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.
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
For me copy-paste its the same vehicle with none to little (almost insignificant) changes. In the same TT.
For example:
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:
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.
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.
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
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.
I don’t mean more vehicles total I mean more copy slopped vehicles.
A significant chunk of WT vehicles never saw combat irl.
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.
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…
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.
I don’t really care, obviously there’s a vague consensus on what copy and paste vehicles are (yes the J30 is C+P, just because it’s not on the same level as the maximum effort Chinese and Thai M60A3 TTS doesn’t make it turbo unique) but what is bad or good copy and paste depends entirely on who you ask.
I’m talking about the present.
Then Gajin shoulda added subtrees with unique vehicles instead of just copy slopping.
but it makes almost no game play difference so it didnt really need to be added honestly like you could have chose anything else like for example the sherman with M17 whiz bang launchers
even if you dont consider this swedish mosquito copy and paste if you look at a few battle passes ago they literally just took a B25 and called it unique cause it was in the french tree
This would be a tank, so it would not have replaced the air reward.
The J30 is a spesific variant that only Sweden had. Had it been something very unique with a large “gameplay difference”, a different set of people would be upset that its “takes something unique away from the tree”. So a balance must be struck.
yes i do agree with what your saying but they could have chose something a little more unique for example for aircraft heres something a bit unique no one would care if was gone
swedens test bed for jet engines
This is a Lancaster bomber, without the bomber part (as there is a jet engine taking up the entire bomb bay) and all defensive turrets removed. It has no weaponry, as its sole purpose was to test engines.
Well, Thailand has 17 vehicles in total,
4 Ground Vehicles
-M163 VADS
-M60A3 TTS
-Stingray
-Oplot-T
and some other 13 aeroplanes.
Heavily concentrated on filling the ‘missing gap of modern jets’
And well, the Oplot, with some fancy ‘advanced/modernised’ F-5E (with israel technology), isn’t a copy-paste one.
How about Alpha jet with AIM-9P4 or AV-8S with inferior AIM-9P (Unlike T-2, for Harrier, AIM-9G is better because it gives longer range for stealth-kill)
I don’t think the addition of Thailand subtree didn’t made a big difference.
Some of them are lame, but they are also needed. sadly. :/
For Air, I only disagree about Thai SB2C, which was a bit interesting to me, but also could be replaced by B7A.
That was the reason why Gaijin added Thailand subtree.
Well, I know that the result is quite disappointing(Half of them are copy-pasted, but also was needed), but it filled the gap anyway.
If you really worry about copy-paste,
How about
-Drive DMC-12 of your own, and stop the weapon deals?
Honestly, I just wonder why you have so much aggression against ‘Japan gets some American vehicles’.
American gets british Skink or Spitfire good, but Japanese gets american M24 bad?
Yes, too much of copy paste are lame, and I also dislike it, but I am a bit wondering about your stance, sir.