Well I guess they just have to plan it, innit?
I guess it won’t be “lost”, cuz if you already researched it, then it’s gonna be transferred to British tech tree, just like it was with tech trees after the merge
i am pretty much going to lose the ability to run UK troops with americans weapons ( as canadian did ), or using americans squads along side uk squads.
Independent UK and Italy trees are a bad idea because it would completely undermine the entire point of the merge. All you would do is split the player base further for basically zero gain, especially in the case of Italy which doesn’t even get the benefit of unique maps.
Italy plays with Germany, UK plays with USA
Tunisia, Sicily, Monte-Cassino…
2 Likes
If Italy plays with Germany then those are not unique map for Italy.
So you mean Iraly was not fought in Tunisia, Monte Cassini and Sicily?
Sicily and Tunisia, for sure (as with Libya and Southern Italy), but the Allies fought the Germans at Monte Cassino
2 Likes
How is it considered unique map when Germany can also join?
There is little difference between this and current state.
“Germany can also join”, never mind. I wanna play italian squads with italian soldiers with italian weapons on maps, where Italy fought
1 Like
Germans and italians, no?
1 Like
Should Italy play on maps where they were not, like Moscow?
Thank you for your excellent post. Please ignore the haters and know that your work is very much appreciated.
I fully support this idea. As evidenced by the draft tech tree here it is a pure lie that “UK wont have enough tech”. Indeed there are actually some replacments that can be made here like the M1 Garand and other commenters have posted great suggestions for what else could go there.
The Canadian SLR (1944) seems like a great idea for BR IV/V for example.
Great to see the Vickers Mk IV gun being considered.
I’m very pleased to see my country Australia getting some credit including the Wirraway and Boomerang!
I also like the addition of both the AEC Matador AND the Universal Carrier.
I would suggest identifying the Universal Carrier as either the Australian or Canadian version as these were different variants to the standard UC and DF could therefore keep their event UC.
The addition of Burma would be good, I do think it needs to be acknowledged however just how much further this can go.
- New Guinea and the Dutch East Indies/Timor eg Kokoda Track, Rabual, Lae, Milne Bay, Balikpapan (Australia, New Zealand)
- Singapore/Malaya (UK, Australia, New Zealand)
- Some parts of Solomon Islands and Philippines. (UK, Australia, New Zealand)
- Tobruk, El Alamein (UK, Australia, New Zealand) Egypt, Libya and Syria-Lebanon more generally.
- Battle for Italy eg Monte Cassino (New Zealand, Canada, UK)
- Greece/Crete/Yugoslavia - (UK, Australia, New Zealand)
- Later war Germany, Netherlands (UK, Canada, New Zealand)
- Early war France, Belgium, Netherlands (UK )
- Norway is an option for snow maps. (UK)
In regards to the haters:
First of all it might be semantics but when the devs have said “its not planned” that to me just implies they havent made a plan themselves which is different to “We will never implement this in the game”.
Before hating on an idea that is clearly popular amongst the playerbase Id like to hear directly from DF if they will “never” do this or simply havent planned it out yet.
I am curious why people are so hostile to new or improved content to the game??
Its funny to me how someone will post some random prototype weapon the designer barely got around to drawing like a day before the War ended for one faction’s high tier and everyones like yeah awesome idea DF implement this tomorrow,
yet when people suggest proper ideas (that as Ive said clearly have support of a lot of people and various valid arguments for them) they scream and rant against them. It makes no sense.
I read someone asks why we want UK as a separate faction when weve got them under USA. Oh, I dont know mate, maybe precisely because they are shoved under USA?!
As has been explained by multiple people, the current tree is this unruly squashing together of a lot of Yank tech and some UK-Commonwealth which isnt a good situation for either.
Splitting the trees (which we largely had pre merge anyway), allows for both USA and UK-Commonwealth to get proper tech trees full of their stuff which players can use and frees up space generally. (including for new additions to both).
Folders are not a solution in my opinion, we would have folders everywhere which would be a complete mess and make the grind even worse. Plus new players probably wouldnt even know the folder is there.
Now one of the arguments against has been those that want to play USA and UK troops at the same time and have either side use the other’s weapons.
Well first of all this is a WWII game not fantasy. The M1918BARA2 is a great gun, but it wasnt used by British-Commonwealth. DEAL WITH IT. To be honest Im just not sure why one would want GIs with .303s and Tommies with M1 Garands.
As for running squads together… why? Especially when the current option allows you to mix and match weapons anyway. Id be interested to see a poll of how many people specifically want to play with some British AND some American squads in the same line up.
To my knowledge most people keep it reasonably uniformed. For myself, the only reason I have American APC is because there is no other option. For both APC and squad Id much rather have a British or Commonwealth Universal Carrier and be able to have all UK-Commonwealth squads.
If the trees were split you could still play British one battle, play Americans next battle. Most players however as Ive said want to play as one or the other.
As for queues. My idea was that USA UK share queues where applicable, which is most campaigns at the moment anyway.
As time goes by we could see more specific maps added so for example the US would be queued for Manila while the UK-Commonwealth would be queued for Singapore or Burma. That in my opinion would allow each faction to shine as its own and add much needed variety to the game.
I dont agree this would split the playerbase since
-
New players WILL be attracted to the game by being able to play specifically as USA OR UK-Commonwealth and grind the faction they want (with a slightly less grind overall which makes the game more accessible for newer players). Thered be more factions to grind so less likely players getting bored with the game and a much wider variety of maps and tech.
-
Remember there will be various battles where the two are queued together. If it really does become a problem then they could just queue together everywhere. For that Id like to hear others opinions about how they would feel about Americans fighting in Burma and New Guinea, or British fighting at Anzio or Iwo Jima.
Keep up the great work! 
11 Likes
No, now Tunisia and maybe Stalingrad, in future Sicily and (maybe) Monte Cassino. Germans should play all of these maps
1 Like
Not the point, you would increase the grind for absolutely no reason whatsoever, which was the whole point of the merge.
Germany had troops at all of those, so Germany should be allowed to play on those maps if we get them. There is not a single campaign in WW2 where the Italians fought without German troops being present.
Aaand?
2 Likes
So you have added an entirely new grind for zero in game benefit whatsoever, which will increase the grind and force people to spread out their already thin resources in an even thinner manner, or become a faction main which makes the game that much more unbearable for everyone involved. I know you probably haven’t thought about the consequences of your proposal, but anyone who played before the campaign merge can easily tell you it’s a bad idea because we experienced the effects of playerbase splitting already.
1 Like
no matter what - an Italian map would be super cool, the scenery would be rather unique.
2 Likes
They should really rename the US faction tech tree to Western Allies, and Germany to Axis. It would make things less silly, and also they are called that at the end of matches (“United Axis Army” for Germany and such) so idk why they aren’t on the tech tree.
2 Likes
Hold it
They just translated what has been made on ru forum there is nothing wrong with that
Also as someone stated- not planned =/= not going to be implemented/added at all