This T-73B3 Arena is the closest and latest example of copy and paste we had, reasons is something that doesn’t end only on looks is technical as well. Gaijin justify it as a solving measure for gatekeeping content for certain nations, but I certainly won’t be jumping in my hat because I can’t play a M4 Sherman in my not-US line-up, one is gatekeeping content and the other is just copy and pasting for sake of content.
1 Like
Dictionaries, content creation tools, and their users all collectively dictate what “copy-paste” means.
Copy-paste always meant and will always mean “identical”, any other meaning is disrespecting and looking down on millions of artists around the world.
“Exact job = copy-paste” means all 4 Leclercs are just copy-paste of M1A1, a bad definition and isn’t used by anyone in the field for good reason.
1 Like
That is by far the most shameful case of copy-paste, since the model they should have has a better radar system.
In fact, if it’s realistic, I don’t mind the copy-paste too much as long as they add something that makes them a little different, like bag placement, equipment boxes, etc. I’m still waiting for the Sherman III and V in the British tech tree, since they were the main users.
2 Likes
Copy and Paste to me is when a vehicle is literally a 1:1 copy with no discernable differences.
The M44/M55 are identical (besides Camos iirc), so are copy and paste.
The Shermans across trees are near-identical to US Shermans (iirc).
An example of something that’s close to it is the M60A3s.
The M60A3 TTS (US) top shell is M774 (372mm of pen max) w/ ERA.
The M60A3 TTS (TH/JP + TW/CN) top shell is DM33 (421mm of pen max) w/o ERA.
The M60A3 TTS of Thailand and Taiwan are identical as far as I’m aware, while the US TTS is not as it has a slightly worse shell but they have ERA which is pretty useful.
I also want to say that I don’t find that Copy and Paste is necessarily a bad thing. If it fills a gap a nation has- and they’ve operated it- then I’m fine with it. I don’t always think it is the best solution (the US getting Thai Stingray instead of another variant they tested/made) but I don’t necessarily hate it. The M60A3 TTS (though I don’t play it much) was a decent addition to the Japanese TT, but it could’ve been unique if it has the “WERA” (Wooden) armour attached or even the TIFCS instead of the TTS.
I do think that BP vehicles should be a good balance of unique but shouldn’t fill a gap. The ELC 901 is a good addition as a BP vehicle since it doesn’t take away from the ELC Bis and it genuinely is a different model. Since its similar to the ELC Bis, it can function as a premium (?) version or a backup. The J30 I’m not too well informed on. Don’t know if the flight performance is different (extra blade?) but I know it has a different radar (placeholder for now) and is a different variant altogether.
Cannot weait to start spawning in 4 ELCs in 1 match
1 Like
Is the J30 Copy Paste? It is currently a NF. II with a reskin and revised Xray. But beside the pure visuals it appears to be identical in performance and has the same AI Mk. IV radar display.
This has been dismissed as ‘Placeholder’, but imo this is a very loose use of the word. I could understand if it had FB. VI stats (essentially the same airframe/engine with a nose job) and a SCR-720A from the P-61* (the original PS-20/AI.Mk X) as these would be mostly correct bar a few details.
You can already Test fly the J30 from the Rank 51 options, and it has the 24hr Test Drive at Rank 9 which isn’t far away. You would expect at this point it would at least be close to a finished product.
… Spotted a couple of minor bug to add to the list - The P-61s SCR-720A is labelled Mk. X despite being the US version. The NF. II has a Mk. 4 radar when it should be Mk. IV as Roman Numerals were still used at this point.
mosquito with a radar thats pointless in game as we dont get air night battles. Gameplay is the same as the TR33, ASH and NF2
still just a mosquito. And i say this as a BIG fan of the mosquito whose almost certainly going to gun for getting this variant.
its still a pretty simple early aircraft radar. even when we get to radar as complex as the AI mkX (which has bug reports out on it being wrong) they are not beating just looking with eyes.
ehh a larger cooling system and a little more dry power isnt a massive change, the rest of the mkIX is quite literally the mkV with no changes. not a good argument at all mate.
for future discussions sake i reccomend comparing a mkV to a mkXIV as the mkXIV has a new griffon instead of merlin and a completely new “laminar flow” wing. It gets the point of drastic changes to the family of aircraft across far better
1 Like
Seems to fit just fine. The IX is very clearly a different and improved variant of the Mk V.
This can also be done, but the Griffons had had so many changes from a Mk V that it was almost a new airframe. Everything from tail, engine shape, prop, canopy, undercarriage etc etc.
1 Like
i would argue the difference from the first DH98 to the J30 is as drastic as merlin spit to griffon-powered spiteful-infused spitfire models. but each to their own in examples
Ngl, having a compare feature in game that works like the wiki would be quite nice to differentiate vehicles better
2 Likes
For me copy-paste its the same vehicle with none to little (almost insignificant) changes. In the same TT.
For example:
- the new merkava 1
- the new event t72
- some of the magachs that just have less or more era placements
- premium ouragan
Now if we talk about between TTs, I would say same vehicle that other country have, with the only exception of gap filling. Or if its iconic of the nation that use it.
For example:
- some spaas especially m42
- Sho’t
- amx13
Etc
As a joke, Feels like you want to gatekeep American vehicles on japanese tech tree by disabowing JGSDF.
You guys sold those to them, they paid USD for that, then that is their right to have it on their tech-tree.
