95 replies to this topic

[razielkaine]

First i would like to apologise for this being asked here but couldn't find another spot more suited to post.  There has been some discussion on the boards already that the Brit tank tree currently in discussions is relegating potentially game changing tanks to the gold heap.  This leads to 2 main questions, should the tree be recognised as the Commonwealth tree and if so could we then have said tanks embodied in the tree.

I'm not looking to be flamed here just to create a targeted discussion on a growing topic.

http://forum.worldof...tish-tech-tree/

http://en.wikipedia....i/Sentinel_tank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_tank
http://en.wikipedia....xton_(artillery)

http://ww2drawings.j...itish-Armor.htm

[cipher12]

While I would love to have Commonwealth tanks as normal tanks in the British tech tree I don't see how there game changing and looking at the alpha tree its not like there short on tanks to begin with they have 3 T5 and 4 T6 tanks already

[razielkaine]

there are some questionable tanks in the tree as it stands these said tanks give more options. also the tree has set precedent already by having included the sexton, a Canadian tank/spg.

[Bad_Brain]

the difference between the sexton and sentinel is the idea for the sexton was started by the british, was made by canada since the US couldnt get it working and then used by the british, the sentinel wasnt for the british and never saw combat, with all the tier 4-6 tanks that actually saw combat why would they make the sentinel in the tech tree? the firefly is apparently only gonna be premium also, and that was one of the most important tanks of the war.

really, im not against having the sentinel in its own little branch like the christie tanks will be, but lets get tanks that saw combat in first maybe?

[Antosha_]

The Commonwealth kit has "premium" written all over them - rare, under armed, not exactly part of a larger tree, etc.

[razielkaine]

Rare - in some cases yes in others no eg, sexton, ram II
Under armed - not at all the sentinel was the first tank ever to be fitted with a 17lb gun i call that far from under gunned as well as intention to run the 25lb gun (ignoring the duel mounted 25lb testing turret)
not part of a larger tree - the sentinel could easily fill 3 tiers or distinct variations

The problem is if you look at the sentinel it had so much potential variation that simply can not be utilized in a gold tank.

[vs125r]

So as in commonwealth, we'll have aussie tanks? They are a few designed during the war.

[razielkaine]

Australians and canadians contributed to the design and production of tanks used by british commonwealth forces. the sexton has already been slated for use in the main tree and it is canadian.

[Dominatus]

razielkaine, on Jan 01 2012 - 05:52, said:

Rare - in some cases yes in others no eg, sexton, ram II
Under armed - not at all the sexton was the first tank ever to be fitted with a 17lb gun i call that far from under gunned as well as intention to run the 25lb gun (ignoring the duel mounted 25lb testing turret)
not part of a larger tree - the sexton could easily fill 3 tiers or distinct variations

The problem is if you look at the sentinel it had so much potential variation that simply can not be utilized in a gold tank.

You mean Sentinal, right? Sexton was the 25pdr armed SPG based on the Ram chassis.

[razielkaine]

yes my apologies im very tired

[Antosha_]

razielkaine, on Jan 01 2012 - 05:52, said:

Rare - in some cases yes in others no eg, sexton, ram II
Under armed - not at all the sentinel was the first tank ever to be fitted with a 17lb gun i call that far from under gunned as well as intention to run the 25lb gun (ignoring the duel mounted 25lb testing turret)
not part of a larger tree - the sentinel could easily fill 3 tiers or distinct variations

The problem is if you look at the sentinel it had so much potential variation that simply can not be utilized in a gold tank.

I didn't say rare AND undermed AND not part of a larger tree - the vehicles all fit at least one of these.
More to the point, the DEVs have shown no interest in developing "community" trees that have vehicles from more than one nation. Not sure why they would start with the British.

[Skygunner]

Here is how I see this issue.


Commonwealth = Non-British Tanks in the tech tree.

I like British Tanks
I like Commonwealth Tanks

I do not like British Tanks being replaced with Commonwealth tanks.


So here's how I hope WoT sees it.


The tech tree itself (heavy, light medium, artillery)all starts, and carries though British tanks only.   Commonwealth Tanks get either

A - own little offshoot branch that runs the gauntlet of their accessable tanks

or

B - Premium tanks,  Canadian as premium American tanks,  Australian as premium British tanks.

OR

C - Unique premium, so canadian tanks as the Premium Canadian nation, and Australian as premium Australia.


I really do want to see these tanks (and the Sexton) in game, however I don't want to see them replacing british tanks, so really any option is best for me.  I'd fee the best for Wargaming would be Option B, as it has the least development costs, and a profit margin.  However, the amount of new whining topics from Canada being considered American, and Australia considered British may not be worth the convenience.   Option C isn't much harder, they would just have to make a few unique camo skins, which I'd be willing to bet if people foundd, would help make Option C happen over Option B.

