Could add the Valentine tank, Vickers MK VII Tetrarch: Airdropped, (Churchill variants: “Black Prince”, “Crocodile” “AVRE”) and also Canadian Ram Tank, M22 Locust: Airdropped.
1 Like
don’t expect it
It could fit in, but DF would have to do it right
Some equipment, which was used by both USA and Britain could stay in both, but i understand that the tier 3 would be issue as USA couldnt make a bolt action rifle that would be able to compete with SMLE/Lee Enfields
From what i could find on this forum, Reddit and even when i asked in 4 battles, there was interest from the community for Commonwealth to be added
Yes, for some who like to run mixed lineups, but its as bad as being forced to use US rifleman squad because there isnt even a Commonwealth one
I wouldnt mind, if it would be added in 2 years instead of 1 year, but as long as it would be complete, playeble and could compete with Axis/Japan
Personally, i would make option for all the premium squads/battlepass soldiers/weapons to be either transfered or you could keep it at US
As i said, it would be good as long as DF would actually do something
At the end, i wouldnt mind the Commonwealth being with US, but as it is right now, its not Allies or western Allies, its just USA with tiny little bit of British flavour. For example the Turner SMLE, which could be perfect Canadian premium squad, is just generic US squad, the Meteor, which could be used by British squad, is just US squad. British troops in Bulge dont even have any winter clothing, their entire customisation is just overlooked, pacific uniforms are completly wrong, helmet customisation is almost non-existent, they just think that when they slap gloves on them, that it would make that proper winter uniform
As i said, i wouldnt mind the Commonwealth being with US, i even use M1’s with the British, but there need to be either more British/Commonwealth tanks/planes/squads/weapons/engineer placables/customisation added and the USA being renamed to Allies, or just make the Commonwealth its own faction
1 Like
separating Britain wont magically increase content added to the game.
All current issues will persist anyway and wont speed solving them.
6 Likes
Ahah, you rightfully placed the Spit IX in br3, something devs can’t even do correctly 
2 Likes
that was typo, i meant to write ‘if’ instead of ‘as’
No, the plane is good at BR II absolutely balanced they should keep it that way its the perfect BR II plane 
:
Don’t touch my spitfire from BR II I just made the absolutely broken build combined with 2 lighting’s.
Good stuff!
I am planning on making a video series on how I would implement a Commonwealth tree, and there are some similar ideas here to it.
3 Likes
Yet another YouTuber desperate to push anti-player nonsense into the game? Because that’s exactly what seperate British/Italian trees are.
Nice.
Maybe one day you’ll make it to CM.
This is a weird statement. How would separate trees be a bad thing from the player’s perspective? Players are given more gear to grind for, and the Commonwealth could just matchmake together with the US tree in most or all conflicts.
I don’t understand what the need is to say things like “Yet another YouTuber desperate to push anti-player nonsense into the game”. It’s inflammatory and unproductive.
2 Likes
Acting like it couldn’t be added to already existing USA (western allies) tree.
While a new tech tree would make it impossible to have combined lineups, or combine the original legacy British stuff with the new ones.
It would also mean a lot of copypasted stuff. And devaluing all the current premium squads, as they would remain in the original faction.
What is needed on the contrary is proper intengration of minor nations to already existing tech tree.
Which is slowly happening with the recent ability to change nationalities of soldiers. (I have no idea why something like this would be developed if the developers were planning to add separate tech trees for these nations right afterwards).
I apologize for the saltiness. It’s just annoying to have the exact same discussion every time someone new brings up the idea of new unnecessary tech trees.
Plus:
2 Likes
War Thunder also had combined tech trees when it released 13 years ago, due to a lack of overall content. I think most would agree that it would be strange if the German and Italian tree were still combined, and Chinese vehicles were still premiums in the Soviet tree. Unless you have legacy equipment that is now unobtainable, new players cannot combine nations into lineups, unless minor nations have a branch within the tree (such as Finland in Sweden, Thailand in Japan etc). I believe nations that have enough equipment to have their own tree should have their own tree. That way, factions can have more of an identity, and make sense in theatres where only one of the two major factions within a combined tree were present. Perhaps a separate game mode with combined troops could be added in the future, if that is an important feature for you?