In ‘Dictionary’, you might be right.
HK Mark 23 isn’t M45A1, USP45, or M1911
Also, M92F can’t be Glock 17, P226, Browning Hi-power or MP443.
Yes. Those aren’t the same.
Meanwhile,
-Mk23, M45A1, USP45, M1911 shares same .45 ACP ammunition, and ‘sidearm’ role.
-M92F, G17, P226, Hi-power, MP-443, shares same 9x19 ammunition, and ‘sidearm’ role.
If you ordered five random firearms from gunshop, and he gave you five 9mm pistols from the same factory.
The customer will obviously get frustrated.
Don’t forget about the Conventionality of Language.
If everyone calls ‘giving similar vehicle which share the same role and similar modelling’ in terms of ‘Copy-paste’
Then it is copy-paste.
No matter how good or bad the definition, it is a promise.
Just like ‘the Une table est une table’.
It means a word derives its meaning from social consensus, not just from the object itself.
2 Likes
America sold a lot of vehicles to a lot of nations. That doesn’t mean they should be copy slopped to every nation in Warthunder.
Japan is simply one of the more egregious examples of copy slopping. Not only do they have more than almost any other nation, but they don’t even need a single one. Japan has enough unique vehicles irl.
4 Likes
Yes.
It is debatable. There would be playerbase who wants to play British Chaffee with Sherman IIA(76mm Sherman Variant) and some other lend-leased vehicles. because it is also a part of history.
As a British Main, I still await P-51s and Sabre F.4, which ‘WE ORDERED’ from YOU.
But we didn’t even had rights to get ‘copy slopped’. :/
In case you gets alergic too much about copy-paste, Austrailian built CAC Mustang can be an option for the UK Tech-tree.
have more than almost any other nation?
Well, of course, this captured image isn’t a direct comparison and needs extra calculating,
(For example, WW2 Germany + Western Germany + Eastern Germany + and some Argentine vehicles.)
But well, I don’t think Japan has ‘more vehicles than almost any other nation’
And if we only consider the ‘copy-pasting’ side, you guys sent them back to stone-age. Weren’t you?
Unique vehicles
-Which saw never combat
-or never finished development
-because of being destroyed by carpet bombing
-also acts inferior to imported counterparts in nearby BR in War Thunder.
-Questionable about giving new play experiences.
:P
1 Like
Copy paste according to most War Thunder players: “BAAAAH this vehicle has a weapon, it is copy paste because all other vehicles in the games have weapons”.
Seriously though, to me copy paste is a 100% identical vehicle, like the M55s seem to be. Small differences, even if it is basically the same vehicle but built in a different country with a different machine gun or something, is a unique vehicle.
3 Likes
I don’t mean more vehicles total I mean more copy slopped vehicles.
A significant chunk of WT vehicles never saw combat irl.
2 Likes
For ww2 period they do lack ground vehicles, most of them are so ass they are at very low br, and then things like Ho-Ri and other paper heavy tanks are not even real, just paper. And I do not want gaijin to take the WoT path with japan.
Sometimes, as a joke,
‘rarely’ 100% identical copy-paste acts better than ‘uniqueness to being inferior’, I guess.
For Example
-F-4J(UK) which cannot armed with AIM-7F and lost VTAS HMS for ‘100% historical’
-French Lancaster, which can’t use Blockbuster and has fewer turrets.
-Swedish P-51, which hasa slightly worse ammunition belt
-French F-100D, which can’t use AIM-9E but shares the same BR with american counterparts.
-Finnish PzKpfw IV, which lost its Anti-Air MG42.
I am well aware 100% copy-paste is lame, but sometimes, it seems Gaijin intended to nerf the vehicle to ‘being inferior’ for ‘looks unique’
:|
1- Well, before introducing the Thailand subtree, they had quite a lot of domestic vehicles, innit? So I don’t think it has ‘most copied vehicles’
2- Maybe it is your karma that you sent them back to stone-age. They lost their capability to build more unique vehicles. quite similar to French in ‘dark age of 1940s’
For example, JASDF didn’t develop enough modern jets, so how can we add jets in japanese Tech Tree without copying?
You missed the rest of the part, but cherry-picked that one, eh? :|
I mean, some magical, mythical unique domestic japanese vehicle can be ‘looks fun’ because it ‘looks’ unique.
But in fact, it wouldn’t be good enough to give fun.
Just like how we Brits are FORCED to use SOLID AP on our 75mm QF Mk. V even though we used both of ‘Solid M61 APCBC’ and ‘Fuzed M61 APCBC’.
What is your definition of ‘uniqueness’?
-Being inferior to the big 3 major nations forever? By being gatekept for the greater good in the name of ‘copy paste bad’?
And most of the unique japanese ground vehicles would be good enough to fill ranks 1-2, which are already cramped.
1 Like
I couldn’t agree with you more. Copy-and-paste only works on tech trees that don’t really have a vehicle to get out of. Instead of copying and pasting when there are many different vehicles that can come outI couldn’t agree with you more. Copying and pasting is only applicable to those technology trees where there are really no vehicles to go out, not when there are many different vehicles to go out. Such lazy behavior will make the game lose its fun…
1 Like
Which is why I hate the term since when you pressure people into why they call it" C&P" it mainly boils down for them not liking it and that really winds me up as they’ve could of easily said they don’t like it but to them saying it’s easier to say it’s C&P just to attention seek.