no I am very sure Poland can create a small tech tree like Israel.
1 Like
Yes, this is a good idea… kinda
any time canada mentioned with modern vehicles being locked behind a paywall
9 Likes
I saw this post when it was made but I’ve been busy & couldn’t get by until now.
I’m disappointed. Not only is this effectively a non answer the fact is you made a choice to capitulate to the Chinese ultra nationalism by not placing the VT-4 in the Japanese tree as part of the Thai tech tree. That’s all there really is to say about that.
As far as planned sub trees I’m not sure I fully support some of the choices. I feel like there are better options.
4 Likes
Could be, I’m also all for small nations as long as they’re unique. Could you provide a concept tech tree, I’m curious on what they’d offer as a standalone tree
For their air force you can look here
Note that this suggestion is slightly out of date now that the Norwegian Mossie is a thing from 333 squadron
2 Likes
What a loss that would be… not at all.
Also, in case you hadn’t noticed, China has precisely no reason to get a Singapore tree. There’s not really any political relationship (best I can tell is its a fairly neutral relationship, with Singers having a disapproving view on the 9 Dash Line), and from a technical point of view, Russia has a better argument to getting Singers, with since it has the IglaGavin (M113A2 with a Igla launcher).
The US, Germans, French and British all have substantially better claims with regards to technical relationships (Britain probably a significantly better one politically, but seeing as that’s contentious for other reasons i’ll refrain)
4 Likes
Also the Abbot (before we forget that thing), a long requested addition, already half exists in game, sonce it shares a hull with the Falcon. Of dubious effectiveness? Probably? Fun? Definitely (not)
2 Likes
the ones angry at this wont be missed
4 Likes
China and Singapore have better relations than Singapore and Russia.
Neither should get it though. It’d fit best in Israel or Japan, but only if Israel doesn’t get Chile and Colombia or if Japan follows the more ASEAN route.
2 Likes
As a Japanese citizen, I request that you refrain from intentionally introducing the non-competitive VT4. It falls short of the Type 10 tank and the Oprood in every aspect except APS, and only demands additional RP, creating unnecessary political issues for Gaijin.
2 Likes
Even though Singapore is best in Israel I’d rather Israel have Chile and Colombia as it follows Asean route for Japan and the Commonwealth for Britain. Having some South American tech in Israel follows this region trend imho
1 Like
Best question there is. As much as each and every country now a leopard 2 country, why bother and have nation based tech trees? thy
1 Like
thai tank goes to thai subtree, it is as easy as that.
8 Likes
Me. Air only tho. and I feel like it does need some top tier material especially from the later shenyang flanker.
Irrelevant answers. All existing errors in Chinese vehicles should be completely fixed before new vehicles are released! New vehicles and weapons released in the future shouldn’t have any issues.😠😡🤬
4 Likes
The VT-4 problem can be solved like this:
Do not give JP tree, instead giving it to CN as a PREMIUM or EVENT, just like Class 3(p) is a South Africa vehicle but it is in DE event vehicle.
We don’t need a sub-tech tree. We have enough foreign trade vehicles. If we connect them together, we will have a complete sub-tech tree, including main battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, light tanks, and air defense systems.
我们并不需要子科技树，我们有足够的外贸车辆，把他们连起来就是一条完整的子科技树了，有主战坦克，步兵战车，轻型坦克，防空系统。
2 Likes
What?
Wrong reply, brother. I’m sorry