ASEAN Founders Ground Sub-Tree

Suggestions Ground
122

I never saw anyone in Chinese community talk about Malaysia PT-91… even this vehicle is unpopulur. in fact, i never know Malaysia bought it before.
Singapore could give China TT Leos and Eagles, just like Malaysia could give Japan TT Soviet-like tanks and Flankers, is what they can’t have with native productions.
But yeah, only few players cares these domestic WW2 or cold war vehicles.

A western FCS or computer usually won’t affect the performance in game. It still have Flanker FM, Russian armaments, and the autoloader with 7.1 second reloading time.

1 Like
123

Yeah, it still can do that, just don’t mind those paveway and yeah it just a Russia plane

No way, Gaijin won’t allow a TT who get Leo, Abrams, T-80, F-15, F-16, Su-27 and Su-30

124

singapore are argulably much closer to china

Wah lao eh🥶🥶🥶
https://www.instagram.com/p/C_LC4vLyyqS/?igsh=bXBuZ2ZtY2llNWI0

Pressroom.

I don’t see Singaporean jets flying with Chinese air force. Ik they only like sea exercise and counter Terrorism exercises but compare to japan it very lame excuse to bring singapore to china but most importantly Singaporeans rather their country to be in japan rather than in china. You can say singapore and china share something something but it up to Singaporeans to decide where their country should be, not foreigners (I’m just sayin ✋🙂🤚)

10 Likes
126

Unfortunately, it’s not entirely up to you. Because the reality is very obvious: from the point of view of ground forces, even these five countries (among which Thailand has already entered Japan) cannot all enter Japan. Who will be spun out? I don’t know, but it’s highly likely that the four countries are relatively closer to China. The answer is obvious, isn’t it? Or you can still convince yourself that Japan will get five countries as a subtree, so that there is no reason to discuss it with me.

2 Likes
127

Why countries with nato/blufor military equipment have to go to a country that use opfor equipment? Wouldn’t be more sense for blufor nation go to well blufor nation? Like yk what i mean?

2 Likes
128

I’m telling you about the results considered from the point of view of game balance, not real military politics. From the perspective of game balance, it is impossible for Japan to get five countries that complement each other’s weaknesses in every aspect as their subtree. If Japan gains five countries, and more than half of the vehicles are not Japanese, can this TT still be called a “Japanese TT”?

3 Likes
129

I’ll tell you what happens if this proposal succeeds: L2SG/RI, T84M, Type 10, F-15SG, Su-30MKM will be in the same team, overwhelmingly superior to any faction. This team has nothing to do with “Japan” at all, and will overwhelm the other teams with a great force. Well, that’s your dream, is that possible?

4 Likes
130

I personally hope for a reworked system of subtrees. That way Japan is just one nation, same as all the current “subtrees” are their own nation.

Considering all of these will fill different BRs and roles I’d argue it’d still be inferior to USA or USSR that can get more variants and types of equal and even superior equipment, even more so once they inecitably receive subtrees of their own.

Britain also has a very strong current position with South Africa and India, as well as (partially?) Australia and Canada and who knows what other Commonwealth nations, which is a group of 50+ nations.

But apart from that I am also not against China receiving powerful lineups as such. For example they could get Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia and perhaps even both Koreas.
I wouldn’t mind the Chinese tree receiving ZTZ99A, Oplot-P, K1, K2, M2020, Rafale (Bangladesh), Su-30SME and F-15K, but I would really like to see the Founding ASEAN nations in the Japanese tree.

1 Like
131

Just saying but exercises imo shouldn’t be used to justify something.

Japan has exercised with Spain, Australia, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and more should all of these now be a valid option simple because they exercised together? It’s gonna create odd combinations eventually for others.
Like the US even could have gotten China (both) if we used exercise as a valid reason.

However again imo it’s best to keep it by if Country A (subtree option) has either an alliance with country B (in-game), if both countries have sold arms to one another or if both countries have joint developed something.
This would make Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam and Malaysia easy options for Japan.

1 Like
132

True but people keep showing china and singapore having military exercise as a excuse for singapore joining China so i gotta show em Japan train with singapore too

4 Likes
133

Should know that Taiwan, or, Republic of China, helped Singapore to train and build their army and air force. Much better than exercise. Or we will give Japan a J-10C?
image

Hungary, Finland and India: yeah, why?

Sadly Aussie and Canadians still can’t get their preset in one tree… Australia is even introduced in 2012 or 2013 and have a achievement

1 Like
134

Practically in a game sense - Thailand, Philippines, and Singapore are all Major Non-NATO allies, in the same categorical foreign relationship as NATO has with Japan. Malaysia has a special relationship with NATO through its Five Eyes Defense Agreement. What I mean from this is that if China was going to be the home of primarily “Eastern” vehicles, then Japan would naturally be the “Western” one.

