I still don’t think it should be replaced by another variant, it just needs to be fixed to the actual OCU. The (e)MLU would still be really nice to see as a separate aircraft in the future
Change the BR to 13.0, in exchange for removing the AMRAAM it never carried and the HMD only mounted to the two seat B OCU. Then add the missing features like the missing countermeasures, GBU-16 and AGM-65G and it’d be a very useful aircraft at this lower BR.
Maybe it could even be 12.7 since the Belgian OCU is at that BR with the same AIM-9M loadout.
Yup those are Martlets, my bad! Serves me right for only double checking with the wikipedia operators section. Guess I’ll dig out a decent source and edit the page.
(Come on gaijin baby adats timeee)
Your extensive list has 4 unique vehicles. Come on, a 20mm on a truck? Considering vehicles that have a slight armament difference unique is ridiculous. Like comparing the oplot T&M and saying they’re not copy paste.
Nothing here is really to get excited about. If it was only the unique one-offs they considered I wouldn’t care, but what Japan could use is another unique MBT line with their small amount of options. Thai has at least added one, in a pick of 3 while other nations have easily 6. Meanwhile an independent Korea tree would be mostly copy paste until modern vehicles, it would be better to put the Koreas in Japan and China instead to avoid making an unnecessary tree where you have to grind to high tier just to enjoy something unique.
You’re only diluting these nations by making a mash up of nato and eastern bloc equipment and variants we’ve seen or will (1 update and oplot was pasted into china LOL) You probably have a few layers of masks on. I can’t see why you would unironically support that. I guess you did make the ASEAN suggestion and because Thai is in JP now the entire tree is just a dumping ground for all of that.
No one liked that decision to exclude it. This is a pretty poor excuse, because I think most people would agree it was stupid that some irl controversy mattered when adding something to the game and it’s set a pretty bad precedent for the future. I’m pretty sure there’s no modus operandi of gaijin’s functions.
To me this is on the same level as the Chinese player base whining about the VT-4. It has nothing to do with irl controversies, because there exists literally no context to offend anyone but only the one the players themselves are creating for the sake of drama. At least that’s how I see it. Unless you’d like to explain that gaijin has an ulterior motive to push political narratives. I guess it’s sort of inevitable in a game about nations for the community to do that, but it’d be better to curb those things because that’s exactly how you get stuff like the VT-4 drama. All I really wanna do is play a good tank game. Not that those 2 things are necessarily related, but I don’t really want to grind an Israel-like tree, sorry. I’d rather have koreas in CN & JP TT.
The next update is also going to feature changing flags in TT. If you really wanna be snobby, match making now puts line-ups into consideration. The sub-tree folders has been basically soft implemented so they are much more individual now. Would be nice if later down the line that could also include putting same tree nations somehow up against each other like eastern bloc Europe.
well to give another example Singapore is almost confirmed to China, and what did the singaporean players do? They said they dont want to be grouped up with China, so Gaijin changed the plans so that now Singapore isnt going to with China
now imagine we replace Singapore with South Korea & China with Japan,
They dont change it for “political reasons”, but if there’s a lot of outcry they will change it. T-90 to UK for instance, there were some opponents to the idea, but its not a whole lot of noise so they went ahead with it. Iranian Tomcat, has the Iranian Islamic Republic modifications (a nation which is hostile and had been fighting the US) was given to the US. Some opponents there, but again, nothing major, so it goes. Recent examples, Greek to Israel, again some voiced concerns but not a whole lot so no progress there.
But from what I’ve seen, on the South Korean suggestions there seems to be a lot of negative voices to the Idea (alot more than the examples ive mentioned before), so I dont think it will proceed even if it is being considered.
And besides lets think of it from Gaijin’s perspective, you have two choice for additional subtree, why wouldn’t they look after the less-controversial Southeast Asian nations rather than a would-be controversial South Korea? Even if they’re objective, why risk that chance? you have a perfectly good option right here, without the added (possible) controversy that would be caused by choosing the alternative
Indonesia could help plug it up with the many IFVs it had/has. The Indo Leopard 2A4 / 2RI could definitely help that gap, possibly the Harimau Hitam.
`+ Malaysian T-84 (Object 478DU8, Prototype T-84).
With OCU as it is now it would be redundant to have both and better to change it to (e)MLU, but the real OCU would be very interesting because it would have a much different role at a lower BR.
If the OCU was 12.7 with out AMRAAM (like Belgian OCU) it could even replace the F-16AJ.
Also it doesn’t need to be in the same line, it could easily replace the F-16AJ or be foldered with it. Since it’d be great CAS, it’d follow the AV-8S + A-7E CAS capabilities.
I wish someone made a suggestion post for the Ka-To Tank Destroyer
Before anyone says “But it wasn’t built!!!1!1!!” I don’t really care, id take a unique vehicle design realized in WT that would fit perfectly in a spot where Japan’s Ground Tech Tree needs something desperately over more copy paste in general.