I think the nationality change feature aligns with the potential for splitting trees. The feature, just like separating trees, gives you the ability to make lineups feature a singular nation. Another benefit of splitting up nations is that the amount of filler in trees can be reduced. Look at the Axis tree and how much of the SMG line could be streamlined by separating the more prominently Italian weapons from the tree. If a player really wants something like a Beretta M38A for a German soldier, make it a premium squad for a Germany tree, but give it to the Italian tree as standard. Obviously, we can still be intelligent about it in some specific cases if a weapon is from one nationality, but was used by another (such as a Volkssturm Carcano in 7.92mm, or a Beretta M38/44).
I see the tech tree separation as an important step in the long-term health of Enlisted. If the game wants to continue to stay alive and bring new and interesting content to existing trees, the bloat (even with foldering) in the existing axis and allies trees would make grinding to top tier incredible slow and frustrating. It also gives the option to expand to new theatres and divide up matchmaking if the population of the game increases (which is what the players, developers and Gaijin want, unless I’m missing something).
Perhaps we disagree on some of these points fundamentally, which is fine, but lets not throw insults if we can’t come to an agreement, respectfully disagree, and move on. That’s the adult thing to do.
3 Likes
Btw.
Nationality in customization options means. In the future, if slightly reworked, certain unique nationalities could only be allowed in certain specific campaign presets (just like we have outfits restricted to certain presets) . And if MM places you in a different map that wouldn’t correlate with your unique nationality. The default main nationality would automatically replace it.
So you dont really need separate tech trees just to prevent the Brits being in the Ardennes or the Chinese being in Tunisia.
War thunder is prime example of why several unnecessary tech trees filled with copypasted content is not something that players are benefiting from.
It’s much better to do what WT did with Britain/sounth Africa or Sweeden/Finland.
That’s what’s beneficial to players. Seperate tech trees are just totally artificial restrictions. And there’s nothing you can benefit from.
2 Likes
because in warthunder a germamn tank can fight an italian tank, or a japanese tank
a us tank can fight a uk or ussr tank meaning adding faction does no add q’s and divide the player base.
yes uk and italty can fight alongside germany or us but the point of a separate uk tech tree would be to fight in battles that us was not involved thus uk only q’s thus creating separate qs and splitting the player base.
and yes copy paste like the american grant, stuart and shermans and thompsons at least only add ‘new’ items like the sherman firefly or use the lee a uk modified grant.
Eheh I’m a hardcore TeaBoo (Commonwealth main), and Canadian everyone here knows it. So to finally get my beloved IX, piloted in part by Canadians, let’s say I’m overjoyed…
But, I’m not a russian Soviet main ( commieboo ): I do not need unfair advantages to have fun and perform, there’s no way such a powerful plane should be br2 (it could work well in br4, no joke)
It’s probably the craziest BR offense I’ve seen to date, and it favours my preferred faction.
1 Like
Enjoy it while it lasts 
I just wish I could combine it with the Hurricane.
1 Like
I feel bad for Axis. And Japan, poor Zero will get chased…
Well not exactly:
The Zero lets say its a little secret but it overperforming in this game in altitudes that should not be performing Or if I say more correctly the cap of 5300 makes the Zero perform even in highest altitudes in game not as badly as in war thunder since there you can go much higher. And Japan has good AA in the TT but Germany will suffer the most from this Spitfire. Since in low altitude you can dog fight it in Zero and win just like against all other US planes so really not much changes for Japan in BR II in BR III its bigger problem since you cant dog fight it with Ki 100 that good. And if you gonna engage in vertical combat there is much better planes like the lighting that has two engines so for Zero players they will feel the least this plane impact however the Ki-100 well they will suffer against it.
5,3km?
Nobody ever fly that high (in Enlisted), I stay at 2km and most enemies just pass right under me without noticing (it’s also safe to pass over carriers while having a lil altitude buffer, you explode at 1,499km)
Don’t get me wrong, I love the Zero so much I use it even in br5 (well, the flame tank one). It’s seriously great.
But, it lack speed.
New Spit IX got both speed and maneuverability, in the hands of a decent pilot, I wonder what the enemies will be able to do
Like you said, I will shamelessly abuse the IX before they uptier it to br3 or 4, though, eheheh
1 Like