Naval has always had this unique rule of if the keel is laid down the ship can be added. Air and ground vehicles have much stricter rules, usually. It’s simply because most nations couldn’t afford big navy ships, so Gaijin has to bend the rules to give trees what they need.
1 Like
When you make a game about real world vehicle it does matter. What they did for naval is a necessary , as long as it was laid down , it fit the criteria to be added. Take it with a grain of salt and cope seeth and mald. Also with the 105 tiger. You can clearly see the turret was not made to fit the thing , it was a justifiable removal. Same with panther II, the F variant is closer to the Panther II than the Panther II that got added. For R2Y2, it served it purpose as a filler for Japan tree , with the subtree of thai being added their role was no longer need. It change nothing even if they got removed , knowing Gaijin they gonna add it back in one way or another
Funny how you picked those three but completely ignore the Ho-Ri and the E-100
2 Likes
First off, great username lol. Second, I think my issue here was using the boats as my example. I do get that boats have had a less strict ruling, but air and ground do have a good few non produced vehicles as well. I used the new boats because it’s the most recent addition I’ve seen that was never actually completed, and I personally never separated naval from air and ground, so that’s on me. but it does feel a bit inconstant where ground/air is concerned as well.
1 Like
I’m not trying to be snide at all mate, it’s just this topic comparing tanks/planes vs naval has been a thing in popular discussion ever since Kronshtadt was added back in 2022, and the answer is the same then as it is now.
There are tanks/aircraft that were in various stages of development still in the game, you’re right, but it’s just the fact you titled and premised this thread specifically around Sevastapol and Soyuz ‘opening a can of worms’, and comparing them to things like Tiger, which made me re-iterate, that yes in fact naval is different. That’s no a secret. There is no new can being opened here.
If you want to take the position of Why is ‘plane’ being removed but we still have ‘tank’?, then that’s absolutely fine, and i agree there is contradictions there, but when you start dragging ships into it, it loses all comparability because they are as official, stated policy being intentionally held to a different standard.
5 Likes
Oh I just picked those because they got removed. I’ve been saying multiple times that ground and air have plenty of non produced vehicles. thus why I made this whole thing about inconstancy
okay I get you. sorry for any harsh wording on my part. I personally just never really drew the barrier between naval and the the air/ground trees. and yeah my only sticking point was the gamewide inconstancy
3 Likes
Out of curiosity, where would you all draw the line at vehicles being eligible to be added? I know our quotas vary, so it could be interesting to see where we each draw the line.
Mine would be as long as it was partially made, it should be fine, same with a vehicle with a functioning base but another part being a mockup.
yeah see this is what I was looking for lol, I shouldn’t have mentioned boats.
that aside. I think late stage development would be fine. what I mean is not first draft designs, but ones that got just shy of prototype production. my reason is that even though plenty of prototypes were made historically, they are mostly made by nations that had the budget or desperation to do it. Like why we have so many Russian “objects” in the game, they had the steel to spare on one off prototypes at the time. but many vehicles got multiple drafts into design before getting canned due to budget or other factors. so as long as it got to the design finish line, I think that’d be fine, and would help the smaller tech trees or allow new tech trees.
and by first draft I mean things like the IS-2-2, that tank was only ever a doodle and shouldn’t be added. no tech specs, to engineering draft, only a drawing of what it might look like exists. that’s the kind of stuff that needs to be avoided to not just become WoT’s
1 Like
can of worms like afterburning jets, modern missiles, top tier premiums, modern tanks etc.
U know the promises they made all them years ago and broke every single one
To him, GRB/ARB only matters thats why (he preaches this alot)
he only plays GRB/ARB and expects everyone else to follow (refer to above)
Some people wanna play ships like myself and you (I think) and gaijin gave us the option to play ships however its pretty neglected
4 Likes
That seems reasonable. I’m thinking about maybe giving leeway to air additions as long as they reach wind tunnel model (essentially a further ahead mockup) as it gives a rough estimate on speed
1 Like
The rule is “was laid down”. This has always been the rule, it’s the most sensible place to draw the line in the context of ship development, and it’s a rule that’s always been followed.
There’s no “slippery slope” to be found here, only people who are somehow still confused about a years-old, extremely consistent rule.
3 Likes
I can see you didn’t read the edit. maybe read before slinging vitriol at people, thanks.
The ships began construction thus were built.
To claim they weren’t built requires evidence of cancellation prior to beginning construction, and to refute the claim that they weren’t built all people need is a photograph or employee records.
Tiger 105 was never prototyped, it never was even approved for prototyping as the gun couldn’t even fit in the turret correctly.
Gaijin has never changed their stance on what’s allowed in the history of War Thunder outside of now opposing blueprint vehicles.
If “hammer hit steel” [not a literal statement], it’s not a blueprint vehicle.
The fact naval ships require more strict requirements than ground vehicles should tell you enough.
All that needs to happen for a ground vehicle to be added is if a prototype is made.
For a naval vehicle? Production has to start.
“Clearly this is bias against ships.” [Not my actual stance.]
2 Likes
again please read edit. the conversation has long since moved away from the naval point that started it. I really, truly don’t care that naval lives under separated rules. that is no longer what’s being discussed. That’s why i renamed the discussion and added an edit
I forgot to address the edit: Air and ground have the same standard.
1 Like
incorrect. there are various vehicles in which hammer never hit steel as you put it. not a large amount mind you, but enough that it puts that rule into question. but this has been mentioned so much above, that if you care, scroll up, I’m not going to re hash the entire thread for you.
And all of them are delisted or to be delisted when equivalents are added.
R2Y2s were delisted this last month.
dude, either scroll up and read, or go elsewhere. you are so late to this and seemed to refuse to actually do any reading.
I play all 3 on arcade and kinda dip in and out of grinding a mode. I would play naval more, but the time it can take on some days throws me off that. Non the less I still play it and hope it can truly flourish.
1 Like