TAP Insider: WG is reconsidering the EU Tree (WoT)

Note: this pic is just an old fan proposal of the unified EU tree. It does not represent how the possible future tree would look like, it’s just here to show a list of vehicles not included yet ingame. Please, do not cite it as real.

„WG is considering the unified EU tree again. It’s not yet decided yet, they just revived the idea a few weeks ago. Every upcoming European country would be included in it (the Italian tree for example), including the existing Czech and Swedish trees, in order to make a „forest”. Leading figures in WG believe that WoT has „too much content”. ”.

Seb: I was a major fan of the EU tree idea since the very beginning, but I am afraid about what will happen to the current existing branches. As much as I want Romanian and more Hungarian tanks in the game, I don’t want existing tech trees to lose vehicles. Every nation that fielded tanks during WW2 needs to have them represented in game at some point in time, but I say some nations take more time to implement (as a member of the team working on the Romanian tree, finding enough information to make the proposal accurate and realistic is a very difficult task, same deal with Yugoslavian tanks – lack of material). And about the „too much content” thing, well, I only see too much content in terms of Soviet and Chinese clones. But hey, that’s just me. What do you think?


44 thoughts on “TAP Insider: WG is reconsidering the EU Tree (WoT)

  1. It is hard for me to focus on and discuss tank trees when i think they badly need more maps. Do we need more tanks? no, we have enough to play. do we need more maps? yeah, kinda, i think we do need maps.

    of course in a perfect world youd add both.

    i know im an adult and should be able to separate the two topics, and discuss this tank tree idea even though its not my top priority, just some game theorycraft and a neat discussion, but (at least today) i cannot. i am immediately concerned they are going to dick around with stuff that would be nice to have, but not necessary, and forget to address more pressing issues.

    so i WISH i had comments on this idea, but i cant even think about it right now.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. “And about the „too much content” thing, well, I only see too much content in terms of Soviet and Chinese clones. But hey, that’s just me.”
    Yes, exactly. They need to cut back on the cocaine, and also on the goddamned clones.
    These tanks, even if they get implemented like this… forest like of way, they are still representing unique and interesting designs, something WoT has been missing for a long while and got it just now in the form of the Swedes.

    However, an unified tree should only happen if there is absolutely no way to implement specific nations. In other words, the Italian, Swiss, Hungarian and who knows what else nations should get their own trees.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Why they would need to shave Swedish or CZ lines to EU tree? Especially Sweden should imo stay as separate nation, when it could potentially have lines for all tank types in the game. I dont think they should remove tanks from existing lines, that would be seriously just dumb af. Not to mention their efforts in gathering info, modelling and balancing some of the tanks would go in waste if they just removed them.

    Im not against EU tree, but given the Sweden and CZ are already there, i dont know would it rly work anymore. Maybe introduce it as tree where nations like Italy, Hungary and Poland gets some of their tanks but moving CZ and Sweden there, let alone removing some of their tanks is simply nothing but really retarded idea.

    I almost rather bring own TTs for many new nations. Like it has been written here, Switzerland can easily have their line, so can Italy and Poland (even if they have some clones, but WG could just adjust some of their IRL stats to balance them into “unique” vehicles; keep on mind that WG is slowly throwing historical accuracy out of window for balance). Even Hungary and Romania could maybe have their own lines, again with some adjustments. Add Israeli tree to that, and there is shitton of potential lines already. Lets not forget existing trees as there are still quite a few of lines left to implement for existing nations (2nd french HT line, Jap / CH TD line, UK LTs, Chieftain (and maybe its minibranch or even full 2nd HT/MT line), MTs and LTs for Sweden, etc).

