Watch gaijin pull the norway card on us and claim aussie vehicles to be reserved for use as premium and event vehicles only
Still be better than the “We’ll add Aussie vehicles to any nation we feel like”. It would certainly be a step in the right direction
1 Like
It literally is. There are Australian vehicles in the game which can be played. Australia = playable.
They don’t have their own tech tree. That doesn’t mean non-playable.
But it did, so GJN has set a precedent that clearly doesn’t align with your beliefs.
The devs have said that once a nation is added to a tree, they try to keep vehicles of that nation within that tree. The Australian AIM going to the US tree was the exception, most likely because they didn’t want to upset the US mains/give the UK mains something nice.
6 Likes
T-90S was built by India. Never served in the Soviet military nor by an ex-Soviet like Ukraine or Russia.
It was designed for export.
This rule has been in the game for years, long before Hunter.
Hunter made more people realize the rule is there.
@SlowHandClap
Thanks for the backup.
However you contradicted yourself:
It can’t be an exception if there’s no tree.
- “They don’t have their own tech tree” that’s literally exactly what i mean. No one else has had a problem getting that. Playable nations/Gaming nations, the nations that are on the tabs on the bottom of the homescreen
- The Mexas and AIM predate both of those things, that would make the hunter and exception to the precedent already set. Or does history only begin when it’s most convenient for you?
If that was the case then any Canadian ground vehicles should be in the US tree as that’s where Canada was added first but i doubt you’d be okay with that. The AIM isn’t an exception to anything, the recent decisions by gaijin were the exceptions and were disliked. Honestly incredible how much brit mains will do to not play British vehicles, except play a different tech tree.
Germany never wanted the hunter, we would habe prefered the alpha jet or heck the argentinian pucara or hows it called, gajin was just to lazy to make a new model and gave us copy paste grab and everyone started blaming germany
3 Likes
australia as a nation isnt in the game, the abrams those can be found in the us tree
I was referencing that was what the people here are doing for Britain, hence the whole ironic part after quoting him
I’ve already said that, that wasn’t the point there it’s a reply, the original comment is needed for context
Then you should say that instead of saying “non-playable nation”.
Mexas yes, but the Brits had the Canadian ADATS in the same year that the Mexas was added. Two years before the AIM was added.
You say the Swiss hunter is the exception, but they literally just added a squadron T-90 to the British tree, so that dispels that.
I know you’re just baiting to get a rise from UK players, but I’ll give you a serious answer.
I play other nations - I have top tier air for US, UK, and Russia, and I have top tier ground for UK and Russia. Is it too much to ask that the vehicles from my nation be represented properly though? They are famed in real life for their survivability, but in game they have all the drawbacks of heavy army without any of the real benefits due to inaccuracies with how things have been modelled by GJN.
No one blames Germany for GJN decisions lmao.
The fact that no one wanted it doesn’t change the fact that GJN have set a precedent by making that decision.
You guys need to stop viewing this game and its balancing as a nation vs nation war, and instead more of a contest with GJN to make the game as fun/balanced as possible. Like it’s not enough for the three major nations to have it much better than everyone else, they also want to make it as painful as possible to play the minor nations too lol…
There really aren’t any rules on this stuff as gajin have gone both ways with this stuff
1 Like
-
No one else has had a problem with that
-
The Adats was due to the fact that the British didn’t have a top tier Sam and didn’t have any they could get, a lot diffrent from another mbt when the Brit’s have a bunch already
The t90 and the hunter are both exceptions, the t90 is even newer than the hunter still and was also a disliked addition. If anything it was an attempt to please the people that make threads like this
So you want British tanks to be represented properly by begging for non British tanks? amazing
If gaijin chooses not to model something like the way you want it thats not something anyone here has control over, nor is it fixed by adding random tanks to their tree.
We like it to be fixed
5 Likes
The way i viewed this thread i see some arguing about the foreign vehicles (from other countries) that should be or shouldn’t be added in the British Tree.
I agree that an Australian or Canadian (Sub)Tree should have already been part of the game but South Africa unfortunately got that spot but it’s still an unique additions to the UK.
However like mentioned these foreign bought vehicles from Australia and Canada still should be placed in the country the vehicle originated from until both Australia or Canada get added in the game. Their own indigenous designs however can be represented in the British Tree like the recent addition (Strikemaster MK.88)
Australia most definitely does not have enough vehicles to get it’s own tree and I am pretty sure a Canadian tech tree would literally just be a US/UK mashup
2 Likes
Yeah, for now I agree. It’s just that they don’t always do that. Like the Hunter. Switzerland has less representation in game than either Australia or Canada. But instead of the Hunter coming to Britain where it belongs as an export vehicle, it went to Germany, that would be fine if Germany has them as a sub TT, but I think Gaijin has said they have no plans for that currently. It was just the laziest and easiest option to give Germany a 9.7 CAS as they could just C&P the Hunter F6.
Just need better clarification/rules for the future. Because the Abrams and Leopard standards conflict with those set by the Hunter. In all 3 instances, Britain looses.
3 Likes
I agree and also hope that Gaijin will be more clear on how vehicles get represented in-game and keep it that way to avoid this issue of adding vehicles to nation it has no connection to.
There is no doubt that an standalone Australian is not going to work that is why some suggested an Australian-New Zealand Tree. It’s however better for them to be in the British Tree.
Canada might have the numbers but how many are unique/uniquely modified and would it be a full tree or an Israeli style Tree? I’m more aware of their vehicles between 1975 till today but not much about WW2.
1 Like
Australia and New Zealand are best kept as part of the british tree. NZ has even less to offer than Australia and all their trees would have gaping holes in them.
Canada could probably be a full tree when it comes to vehicles they built and used, but they wouldn’t bring anything new to the table, the Rams and Grizzlies were basically just modified M3s and Shermans and other than that they used just british and american tanks until recent times. Similar story goes for their planes, with some modified designs and otherwise just british/american stuff, just no unique stuff except for the Canuck.
I believe Canada would be best kept as a support nation, a pot of vehicles that can be added to NATO nations that might end up needing those vehicles
1 Like
I disagree that the biggest screw you. It would be saying the same as “your nation shouldn’t exist”. It falls under the same thing as this thread existing. Being able to used your nation tech together should be universal because right now it more then likely for a Canadian vehicle to be added to China.
Well there is the Grizzlies and Rams(and modified or Canadian only for others) for medium tanks and no domestic heavys. There is plenty of unique Armored cars, SPGs and SPAs, IFV. So in-game they would have a strong point in light, SPAA and TD vehicles.
Check out the Suggestion moderator Thatz’s tree.
(This is one of my favorites for odd Canadian WW2 things)
3 Likes