Honestly, it’d help if they added more easily attainable prototype tanks/aircraft to the bigger trees to every now and then. Stuff like the XP-72, T6 Medium tank- Heck, give the UK “Michael”, the oldest surviving M4 tank as a normal premium.
5 Likes
Paper beats C&P hands down. We’re at a point in WT where if you play multiple TTs, copypaste is exhausting. And yet it’s “needed” for minor nations to have at least semi viable lineups… But I would prefer blueprint vehicles if any reasonable options are available.
The only real problem with paper is that it can easily get out of hand. I don’t want Gaijin to make up their own vehicles from scratch, but I’m fine with “what-if” speculative takes of vehicles that were worked on by real engineers in real history, before development was halted for whatever reason.
I will note that this occurrence is already in the game. We got the TOG II in two configurations, one historical and one “as would have been intended” (so, paper). And the Pancake is another recent example of this methodology.
The limitation I wish was in place in order to limit the potential powercreeep of paper vehicles is that, whenever there’s a lack of information about the performance or even existence of a component, we default as much as possible to using existing components, so that the paper vehicles aren’t straight up better than the metal equivalents.
I find it really obnoxious, as a double standard, to remove all three R2Y2s but then bring in the Pancake with a made up flight model and the ability to carry bombs.
Rules for thee and not for me…
2 Likes
Gaijin make their own rules and decide on a case by case basis, so it doesn’t really matter, but I just want to point out that their formal rule is supposed to be “an incomplete prototype can be in the game so long as at least one component unique to it was built in metal.” While “component” is not defined any further, the existence in metal of any part unique to the R2Y2 design is already enough for at least the first version to be in the game.
Take this further as we’ve seen with the TOG, where they’re happy to extrapolate on what the vehicle might have looked like if completed, and even the other two R2Y2s are back on the menu…
Imho what’s happening is much simpler and in a way also sadder. The old paper vehicles are going away because there’s stigma associated to them by now, while new paper vehicles have gone much more under the radar. It feels to me like a market positioning thing more than any coherent implementation of a supposed rule.
No for paper vehicles!
I don’t see problem with copy paste tho.
Played with most of the Sherman versions, T-72M1s, M18, T-34s and still have fun with them.
It’s even somehow unique experience because you know the vehicle and you play better from the beginning.
I also like prototypes, as long as they existed and adhere to the platform development.Like porshe tiger, XM-1s.
However mass adding vehicles to multiple trees at once like with M44 and M55 is kinda lame and unnecessary.
3 Likes
This is correct. A dev Q&A said as much. You “finish the game” when you finish a TT and everything else is “end game content” so to speak.
1 Like
I feel there is a massive distinction here though. If the copy-paste is used to help a tech tree (give it a play style that the nation simply lacks). For example, Britain really sucks at CQC, but the Bhishma allows Britain to be able to brawl. Or how China has a bunch of Soviet equipment, which is usually very slow, cumbersome, no gun depression, but the American stuff allows mobility, sniping ability, and everything else the Soviets lack. That is great use of copy-paste and should be encouraged.
The downside is copy-paste because you simply can. Like the Leopards in France. Nobody asked for France to have Leopards, nobody wanted French F-16s, but we got them. They don’t do anything to add to French game play, it feels like an insult, that Gaijin was so lazy and remembered that France exists, so they added in the Netherlands into the French tech tree just to say, “we didn’t forget about France, look, here’s a bunch of vehicles!” The Netherlands did nothing to help the French tree, no new play style, no new gameplay you could not already do with France.
That is part of the issue people have with copy-paste. It is a bandage over an issue.
2 Likes
100% agree. That’s why I’m largely fine with the low tier Finnish copy paste into the Swedish tech tree. Before they were added, Sweden had nothing but very awkward, paper armored snipers until you made it up to the Centurions around 7.7. It was pretty miserable to play on any of the vast number of maps where sniping was effectively pointless.
The Finnish vehicles, while almost entirely copy paste, gave the Swedes some desperately needed variety in their lineups at this tier, something that would have been impossible to achieve if the tree were strictly limited to indigenously designed Swedish vehicles. Even paper vehicles would not have filled these niches.
5 Likes
I side with variants. Which is what “C&P” is 9/10 times.
Well, I’m all for incomplete prototypes like the I-O that had a part built and of course completed prototypes and other vehicles that nearly entered service. As long as a suggestion can be approved for it, it fair game.
Paper is a rabbit hole that ends up with less unique vehicle, as there is no need to look into the countless real unique vehicle, heck as WOT shows, you could remove every nations but the big 3 do to it.
