The biggest issue here is that SIM is not curated enough. They just choose a BR range and include all vehicles. Stuff like captured vehicles is fine IMO they are somewhat visually distinct. But Japanese M4 and Italian hellcats and such that were received after the war should be excluded from play in matchups where these nations oppose the nations of origin.
Played sim with some buddies recently and almost teamkilled one of them since he was in the italian hellcat and we were playing axis. If I just fired at a hellcat halfway across the map without saying anything (voice chat) I would have killed him for no reason but that gaijin allows this kind of bullshit to happen.
What I perceive however as a grave problem is the fact that many trees consist of sub-trees or contain vehicles that would IRL have been placed on opposing sides, and how this is not tackled in a meaning full way in WT.
Prime examples are of course Germany, with East and West Germany in the same tree, or China with Taiwan.
Why do I have to fly an American Phantom against a German Phantom, instead of a German Phantom against a German MiG, for example.
And the country pairings especially in Sim also are way too restrictive, and far from historical, with many combinations that make no sense.
it would need quite a concept change, but I think to have pre-defined historically reasonable vehicle setups would be the way to go. A bit like Tank Sim, but with more options/levels…
If a vehicle looks similar, plays the same, and does exactly the same thing at the same BR — it is copy-paste.
But if it changes gameplay, introduces new capabilities, and has a clearly different role — then it is not copy-paste.
Yeah, I had a successful experience with reporting of Italian M18 visuals, suggesting its rework using just CDK tools, basically hiding some stuff. Imo Italian M18 is an example of good copypaste even despite the model is the same, but the best imo would be stuff like M26 “Ariete” which is entirely new model. Other Italian copypaste is not that lucky though, even removing mudguards from some of their postwar leased vehicles would make them look more Italian)
And we also have things like Hungarian and Israeli Shilka which have incorrect models (should be V1), this is the worst copypaste imo and you can’t even report it because “prove that this variant wasn’t used by these nations as well”.
Have you seen the various responses in this thread from the playerbase saying what copy-paste is? It’s not very unified, so I don’t see how the playerbase could decide on anything.
The playerbase is made up of a lot of different people… different cultures… different economies… different opinions… (all of which is expected)
The forum is a small fraction of the number of players, and even on the forums people don’t agree.
Some people want unique vehicles as rewards… but also a lot of people don’t think unique vehicles should be limited in this way and should be available to everyone (as a generally released tech-tree vehicle).
I’m seeing lots of different opinions on what a copy-paste vehicle is.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
