Good point, but IF the Enlisted playerbase increases, then maybe more factions would be better.
1 Like
I USED to advocate for a separate Italian tree too, but I’ve changed my mind since, and now I think that the disadvantages of separating Italy or other Axis nations from Germany (as well as separating UK from USA) outweigh the benefits.
Creating separate trees would mean:
- As said, splitting the players more;
- “Minor” nations (including Italy) would suffer from lack of competitive options in certain categories and/or BRs;
- More overall grind (the XP requirements would be increased so that every nation takes more or less the same to fully unlock);
Last but not least: what would happen to all the UK and Italian units (many of which are premiums or event squads) currently in US and German trees?
It’s unlikely that they would just be shifted to the new trees. That would, from the commercial standpoint of the Devs, kill most of the point of creating new trees, since veterans would already own most of the stuff in them, thus having little incentive to buy more premiums.
Not to mention that, still from a commercial standpoint, selling a premium for nation X and later shifting it to nation Y opens a GIGANTIC can of worms, because some players may be happy with that, but it would set a precedent for significantly altering the value and purpose of a piece of paid content after selling it. Darkflow has already been (and still is) taking a lot of flak for doing something similar with old Stalingrad and Pacific full access packs, so they’d much better avoid any further step in that direction.
But on the other hand, should a split happen, as a player who owns a lot of Italian and UK stuff, I would NOT like if all of that was just doomed to remain legacy content in US and German trees, and I had to unlock (and buy) everything from scratch again in the new trees.
So alas, it’s probably better for everyone if things stay the way they are now, at least for the foreseeable future.
4 Likes