The whole premise of the ASEAN Founders subtree was to offer more to the Thai subtree concept. This was not born out in thin air as there are certainly gaps that the Thai subtree cannot fill by itself if its going to be a proper subtree for Japan.

Japan is very limited in terms of growth potential in-game pretty much because it constrained its own military and export policies. To alleviate this lack of growth potential, the Thai subtree was proposed but the Thai subtree, while already pretty good on its own, cannot really reliably provide more to the Japanese tech tree and people are quick to point out that its another copy-paste subtree - hence the reasoning of the ASEAN Founders subtree.

Now I would discuss the political side of why ASEAN is much closer to Japan than any other of its ASEAN+3 partners but I would stop here.

10 Likes
135

Also just to reiterate in-case my previous comment gets deleted by the mods later.

The ASEAN Founders Subtree Concept was conceived to support the Thai subtree and make it less seemingly Copy & Paste while also filling in the gaps it has

In essence, it is to support the overall Thai subtree. If you back and read the machinery of war discussion on the Siam Lineups for Japan, you could see people suggesting ASEAN alternatives to alleviate the concerns for Copy & Paste (examples from the top of my head are the Scorpion 90, OV-10F & OV-10M, V-150 MECAR 90, Ultra Mechanized Igla, Spyder-SR).

7 Likes
136

I feel very bad for Australian and Canadian players having to jump multiple trees to build parts of their lineups…

8 Likes
137

I’m speaking as an Indonesian here, as I mentioned in the Aviation suggestion, Indonesia is non-aligned throughout the years, that means there’s no one nation that currently we are extremely close with. Neither China nor Japan, Soviets nor US.

However

the simplest and least controversial way to see it is from a historical perspective or cultural perspective, historical is definitely more clear-cut than the grey area of culture. To simplify (and apologies first and foremost) Ukraine and Russia are quite similar in their culture, not the same, but close, yet if Ukraine were to be put in Russia that would bring a connotation to the addition, whether it is intentional or not. This is also the same reason why I dont want SK to be put with Japan

Now, from a historical standpoint its also possible to be controversial (some people might disagree with India being demoted as a quasi-sub-tree for the British for instance). However in Indonesia’s case there isnt a whole lot of negativity in regards to its former colonizers, Netherlands & Japan, atleast relatively anyways

Netherlands ruled over Indonesia for around 300 years (which is a long fucking time), Japan meanwhile only ruled indonesia for about 3 years. But, we cant deny the fact that both nations were very intimate with Indonesia. Now for some perspective, generally Japan is seen as the “less worse of the two evils”, because even though both nations are quite oppresive, only Japan has actually helped indonesia prepare its Independence. Not only that but Japanese administration for certain parts in Indonesia is extremely lax, to the point of frustration by the Japanese state. Notably Hitoshi Imamura’s administration of Java, the guy who built a replica prison in his home because his warcrime sentence was too relaxed.

Indonesians were miltarily trained by the Japanese via numerous different organization, PETA (Defenders of the Homeland), the Keibōdan, Seinendan, etc., Chinese Indonesians also established the Kakyō Keibōtai. Not just militarily, but Indonesian politics were extremely helped by the Japanese, with the formation of the Hōkōkai. as well as the Dokuritsu Junbi Chōsakai and Dokuritsu Junbi Īnkai for the Preparation of Indonesian Independence Comitte (again helped by Japan). Even after the war most of the Japanese holdout straight up just gave away their guns to Indonesian youth troops, some even joined them in the fight.

outsiders might look at us and think “oh they’re occupied so they must have bad blood”, other regions outside Java might, but we cant deny the fact that without the Japanese help, we might still be under Dutch control untill well over the 60s or 70s

also this is unrelated so itll probably be deleted lmao

8 Likes
138

parroting the same notion ive mentioned again, Indonesia is only suitable for Netherlands or Japan, Netherlands is grouped with Benelux so the firepower is good there, Japan is the only other logical choice as Thai (and other asean members, (note. not all asean members)) might need its help

3 Likes
140

After some minor clean up; I would like to highlight that Politics have no place on this Forums, this includes the past. Keep it on Topic please.

5 Likes
141

I guess our friends @AquaUselessGod and @RSS_Defender can help.

4 Likes
142

Singaporean here
If i want my country to be in a tech tree it should be
Only japan or Israel but preferably japan. China should never be considered to a option and at least for me i don’t want my country to get the Australian/Canadian treatment where all their stuff is in different tech tree that would just be horrible lol

12 Likes
143

I’ve already reiterated myself in other discussions, those interested can see my profile but the TLDR is that Singapore belonged better in Britain, Israel or Japan; Britain because of Commonwealth reasons (but the UK alrd has 2 other subtrees to work with), Israel because we were trained by their commanders back in 1960s (except Israel wouldnt make much sense especially for the air tree) and Japan due to WW2 reasoning as much as people want to forget that it happened (we also have strong modern ties with them as with other ASEAN countries too).

12 Likes