Going pure paper vehicles, means you take the other nations section (and even many of the tree nations ones) of the list of previous suggested ideas and shred it. After all why added real vehicle that are under represented in video games, when you can make fake vehicles for the nation with large ayer counts.
So well Gaijin need to be better than unique vehicles inside the tree, instead of outside it. But “C&P” has been part of war thunder since before ground was out of beta, Gaijin often got around that by adding variants but not adding it under the maker nation or the nation it was built for.
It’s only seeming like a problem now, because a system has been a failure since the first one was added brought it to light. The sub-tree system. It’s needed a heavy rework for some time now, as every last one of the (yes including South Africa) was a failure.
4 Likes
I personally lean strongly against paper vehicles, even compared to copy-paste vehicles, because of what paper vehicles inherently represent in a game that markets itself around military history and authenticity.
Copy-paste vehicles can absolutely become repetitive, especially when nations receive large numbers of imported or near-identical variants. There are suggestions on the forum to alleviate this and make their subsequent grind more bearable. However, those vehicles still existed, were built, tested, operated, exported, or at the very least physically entered service in some form. They carry historical context, logistical realities, and proven limitations. Even when two vehicles play similarly, they still reflect real procurement decisions, real military doctrine, and real engineering constraints.
Paper vehicles are fundamentally different. In most cases, they represent the absolute best-case scenario envisioned on paper by engineers or military planners, without ever having to survive the realities of production, testing, reliability, politics, economics, or battlefield practicality. Many of these concepts never progressed precisely because they were unrealistic, inefficient, technologically unfeasible, or impossible for the nation in question to produce at scale. As a result, paper vehicles almost always risk becoming disproportionately attractive or powerful additions, whether that be at rank I or IX, simply because they were never forced through the natural balancing process of real-world development.
That is why I find them far less meaningful than actual vehicles that were at least partially prototyped, tested, or fielded. A real vehicle tells us something tangible about a nation’s industry, doctrine, and technological capability. A paper vehicle often only tells us what someone hoped might be possible under ideal circumstances.
I also think there is an important distinction between “unfinished but real” and “purely conceptual.” Vehicles with completed prototypes, test hulls, built engines, or documented testing data are much easier to justify because they crossed from theory into reality. Once a vehicle exists physically, even partially, its strengths and weaknesses become grounded in engineering rather than speculation. Pure paper projects do not have that grounding, which leaves large parts of their implementation dependent on interpretation or outright assumption.
In my view, War Thunder should prioritize:
- Fully built and fielded vehicles,
- Partial prototypes and tested experimental vehicles,
- Export/import vehicles where necessary for lineup health,
before resorting to fully paper concepts.
I understand why some players prefer paper vehicles over copy-paste additions, especially when they want more variety or stronger national identity. However, I believe authenticity and historical credibility should take precedence over hypothetical designs that were never proven workable in reality. A repetitive (only for those that play many tech trees), but real vehicle is still more meaningful to me than a “perfect on paper” machine that never truly existed beyond blueprints or speculative drafts.
6 Likes
I actually like copy-paste vehicles the most, especially ones that were officially used in real military service. The main reason is because War Thunder locks decals to specific nations, and if you download community skins yourself, other players can’t even see them.
There are also some nations’ vehicles that I just don’t really like, while vehicles from other countries feel more familiar to me—for example, the Italian and French 3.7 Shermans.
1 Like
Not all paper is born equal. Military history is full of projects that never saw the light of day. They are part of history too, unlike the monstrosities created from scratch by other game studios which are effectively “original characters” with no connection to real life. Representing incomplete projects or even blueprints is not ahistorical, you are still showcasing the history of military technology.
The exact implementation can be problematic because it will obviously involve some speculative element. But tbh, real vehicles in WT are already like this. We can pull 20G maneuvers in Zeros and our Panthers are clockwork reliable and two-man-turret T-34s with no cupola see around the exact same way as Pattons with large cupolas. And that’s before we get into the APHE sphere of death, the constant correction of azimuth every tenth of a second because our gunner has arms the size of the turret, etc etc.
So long as a vehicle design was the product of real engineers, I find it hard to buy the “history” argument tbh.
This part is far more important, I do agree. Although as I have just pointed out, we ignore limitations of real-world vehicles all the time. Never broke a final drive on my Panthers after all… but Soyuz shows us what can happen if you overdo it. Still, that is a problem that can be fixed with a combo of game balance + the BR system.