I say those two simply because it will allow for profit of a highly desirable product.


TLDR - Bring on the Commonwealth AFV,  just don't replace British AFV's with them.

[razielkaine]

The problem comes with what is British?  

If your not of a commonwealth nation, other then the UK, you may not be aware how much we are only ever referred to as british forces in ww1 and 2 refrences.  As a commonwealth we are built of many nations (currently 52) all striving for 1 cause and out of that we shared research and development production resources etc so in the end the tanks you refer too as solely British are in fact commonwealth tanks because we all had part in building them so why can Britain choose what is solely British and what is someone else's?

I dont want to see good tanks removed just to see something we can all our own, but consideration is what i ask and it seem in the polling the majority agree.  My proposal would be to see these tanks as branches of research with the sherman jumbo as an example

[seaeagle]

I want to keep the British tree separate from a commonwealth tree. The commonwealth was not even known as such until after WW2. Prior to that it was still the British Empire. So British tree is more accurate.

In saying that, I would like to see commonwealth tanks in the British tree. But, I think those tanks ought to have some distinguishing mark showing that although they are a part of the British tree, they were the genesis of the Aussies, Canadians or Kiwis etc.


Also OP, where is the Bob Semple Tank from New Zealand???


http://www.youtube.c...F671CD7B02F076C

[anglomanii]

i support a "commonwealth Branch" off the main British/Commonwealth tree. as i have already stated i will be rather upset to see the sentinal relegated to premium tank hell.

[Aesir]

anglomanii, on Jan 04 2012 - 05:58, said:

i support a "commonwealth Branch" off the main British/Commonwealth tree. as i have already stated i will be rather upset to see the sentinal relegated to premium tank hell.

The Sentinel really only has enough variance in equipment to support one model, with the tank itself likely sitting at tier 5 performance wise. Not only this, but there isn't much available to follow up the Sentinel in a proposed "Commonwealth branch", which is why it would make more sense to integrate the non-British tanks into the tree. Doing this would allow for more choice in regards to tank progression on the tree.

[anglomanii]

Aesir, on Jan 04 2012 - 06:44, said:

The Sentinel really only has enough variance in equipment to support one model, with the tank itself likely sitting at tier 5 performance wise. Not only this, but there isn't much available to follow up the Sentinel in a proposed "Commonwealth branch", which is why it would make more sense to integrate the non-British tanks into the tree. Doing this would allow for more choice in regards to tank progression on the tree.

I disagree. I believe your statement to be inaccurate and insufficiently researched.

[NTRabbit]

I've posted this in the general British tree thread in the main section, but I'll post it here again since it's quite relevant.

Ignore the first tree, and forget about the Carnaervon and Churchill changes I made and the mucking about with the tier 8 and 9 tank destroyers, but this is a general idea of what a tree which includes Commonwealth vehicles should look like. Note that I have based this on the Wargaming pre-alpha British tree. Quick note, the FV304 and FV305 are a 25pdr and 5.5 inch howitzer respectively based on the FV300 hull, which was a 1950s program (around the same period as the FV200 'Universal Tank' program which resulted in the Conqueror) meant to create a dozen different vehicles including artillery, tanks, APCs and other light vehicles on a common hull.

Note that I've put the Commonwealth tanks in a 'Colonial pillar' of their own, since their development had no relationship to the development of British tanks.



My main problem with this tree is that while it successfully creates a fully realised second TD branch thanks to the Achilles filling the gap, it becomes almost too full. It makes for a really chunky tree, and if you look at the original tree there are not a lot of vehicles in the tier 2 to 7 range that do not deserve to be there. It also robs Wargaming of a lot of premium tank options.

[sheep21]

razielkaine, on Jan 01 2012 - 21:42, said:

The problem comes with what is British?  

If your not of a commonwealth nation, other then the UK, you may not be aware how much we are only ever referred to as british forces in ww1 and 2 refrences.  As a commonwealth we are built of many nations (currently 52) all striving for 1 cause

If only that were true, tell that to 'Bob Mugabe, that cracked out old evil bitter bastard in Zimbabwe...

apart from that, i share similar sentiments.

[razielkaine]

i like where you are going with that tree but i cant acknowledge the firefly in the tree, however being it in fact an american designed and built tanks, only thing about it thats british is the gun.  With  that in mind it's an american sherman and they already have their place in the american tree where they rightfully belong.

Also the Achilles would not fit in for the same rules.  Are their any other brit made or prototype td's to fill the slots?