i am 100% the have upgrade them to gen 2 or 3
Fun fact ~ Pakistan also trialed M1A1 and Oplot-M/P at different periods of time. (Gaijin can even apply the rare: ‘trial vehicle for event’ for China)
They simply got multiple to be in line with the US style of addition, being an ‘early’ A model and ‘late’ C (modified A in this case) model, and they are the most recent to receive hornets, finnish and swiss ones were added a while before now
HEL optics use the 2nd Gen Ophelios
i mean there isnt a NK that wouldnt agree
To be fair, Britain still didn’t need F/A-18s
1 Like
i amtalking about the T80U
yeah your right, they have the PLISA thermal imaging gen 2 system, same one as on the T-80UE-1 in game. Not the Agava mb
u didnt get the joke do you @Apvalus(u really delete that)
i dont think SK users would be viciously outrage
since they would not careless about NK being with SK since gaijin would definitely put SK as the main tree and NK being sub tree
SK players wouldnt mind, they would get more vehicle to play with, they wouldnt care if the NK vehicle are bad, they would still focus on their main K1 and K2 mbts
and NK players? well…
Some ppl just don’t like sarcasm or some counter logic in their project.
After last patch in hangar and sime map very low fps and freeze
I look forward to his sekrut dokumunts leaks.
2 Likes
personally i dont see why its gonna be bad
given that
- There isnt a NK that would disagree with this
- More vehicle for SK player → they wouldnt care, since their vehicle are mostly and definitely be the main tree
- Easier for gaijin → no NK feedback = less work for them, they would just do minimal modelling for NK while would definitely focus more on SK vehicles bug report
“muh politics” nah i dont think any SK would care about that
1 Like
is there a public spec for their domestic arnaments?
Many trees do not need renaming f’sure - can’t see much changing for US, China, France, Germany…but already in this update we are apparently going to get a “Korea” tree with both ROK and DPRK - so there’s already intent along these lines
I’ve raised a suggestion but it isn’t visible yet - there’s plenty of possible options for some, fewer for others - but immediately obvious is “Levant” or “Eastern Mediterranean” for Israel+Greece+Cyprus, also UK tree with Sth African, Australian, Canadian and other vehicles is easily seen as “Commonwealth of Nations”
Sweden could become “Scandinavia” without much bother IMO
Other obviously possible future trees include South-east Asia, South America, Subcontinent (for possible Pakistan, India & Bangladesh), and of course the ever popular Visegard :)
And I’m sure there are other possibilities people have in mind already
probably not
gaijin would probably do a “standard specs” or give it different arnaments because of “compatibility” then
There’s a major problem with adding new tech trees when existing ones aren’t complete or have significant BR gaps.
- It creates yet another balancing nightmare.
- We already have too many copy-paste vehicles filling tech trees.
- It doesn’t add real value — it’s not an exciting new feature or game mode.
Instead, here’s what should be done:
- Fix the BR gaps. For example, there are multiple AA vehicles around 10.0–11.0, yet some nations have nothing between 8.0 and 10.0, or the ones they do have are terrible.
- Add more lower-tier vehicles to existing tech trees, like the Israeli line.
- Fix the in-game chat system — it’s long overdue.
There are so many issues that need attention, yet the developers seem to ignore them. Long-standing Ground Forces bugs remain unfixed. Many players have already given up on the game, and even well-known content creators and community contributors have stopped playing War Thunder as their main game because of this nonsense.
Please, fix the existing problems before adding flashy new content. Every new feature just introduces more issues — and history shows those fixes rarely come, even after ten years.
3 Likes
->okay what does that have to do with SK and NK being in one tree
you know that im right, so u throw me a different issues instead
but yes i do agree with this points you made in this reply that im replying to
but then
re-read first sentence(marked with arrow)