I agree and seeing the tracks covered correctly from the driver’s or commander’s port would be amazing too…
3 Likes
Why aren’t there more Churchill tanks to begin with? Isn’t it a pretty iconic tank, its a shame too many iconic vehicles are premiums
4 Likes
yes completely, the fact there isnt a Mk7 in the TT at BR 4, could even see the Mk1 at BR 3 maybe, That or the crocodile at BR 4, that would be fantastic, though possibly a bit too broken, like a 50m flame projector would just bust any urban map.
1 Like
It makes me wonder if the reason there are not more Churchills tanks , valentines, challengers, comets etc is because Darkflow has the intention to make a British TT.
2 Likes
Honestly I dont want to make it a separate faction, as much as I love the brits and Italians, the playerbase isnt there to spread out the players even more.
1 Like
What does it matter if the players of the British or Italian TT will be in the same battles as the rest of Axis and allied players? There is no real spread.
1 Like
I mean in such case why separate the tech trees anyway? Since that just prevents researching the same things over and over then, folders exist for a reason.
1 Like
Because some people are only interested in one nation and don’t want to waste their time researching other nation squads or weapons.
1 Like
Folders can get messy. Youd have folders everywhere and newer players may not be aware they are there.
Also as TimeRover said you still have to research stuff you dont want and wont use. Eg. If you like American tech, youre forced to research the M3 Grant before you can get to the Lee.
Or in my case if I want an APC I HAVE to have Americans which is wrong. Personally Id prefer a Universal Carrier and there were various variants that are different to the event universal carrier.
1 Like
Frankly myself and at least a couple others Id say, dont want to keep researching the same guns and tanks time and time again. And frankly having to research one gun your not interested in is better than researching an entire “new” tree of things you should already have.
The ideal solution would have a toggle between nations, where shared guns overlap and count for both. So you get the best of both worlds, however there is no chance of DF adding that so in that case, Id much rather a couple of foldered options instead of spending 10 times the time researching a new tree.
1 Like
Thats a problem of the UI in which case, not to mention I really dont think a folder is some hidden arcane lore, I mean you open it when you go to research the next thing, even accidentally you will bump into it.
A solid 40% of all researches in the game should be foldered between all Nations. The only ones spared the madness are the poor Japs but thats only due to general neglect for them anyhow.
Then why not put the Americans, British and Soviets in one TT and the Germans Italians and Japanese in another one? And depending in what squads you are using you go to one battle region or another. It’s just a matter of folders.
1 Like
What, are you, or am I massively misunderstanding something here?
You yourself said it wouldnt effect the player base because they will still fight in the same matches, in which case, just have an Axis faction and a Western Allies faction, and soviets and the Japanese arent that concerned about weapon overlap since they largely fought with their own militaries.
In which case, why even have separate tech trees for the British and US, or the Germans and Italians.
My point being here instead of adding an extra million in research points, just keep them in the same trees with the appropriate squads to go with them? And to save a little bit of the UI so the TT doesnt scroll on like a mario level, you add folders so you can pick whether to detour your research or continue on with the main nations gear.
What shared research is there though? The British/Commonwealth dont use M1 Garands or Johnsons or BARs, the Yanks dont use Lee Enfields or Stens or Churchills.
Even with Thompson SMGs, although manufactured in USA, certain Thompsons were more commonly used by the UK-Commonwealth and others used more by American forces.
So they could just split them between the two.
Same goes for tanks. We see this in War Thunder different variants of Stuarts and Shermans were used.
The Grant was British-Commonwealth, Lee was American. Sherman II British/Commonwealth, M4A1 USA.
I dont understand the issue here.
Also as TimeRover said the two forces are mostly queued together so it wouldnt really be splitting the playerbase.
Also just on weapons like Australians and Americans fought alongside each other in the Pacific such as at Lae but we used completely different weapons. There were some instances of Australians on patrol with Americans being issued Garands for ease of compatibility like ammunition but us Aussies didnt like that cause we had our .303s and were used to that type of ammo.
War Thunder has USA and UK separate. And as TimeRover said the USSR was a part of the Allies and even used some American tech. So… what should we make a USA-UK-USSR tree now with these precious folders of yours?
1 Like
My lord am I talking to a brick wall here?
For a start, British units commonly used whatever they could get their grubby mits on, I mean it was an army in name only post Dunkirk.
British units commonly used US vehicles, some like the Grant sure saw some limited changes in design, though it should be noted that the British did also use Lee’s as well. As for the Sherman 2 and M4A1, its the same tank merely named differently. Like the British would go on to field the M4A2 sherman, should that also be added twice since the British used it too?
As you pointed out the main reason why British units didnt use US small arms (as a whole, there are exceptions to this rule which going by enlisted logic completely invalidates it, anyhow I digress) is due to the logistical issues of shipping forward two types of ammunition to the same regiment.
But where they did or at least could, as in the case of the grease gun for one such example, they very often used a mix of guns even in the same unit. Something that would also be seen in German units especially on the eastern front, some using a weird mix of italian, soviet designed, german and maybe even us lend lease weapons all at once.
However, ignoring the historical points of this completely and merely looking at the gameplay. And now remember your arguing from the point of view a new player being so unable, that they cant even find a folder accidentally.
You in turn expect new players to effectively double the amount of research that must be done. Again coming from the same person who thinks its too much to research a mere 30k to get the Grant to then get the Lee.
Or instead of that, we could just simply and elegantly, leave it in the had of the player to decide if he wants to detour for a gun he may or may not want, or let him continue on his merry journey to BR5.
1 Like
Yeah honestly adding more TTs at this current moment is just not a viable thing to do, and from what the devs have said on the matter they agree which I’m eternally greatful for, especially since as has been hammered home… folders exist lol
1 Like
What about France-Poland-Belgium-Netherlands?
I posted a suggestion of those countries together as their own tech tree BR I- III.
France and Poland especially should be added to the game, but if we add them to USA-UK it will have folders everywhere and just be a terrible situation.
Just add them as squads, all those rare weapons seem better placed as event weapons. Why do you think adding yet another tree is a better solution there? Not to mention a tree that either has an unfair advantage by the fact the max BR is can face is BR 3 or it faces BR 4 and 5 and hence is useless.
1 Like
No, they specifically said that seperate TTs in form of Britain or Italy are definitely not planned.