It depends on what Gaijin and the community wants, the problem with Israel is that it could have been a full Tech Tree but i think experimented with it resulting in the current Israeli Tree. However it likely would have been like the Chinese Tree wheres Rank I till III/IV consisted mainly of Copy n Paste with some unique vehicles in between.
The United Korean Tree can have a full Tree aswell but it would be like China but each rank (beside rank I) would at least have 2 unique vehicles. So again depends what the community wants.
yeah, but they could just take a ww2 map and only take portion of it. Would be still nice to see tanks like the mark 4, A7V, Renault FT. Planes would be more interesting. Maybe a Zeppelin as a bomber or as a AI target would be cool
Speed of the type 10 it’s much lower than what it’s supossed to be, the composite Xray is incoretly modeled and Even has armor holes and it’s covering the incorrect ammount of armor, this includes the breach having incorrect ammount of armor and even the trunion is not in the DM, type 16 has incorrect turret rotation speed, type 90 has incorrect sight fov, type 89 can use 35 mm apfsds, incorrect external and internal material modules of the type 10, a lot of thr low tier tanks either have wrong engine power hun depression or penetration, etc there is a Lot of Bug reports going around
Name another nation in europe that has been posturing “oh fear me look how strong I am, I’m totally stronger than everyone, cross this red line and we’ll make you pay, look at our nuclear arsenal”.
Just like people take aledged the -20 kph reverse of the BVM 2023 for granted from a single shady video.
Knowing Gaijin, they’re gonna give Japan the Thai subtree, and then claim Japan has enough vehicles for the next 2 or 3 updates.
Never played Japan but might give them a try depending on what Thailand provides the tree.
I have used the Japanese planes that are in the Chinese tree and omg they’re so much fun, Ki-44-II Hei is easily one of my most favorite planes ingame right now
This is probably off topic here but generally I’d say the biggest offenders are the Type 10 and the Type 81 (C).
Type 10 is inaccurate in mobility, armor and reload speed. Though reload speed is for balance and I can very much understand that a tank that’s already performing well for the quick reload won’t just have it halved.
Mobility is also rather an issue of poor modeling in general, rather than a Type 10 specific issue, it just affects if way more noticeably than others.
Armor however is based on some rather uneducated assumptions, even going so far as to ignore given sources in some areas, while straight up making illogical guesses in others. And once again the Type 10, having a large, yet armored breech area suffers a lot more from something all tanks have, which is arbitrary breech weakspots.
Type 81 (C) is similar, though most issues here are firepower related.
Firstly with the current SAM-1C lightwave missile, which suffers from photocontrast weakness of interference for lack of imaging seeker mechanic in game. It also has a set kinematic range of 10km in game, despite being the same missile as the 14km ARH SAM-1C variant (only with a different seeker), which I assume is based on the stated 8km effective range of the missile, but illogical. Sadly a difinitive kinematic range is unknown.
The missiles then lack function to launch without lock and have the missile automatically pick up a target in its field of view. Which target can’t be selected without the datalink provided by the FCS vehicle, but even with self search only this can help increase range by quite a bit.
Then there is lack of lead calculation that it should have, and can make use of thanks to uncaged seeker. With Igla automatically maneuvering to ideal lead I don’t see how an assistance to lead here would be too powerful, as all it would really do is help at closer ranges where the missile takes time to even start maneuvering. But then again this is an issue all MANPADS have too.
And obviously the ARH missiles themselves, being the same as the ones in game but with a PESA seeker and 14km effective range. There were also the main focus of Type 81 (C) development.