To make a counter example, the Pancake we have in the game can do things the real prototype never could (for example, it can actually fly) and the flight model is fantasy. But, because Gaijin didn’t give it crazy performance, it hasn’t really taken over the meta, has it?
The TOG II in its paper “ideal” configuration is another good example, it’s a competitive vehicle but it’s hardly an unstoppable monster.
Rank is just economic anyway, BR is what matters and allows far more granularity in where vehicles are competitively placed.
Fundamentally, there’s nothing physics-breaking about the Loewe (for example), and featuring it in the game as a blueprint would be no more outlandish than having tanks without turret baskets that can reload with the turret oriented in any position (which does actually involve problematic physics).
Even the argument of “could it be mass produced?” is kind of untenable when all that’s needed to qualify an addition under the current model is that at least one component unique to the vehicle was built in metal (not even a complete prototype!).
4 Likes
I don’t really have an opinion on C&P vehicles, as it is an extremely situational thing.
As for paper vehicles, however, I have very strong opinions of what is and isnt reasonble to add. From best options to worst:
-
Real, fully developed production vehicles should always come first, and even better if they are unique.
-
Fully built and tested vehicles that didn’t make it to full production are fine.
-
Fully built but only partially tested vehicles are also a clear OK, and gaijin seems to agree.
-
Vehicles with full blueprints and all compnants made, but not fully abssembled also seem reasonable to me, though I know this is the turning point for some.
This is where I might burn some bridges, but wood is an outdated material anyway, and swimming is a good skill to have.
-
Incomplete vehicles that had some parts made, but would’ve required some custom componants to be made for a full prototype (e.g. Ceolian, Kranvagn, Srtv 2000, etc.) are generally acceptable, but should only be added if there aren’t any other options, and feedback from the players needs to constantly taken into account until it is considered to be balanced by the vast majority of the playerbase. And ofc, they should be realistic enough that they couldve been made irl, no Wunderwaffe.
-
Vehicles that have blueprints with numbers, but no prototype started (to-scale mockups counted (T&Cs apply)). Okej, so. My belief is that this is what a paper vehicle is, and that they can be added, BUT ONLY as a last resort, when there are no other options from the above catagories. Rules from 5 still apply.
And here is my limit:
- Concept-only tanks without any credable blueprints whatsoever, like the P1000 Ratte (extreme example, but you get the idea), dont belong in WT, as they are barely a step above fantasy.
- And obviously, purely fictional vehicles (like ‘those ones’ in WoT) don’t either.
You can try to change my mind on these if you enjoy arguing with brick walls (/j; I will engage civil debates)
3 Likes
I would take this one. But not as vehicle for standart modes.
WW2 German Ruler and his allies emerge from Antarctica with some secret tech and capture power in Germany mid Cold war. They quickly capture almost entire Eurasia with their new weapon - legion of P1000 Ratte improved with mysterious resource from ice continent.
Remaining West and East countries join forces and retreat to east. They stop at Vladivostok and set up last frontier there. This final battle might decide fate of Eurasia or even entire world.
Players will have access to all weapons available at the time - from museum exhibits to most advanced aircraft and nuclear weapons carriers. From tanks and small cannons to massive 914mm Little David. Even some experimental tech like rail guns - everything to stop this massive onslaught.
Sounds quite crazy and completely unrealistic but with some polishment it could become April 1st event. Idea of huge offensive operation always feels epic to me. Defense could become multilayered and players would have to do different tasks to slow this rat plague down.
3 Likes
Omfg, I love this! You should absolutely write a suggestion for it; I would play the hell out of it!
I think it would be putting the cart before the horse if it were better than the original vehicles in that tree. It would be fine if it were just filling in the gaps for vehicle types missing from that tree, but…
For example, the French Leopard
1 Like
Paper vehicle should not be added. Does not matter if they are unique, as long as they were never built, they should not be added.
1 Like
Unless it’s modified, like the Strv 12X, though i Guess that isnt C&P anymore, so it doesnt count anyway.
nvm
Thanks. But I dont have much time nor desire to make proper suggestion. Not only plot but maybe images, plans (defense plan and formation of ratte and maybe their support aviation/ground forces), lists of vehicles etc.
So if someones likes this concept they are free to expand it further into proper suggestion. I wont mind and will be glad to see that.
fair enough, Im in a similar position, so I hope someone takes it up
1 Like
ok, but what is your definition of “built”? like, how “built” does a vehicle need to be? Put into production? Combat-ready, one-off prototypes? Partially built final designs?