Wooo another nation with a tiny budget so they just did small mods to other nations tanks. That way I can play a tank the exact same way as the other nation i just grinded but it has some ERA panels slapped on it woooo. Guys why do you suggest these boring trees with copy paste tanks similar to israel? It will turn out way worse than this if accepted look at hungarian sub tree half is copy paste and that wasn’t even necessary
2 Likes
Most players aren’t browsing the forums regularly.
4 Likes
barely 10% of the community uses forum
3 Likes
LOL “only 860” Polish tech tree does not have even 400 votes… even though is one the most required nations to add, Turkey not even 600
So with you point of view, Iran is still one the nations that most people want to be added
BTW: more than 900 votes now
4 Likes
A small update to the proposal tree. Mostly BR adjustment based on more info that I’ve got with the help of folks from the SEPAH Discord. So, thanks for guiding me into the more obscure part of the Iranian military industry.
Here’s the list of the BR and tree placement changes.
Spoiler
Hoveizeh SPH: Moved down to 6.3, as it is essentially an equivalent of the M109A1 we have in-game, but with laser rangefinder.
Safir LUV (M40): Moved down to 6.7 and foldered with the K116, as it shares similar gameplay while being roughly the equivalent of the Fiat 6614.
Sayyad AFV (Muharram) moved down to 5.3 and foldered with Rakhsh APC, as the Muharram rotary MG would not have sufficient range to engage aircraft at 7.0+ BR.
Sarir (M61): Moved down to 7.3 as it is the equivalent of the M163.
Raad 2 SPH: Removed from the tree (for now) as based on the info I got, it retains most of the hull armor of the T-72 while being slower and with less advanced fire control, so it will be in the same situation as the Maus where it dominates lower tier vehicles while struggle against higher tiers. I would keep Raad 2M SPH in the tree however, as it has fire control, speed, and armor to do well at 8.0.
Mesbah 1: Moved down to 8.3 as the truck-based verson lacks radar. Though it does still retains ballistic computer to lock onto the target.
Seraj Sadegh 10: Moved up to 9.0, foldered with Soheil. Reason being that it has tracking and scanning radar that will help it engage air targets better than the Mesbah 1 on its own.
Zoljanah, Zoljanah IRGC: Moved down to 9.3 and 9.7, respectively. As all of them (except Raad 2 version which doesn’t have any) has only 1 Dehlavieh launcher compared to 4 Kornet of BMP-2M.
Zoljanah (Raad 2) and Makran IFV: Moved down to 10.0 and 10.3, respectively, as based on what I can gather, neither are capable of carrying missile as of yet. So it will be an equivalent of the PUMA.
Pirooz: Moved down to 11.0 for now, as the current fire-and-forgot mechanics in WT are quite wonky. May moved back up to 12.0 if the fire-and-forgot features is improved though.
Sevom Khordad: Renamed to “Dey 9”, as the variant with the missile of the same name is actually known. Also removed from the tree for now, as 30 km of missile range is currently too good for War Thunder’s current meta (as the Pantsir, the AA with longest missile range in the game, has 25 km range).
In addition, I’ve added two rather obscure ATGM carriers: The M151A2 TOW that Iran used during the war with Iraq, and the M113A1 with double-barrel Dehlavieh launchers. The latter is quite peculiar, as I haven’t found much of the image of the Iranian M113 with ATGM launchers (such as TOW and Toophan) even though they used quite a sizeable numbers of it. The images I got for this version of the M113 came from the recent Eghtedar 1402 exercise in October.
10 Likes
The addition of these is very attractive
2 Likes
I know this is ground tech tree suggestion but Iran is getting/will be getting some Su35, Yak 130, and Mi28NM from Russia, last one is in the game, so Iran could get it.
8 Likes
That would be a good choice to expand the Iranian helicopter lineup at higher tier. Basically this would made Iranian heli tree having 3 top tier helicopters (this, Toophan II, and Shahed 285B), each with distinct loadouts to differentiate from one another.
I’m quite busy with real life stuff at the moment, but I will make sure to make a suggestion for the Iranian heli tree, as they have a very soild lineup of vehicle and weaponry to choose from.
5 Likes
Talking about that, maybe Iran could get a subtree too to fill gaps (specially in air)
Might be an unpopular opinion, but since there’s a debate whether to add a unified Korean tree;
Well, since Iran has used and still uses some NK weapons and platforms, how about adding NK subtree to bolster this Iranian tree (if Iran ever gets added independently)
(in turn, the separate South Korean subtree can be discussed somewhere else)
Discussing from Ground PoV, few examples of collaboration:
North Korea received one example of T-72 ‘Ural’ from Iran in the 1980s:
Iran ordered & received numerous Chonma-Ho during the late 1980s:
Iran ordered & received numerous 170mm Chuch’ep’o “M-1978’’ ''Koksan” during the late 1980s:
The North Korean 155mm SPG shown in 2018 has most similarities with Iranian Raad-2/2M 155mm SPG and is highly concluded to be created in collaboration with Iran.
more read:
The Mysterious Origins Of A New North Korean Howitzer | 21st Century Asian Arms Race
Can North Korea be added as a subtree in an independant Iranian Tech Tree? (discussing in regards to Ground TT for now)
- Hmm … not a bad idea. North Korea can bolster the Iranian tech tree.
