you’re missing an incredibly key thing that the decision to add SK to JP is controversial in itself.
Besides we’ve already had this discussion in the SK Ground Tree, and the opinion has not changed.
3 Likes
The instant you pull out that card, anything reasonable is off the table as if irl controversies matter in a tanks game. How exactly?
because clearly that is influencing Gaijin’s decisions on things.
if this was true we would’ve already seen the VT-4 in the Thai tree.
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
3 Likes
I’ll see if theres a Sipri entry, they prefer those
I’ve already looked, it seems like they’re grouped together as “Starstreak” so no hope there
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).
2 Likes
AIM-120? Maybe a Sparrow? Its decommissioned
1 Like
i mean. people don’t want a two f16s in the same line right?
but i’m ok if gaijin add eMLU to the line. we need it anyway.
1 Like
Huh
That’s why I got confused
someone removed it… last month?
(Link to the edit)
Edited them back in with the new source
That’s my first Wikipedia edit
2 Likes
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.
Speak for yourself, more the merrier!
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.
Ahem, bit of a self-plug but if any of you would like to see the expanded list of vehicles you can see it here:
Yeah it depends, some articles has someone really strict that would just veto any changes or sometimes they’re just very chill
3 Likes
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.
12 Likes
I made a report on the Chi-Ri’s 37 mm hull gun lacking a shoulder stabilizer.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/OpOXrcXMVlQk
3 Likes
yay the Chi-ri can enter the halls of gaijin nerfing another japanese tank into the death zone. just that unlike those in the past, i dont think the chi-ri can survive 5.7 whatsoever.
2 Likes
The changes to the autoloader look promising.
Not only 1 but 2 Harriers equipping the AIM-120C
How do they use them??