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I highly doubt they will remove content from existing nations – instead, what they might do is have “sub-trees” to simplify things a bit. By this, I mean they would have different trees comprised vehicles from one nation (i.e. the Czech medium branch, Sweden’s MT/HTs & TDs, etc), but all of them would be listed under a shared “EU” tab in the list of nations in the tech tree. This way, every time a new EU nation was to be added, the number of tabs would stay the same, but lines would only be comprised of vehicles designed or used by one nation. They would also not need to introduce a line of every type for each nation, and would make the tree feel much more complete without needing to introduce half-baked lines (meaning if one nation was missing a LT line, another nation could fill this gap). Hopefully this spells good things for the future, but we’ll have to see how they go about making it work.


  5. Part of me hope it doesn’t come the way they state it. The Swiss, Italians, Czech, and Swedes can make large tech trees. Very large.

    I would reserve the EU tree for nations that have very little tanks e.g. Finland, perhaps Spain, and perhaps Poland

    But personally. I would prefer not to and make them there own separate tech trees.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. If WG has made very complex German/Soviet/American tree, why not have a massive EU tree as well?

      I kinda wish Chinese and Japanese tree can combine for simplicity so crew training and prem tanks can be optimized. And I would loved to see the super stronk nationalism+butthurt chinese&japanese internet minions say they won’t play but they will play anyway becoz their desired tonks are there.


        1. I’m thinking allowing european crews to be in other european nations vehicle. For example a spanish can be in a swiss tank.

          And I know it could dmg WG’s economy model, but allowing players freely change their EU crew nationality(within EU ofc) and names will do the job.


      1. That change would legit no joke be banned from the Chinese client.

        And if the server couldn’t roll back the change, then I’m somewhat convinced that the game would be banned until the change was reverted.


          1. That would make the legendarily lazy WG devs have to maintain two separate client and server builds.

            There’s not much point in ruining your PR just so two nations with radically different tanks can share crews.


    2. that wouldn’t be possible, you need at least one “large” nation in orther to link the other minor nations mini-lines, for that reason the Italians would be the obvious choice since it is the most “problematic” nation to build a 1-to-10 line without using more than one copy (even the czechs only had 1 “copy”, almost original T-34 configuration)

      in fact I always thought the swiss top tier mediums would be the ideal progression for the italians P.40s/43s because of the similar characteristics of light armor and good guns, while also avoiding the “famous” autoloading Panther and Italian Leopards


      1. yeah, it’s true that in 2016 they tried to change (launching sandbox, new trees they had ignored before) but now in the last few months things sound like they are once again reverting
        the special sales where they went from listening the players and provide basic packs (vehicle+garage slot) to revert to packs filled with a bunch of “junk” and no option to simply buy the regular premium and its garage slot
        then there’s also the constant buffs and nerfs that have been made for “balancing” porposes, all-in-all they went from trying to actively focus on historic accuracy (removal of Wf.E-100 for example) to once again do whatever comes out from serB’s “mad lab”
        the T110E5 for example could be “fixed” by “mirroring” the armor layout of the M103 but with the intended armor values for the T110E5 (this means have the max armor on the same sections the M103 has its maximum armor thickness, the same for every other section respectively), or change it to the other hull design with a simple angled upper and lower plates
        instead they did whatever they wanted with it and also other tanks, the VK45.02B is still unhistorical, the KV-5 “boobs” were buffed “simply because” (no historical reason), etc…

        but that’s to be expected when they decided to put serB back in the WoT team, the idea might have been good, bringing back the team that created the casual and enjoyable game, but right now that simply isn’t enough, sure we want the fun times back but we also want true balance and porpose for each individual class of vehicle


  6. Could always just grind a freebie from the last tank for any vehicle of the same class, next tier. Or something along these lines. That should make incomplete lines plenty attractive imo.


  7. If WG is willing to have a European tree that takes inspiration from AW, its fine.

    I thought one of the issue for having EU tree at 2 years ago is the tank crew faces+names, IMO a relatively solution is make EU crew have mix of different nation’s crew faces+names. Probably upset nationalists though.

