, or the nation and aircraft in question have massive historical significance to each other. Prime example of this would be the Mustang, where not only did Britain make extensive use of it, but they also massively influenced it’s development. And the Harrier, which, to my understanding, was a joint development between the US and UK, with the US taking over full development of the Harrier ll after the UK dropped out for budgetary reasons. It needs to be beyond them using a stock aircraft as, again, if just use is enough to qualify an aircraft for implementation, then the trees WILL become a mess.
And that can be said for hundreds of aircraft. Given how many aircraft that would include, I think that standards for such implementations should be higher then that.
This is a non argument and in no way addresses the issues with copy paste, and only seeks to dismiss those with entirely valid issues with copy paste
It’s not much different then telling a German main who has an issue with the Russians getting a Maus that they should of thought about that before losing the war, or a Russian main that they should have thought about how their government collapsing in on itself in the 90s would have on War Thunder’s tech trees in regards to American SU-27s. Is it literally the same? No, but it shares in the fundamental principles of using real life events to justify something that adds nothing and makes the game worse, especially when we are looking at it from the POV of every nation becoming the ‘ultimate’ version of what it can be. This isn’t a single addition, this is across a tree with a heavy implication of applying to every other tree in the game as well.
