With the M1A2T in the Chinese tech tree on the dev server, lots of people have gotten annoyed. So, I propose three things to solve this:
-
Add the M1A2T to both the American and Chinese trees. This would be a lot like how the Stingray was implemented.
-
Add the VT4 to the Thai subtree in the Japanese tech tree. As Thailand operates the VT4, it only makes sense that they should have it in game.
-
Allow the Chinese tech tree to be changed to say Taiwan/RoC. A lot of the trees lower tier vehicles and some of the higher tier ones are/were used by Taiwan, not mainland China. Therefore, it only makes sense that the tech tree should be able to be changed to say Taiwan/RoC.
2 Likes
1- No, it’s a Chinese service vehicle, and USA already has Abrams.
2- VT-4 is a false equivalence fallacy.
Despite that fallacy, the Thai VT-4 should be added.
3- China is literally in the name “ROC”. China is a vague name already that the game uses.
Politicizing the game by allowing people to name it “ROC” or “PRC” would lead to more toxicity.
1 Like
What’s toxic is not reprenting a country properly
2 Likes
the abrams controversy would have always happened. its an abrams to another tree, the gatekeepers would always be gatekeepers.
it would not have been so bad if the chinese playerbase wasnt so disgustinly aggressive towards the idea that their exported vehicles can appear in other trees (despite all their tree being derived from foreign tech) and especially into the japanese tree where there has been racism and general hate put towards it because of history.
for export vehicles i do think they should appear in the native tree and the tree of which the nation of use is in.
politics in video games is lame, its been loud and obnoxious
1 Like
@Caernarvon02
Opposing the M1A2T only harms the Republic of China playerbase, and the rest of us that play China.
It doesn’t harm the people you irrationally hate.
And no, vehicles shouldn’t be copy-pasted into tech trees that don’t contain a service - trialed nation.
yeah, Taiwan uses the vehicle, but the USA makes it, just like how the USA make the Stingray, but Thailand uses it. If the point of letting people change tech tree names is to include everyone, then they should include Taiwanese people who don’t consider themselves part of China.
The only thing that should change is the Taiwanese flag should be available for the tech tree. Both Taiwan and Mainland China claim to be the legitimate Government of CHINA and have a one China policy, so it’s appropriate to put them in the same tree. The USA chose to sell Abrams to one of those Chinas (while officially recognizing the other as the official government). so it is what it is.
The Thai VT-4 should also be added early next year when its not the 80th anniversary of Chinas liberation from Imperial Japan.
Other than that if you don’t want your nations equipment exported, write you congressman or Politburo member
6 Likes
Mainland China doesn’t operate the VT4, so why do you think they should have in their tech tree?
USA dose not operate the Stingray either, or Germany the L2A4M or L2PL
so? I’m saying that both the nation that makes, and the the nation that operates the vehicle should both get it.
So they get them because they built them, same as China getting VT-4.
@Dark_Swan
USA didn’t get a Thai Stingray, they got a representation of their trialed Stingrays.
Show us where USA trialed the M1A2T as a replacement to the SEP3 or SEP2.
Also your claim at the end where the people of ROC don’t consider themselves as part of the ROC is wild.
Pakistan is a sub-tree of China, which is a potential avenue of where China gets its VT-4 in-game.
I don’t speak Mandarin, otherwise I could look into potential domestic trials and contracts.
False equivalence fallacies are fallacies for a reason.
Service vehicle.
Sub-tree vehicle.
Prototype vehicle.
Trialed vehicle.
These are separate categories, and comparing separate categories with each other is a false equivalence.
Also more of my takes:
@AlvisWisla was saying that only the nation that operates the vehicle should get it
@Dark_Swan Nope, not what I said.
I stated that for service vehicles, the operator country is the determining factor for that specific variant.
The Hungarian KF41 for example is a production variant.
I still however support a prototype or trial version of KF41 for Germany. And if one was in service in one of its sub-trees, then that’d be an option as well.
USA has SEPv2 and SEPv3 Abrams as options.
USA has the prototype and trial Stingrays.
China has Pakistan’s VT-4s, and prototype VT-4s.
I’m a bit on the fence about that to be honest, I mean for more unique stuff like the Stingray I can go with both, but for example Germany probably doesn’t need dozens of slightly different variants of leopard 2A4s.
China would get the VT-4 through Pakistan regardless though.
in game, the VT4 in the Chinese tree shows under the PRC flag, not Pakistan. I meant that people in the ROC who don’t consider themselves part of the PRC.
@Dark_Swan Cool, PRC isn’t the tech tree.
PRC doesn’t show up under any translation of the game for the tech tree.
Even in Republic of China, the Chinese tech tree is called “China”.
what about the VT4 in the Chinese tech tree showing up under the PRC flag and not the Pakistani one?
Let me
remind you of one thing: Whether it is admitted or not,
as long as T belongs to China in international law, then
VT4 should not be assigned to Japan, unless you want to tell me that a
foreigner (gaijin) should follow a player’s political opinion rather than the
United Nations/international law.
Thailand is independ country, Taiwan is an area, therefore China get M1A2T cant equal Japan get VT4