- Nah … Unified Korea it is. Iran can be bolstered by some other nation if needed.
0
voters
3 Likes
The thing is, while Iran did have some ties and cooperation with North Korea, neither of them are reliant on one another and does not have any other deep or long-lasting historical or military connection. As Iran only used a few models of Korean weaponry, both North and South, I don’t think the idea of adding either of them as a sub-tree would be a good idea.
So I’d rather see North Korea receiving the same treatment like how Gaijin handled the Chinese tree and added as unified Korean tree instead.
Speaking of sub-tree, I have discussed with folk from the SEPAH Discord and they have proposed the idea of adding Syria as a sub-tree. The reason being that Syria is a long-time ally of Iran even before the 1979 revolution, and both supported each other in their respective conflicts and is known to cooperate during the war with ISIS.
While I don’t think there would be enough space for the ground tree, I think some Syrian ground vehicles could be added as an optional foldered vehicle in the ground tree, and/or bolstering the air lineup that Iran is somewhat lacking at the moment. Though I would like to hear from the folks on both side about this idea.
3 Likes
Maybe too much is read into country names or nations for tech trees. Doing so leads to worry or argument about historical ties and who buys what vehicles from whom etc.
If Gaijin did want to flood the market with a load of new tech trees, then It could go down the route of grouping the major existing trees under a different banner. Area codes for example (Not a great example admittedly).UK could be take the Commonweath tag. America could be generic not just North America but South as well, Sweden could become Baltic region with Denmark, Norway etc. Europe could be east or west, north central whatever.
Israel could fall under Middle East with all the Arabic sub trees attached, Turkey, Iran etc.
You are not reliant on history but geography, so it matters not if there are friendly ties or historical grievances. None of that would be any relevance any longer. Might allow Gaijin more wriggle room in the future.
War Thunder seems to have no concept of enemies in historical terms anymore, so it matters not if Iran and Israel fight side by side in the game or oppose each other.
It’s a vague, poorly formed idea admittedly but a possibility maybe?
1 Like
I kinda get your point, since the Hungarian sub-tree kinda muddles the whole “historical connection” requirements for a sub-tree quite a bit. Though imo I don’t think Gaijin would “simplify” the tech tree into the regional tree like you said, since that would definitely gonna anger a lot of people who may viewed that as a “genericalization” of their country into other countries’ tree.
There are several proposals and idea of a regional tree (like Benelux, Arab, or LATAM), but these regional proposal does have some historical backing into it that would justify the grouping.
Of course, the Chinese tree with CCP/KMT in one tree is a major exception of “two enemies in a single tree” taboo, but at least the two has their historical ties to the Chinese civil war, and this similar reasoning could be applied with DDR vehicles in German high tier as well. Iran and Israel, meanwhile, has little to no historical and military connection. Which means there are even less chance of them being grouped together simply because they are “in the same area”.
While I would prefer not to bring politics into the discussion, I think there are certain lines that I think Gaijin wouldn’t cross.
6 Likes
The bulk of North Korea’s vehicles are derived from Soviet or Chinese vehicles. Iran’s connections to North Korea, as you say, are limited to export between the countries as well as technical collaborations (The Raad-2 copy, supposedly provided an upgraded FCS for the later Ch’ŏnma variants, etc.)
North Korea suits a sub-tree in China much better, although if that wasn’t an option, honestly I think I would prefer it in an Iranian tree as opposed to a United Korean one.
1 Like
Looks like a very well made, full, and healthy tech tree! Definitely not the first new nation I’d want (gib Poland!) but this would still be a good addition!
1 Like
You are right in many ways as anybody who is part of this forum and certainly the old one would testify. I studied social and political history for my degree and it’s a rabbit hole Gaijin don’t want to venture down at all, and I think they know it.
The issue for Gaijin is that, presumably the more nations it involves the more money it can make. Getting bogged down in historical and political argument every time Gaijin want to introduce a new series of vehicles is counterproductive and expensive.
It would be a bold move to edge away from Nationalism but that is the way the world is moving in many ways.
I’m suggesting remaking the game into a series of renamed groups. Could be for example A1: North /South America.E1 France, Germany etc. E2: Poland, Slovakia maybe Ukraine with respect to the current issues etc. C1: UK, SA, AUS, Canada etc., SE1: China, Korea etc., ME1: Turkey, Israel, Syria etc.
No religion, race or politics/history. Just an open page for the addition of any new trees, sub trees or even single vehicles.
Gajin will lay down the rules as it sees fit, and we all have to suck it up so this would be the way and the player base would have to take it or leave it like any other aspect of the game.
War Thunder does seem to back itself into a corner at every opportunity and it takes a bold move to set the record straight sometimes.
1 Like
The have definitely painted themselves into a corner game design wise.
1 Like
For the OP we have an ongoing issue of how to implement new tech trees without causing an international incident.
Then we have Map gate.
The CAS debacle (or not)
The WW2 tanks in Cold war era episode
ODL
Spawn camping
And recently the poor quality of higher tier players now that many of the old timers quit in disgust business.
Apparently, they were unhappy about something. Can’t imagine what that might have been.
I don’t think north korea it’s a chance cause they will probably add (one day) both Koreas as independent tech
4 Likes
nice idea
1 Like