    The Chinese LTMT line could have get Type 80 and Type 85-I in but people thinks is too modern even though their technological level is late 60s at best, they’re still using L7 guns and RHA steel armour with questionable fire controls.
    If KZ+WG don’t be dicks and put some efforts, delete the unnecessary Type T-34 and shove Type 58 into t5(I don’t think nerf is needed except HP), t6 only has 59-16, combine T-34-1 and T-34-2 as one on t7, WZ-120 become t8(no more chinese M62 gun nor the 110 100mm gun), Type 69/79 as t9 with L7. Finally the Type 85-I is at t10 MT and 121 can become a prem or CW reward or dump this fake tank with Waffe E-100.
    Type 80 could have been the t10 LT instead of black magic WZ-132 with L7. Although it’s MBT in real life but make it as a super fat LT could have been fun.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. I don’t have a problem with having a multi-nation tech tree, but existing separate nations like Sweden and Czechoslovakia need to remain separate.


  9. I agree with your view about where there’s too much content, the german tech tree is a different case since there’s a limit to how much someone can come up with in 10 years time the it is becoming harder to add anything for that tree
    the same applies to the japanese tech tree, aggravated by the lack of resources meaning there was no point in trying to develop too many different designs during the war

    for the british, as we all know, we only know the “surface” of what the british tank development produced, although it probably focuses more on mid and high tier candidates, for that reason it’s understandable for it to be like it is now

    from the 2 remaining trees it’s understandable that the french TT remains like this, despite being possible to add a few more lines like the second heavy line leading to the uparmored AMX-50 prototype (surblindé? is it written like this?)

    then we are left with the US TT, it is simply the TT that received the least amount of “love”/attention from the devs specially in the sense of the line progression
    the most evident is the medium line: Jumbo, Pershing and M48 a bit more slugish with good protection hull-down, Easy-8, T20 and M46 Patton not as well protected but better mobility and OK guns
    if you consider that from the obvious 4 possible medium lines 2 of them could be made by spliting the current one between hull-down and mobility:
    Jumbo>>T25>>Pershing>>T26E5/M48>>M48/M48A3/5(I think some A3 were also modified with the M68 gun)
    (other 2 lines would be autoloader and T95)

    it seems obvious how little they think about the US TT when you see how easy it would be to split the medium line with a easier/linear progression and yet we are still in the same situation, despite the soviet TT having received the second medium line so long ago as well as the mini-line, but that is not too much content


  10. I see no reasons to split and divide the Czech and Swedish tree. There is enough tanks to make a tree of the remaining nations. That said… Norwegian M24? Funny. But then again most tank related stuff we made are more modern based AA system on newer US hulls like the 113 etc.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. so, 1) I dont really mind EU tanks as long as they’re novel. a parameter that seems harder to come by. seeing as most recent nations (swe, cze & jpn) only did decent mobility, no protection and good guns. I dont care about model clones, I care about novel gameplay.

    2) EU tech tree, as a grouping concept, doesnt really fit the time line. we have pre and during ww2, USSR and post war bundeswher, while EU was formed in the 1990s. It just feels weird to group non historical groups of tanks just because there is a current EU.


  12. Too much content? They’ve only themselves to blame for making tons of Soviet and Chinese clones. If it weren’t for their greed for money, Italian tanks would’ve been here ages ago. And my beloved BT-42 which I’ve long since given up waiting for.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. After all this time I don’t give a shit about the way to implement Yugoslavian (NO it’s NOT fucking Yugoslav, fuck you autocorrect, go fuck yourself and correct your database) tanks in the game. All I want is YU content in any way. Premium, mixed tree, separate tree, part of USSR tree, anything just do it!!! As Rambo Amadeus says: “Oduvek sam hteo biti svoj na svome” :) :) :)


  14. Welp this is funny. All I ask is for a chance to see Verdeja tanks on this (the basis for the 75mm spg) They are quite like the T26 (same gun) but with mobility closer to Pz 1 and they could make good tiers 2 and 3. One of weirdest things of one of them (don’t remember if the Verdeja 1 or 2 tho) was nuts gun elevation (70 degrees if I’m right) What u think?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s