North Korean Ground Forces Sub-Tree

That would be ideal, a split flag can represent both and more accurately represent the tree.
The only reason I wasn’t suggesting that is the other combined tree we have, which is China, only has PRC flag, not split PRC/ROC. So if it has to be only one flag there it would be the South Korean flag for the larger playerbase.
The tree should just be called Korea still, since it has both north and south.

That does seem like a good assessment actually. Though I believe most on this forum use it as “Nation added within existing nation”, and don’t actually mean any implied power dynamics.
“Sub” here refers to “under” not meaning “below”, but as in “categorized under”, which has essentially the same implication as “with”.

I actually don’t consider politics at all when it comes to subtrees. I’d rather use it as a game mechanics term. It is a separately organized military with defferent procurement. So no matter the political situation (that in a game with players from both sides is better left untouched) it is still functionally equivalent to a subtree.

Though calling it Korea over ROK should be only natural, it was also called China over PRC to make it more general (and because both of these countries use this form as short name officially too)

The only thing against a split flag in my opinion is that it might get political. While currently it’s “combined China”, represented by the flag of the one with more players, so fairly apolitical, a split flag Korea might have ROC players question why they don’t get their split flag. This would mean that Gaijin takes an official stance on the Chinese political situation, which I don’t see as beneficial for players.

Similarly making it split flag for China now might have similar implications for the other side of the situation, so Gaijin might be better off sticking to the way they do it now for every subtree and combined tree.

Essentially I don’t think it’s a good idea for Gaijin to pick any sides politically, when this game is meant to entertain people regardless of politics. While conflict between players is difficult to avoid in any game representing modern day military, I believe it is important for Gaijin to stay neutral.

I’d love to see split flags, but only if they can be added without creating political tension.

1 Like

Subtree no.

Just look at the United Korea Ground Force Tech Tree. Where Korea is its tech tree not separated by 2 subtrees.

2 Likes

What is with this argument on semantics and flag? There already exists a United Korea flag that was used in the Unification Talks. This is such a pointless argument to be had.

5 Likes

I just want my tanks that aren’t really tanks and ancient uparmored Soviet bricks converted into “modern” fighting vehicles. A unified tree would be fun but DPRK added to China and ROK to US or JPN would give me a reason to play those trees more

This argument has been done countless times on the forums, ROK to JPN is a culturally & politically sensitive topic not even considering the sheer lack of a bilateral alliance between them.

7 Likes

I vote no rather see a United Korean Tech Tree not a sub-tree.

7 Likes

I know this is gonna be a unpopular opinion but I prefer option 4. I rather have a merged Korea TT and have it be similar to the Israel TT. I believe that Israel only has 3 lines for its ground tree and all of its air vehicles are modification of other countries’ planes. My main argument is does China really need a sub-tree? I think Gaijin has indicated that Sub-trees will be used to bolster trees that need a sub-tree. China has enough of their own vehicles to fill most areas. Gaijin is just slow to fill those areas. As a side note, China can get more western vehicles added to its TT. I think adding those makes more sense the adding NK vehicles.

1 Like

Not really unpopular, the United Korea ground proposal has a very similar yes/no vote ratio. It’s also my preferred now, should probably edit this post a little.

1 Like

Korea doesn’t come out as a subtree

1 Like

Has anyone brought up the potentially modernized T-34-76 (1942) utilizing BK-345M HEATFS shells from the PT-76?
image
image

4 Likes

No sources given, and I’ve only heard these claims elsewhere with no sources attached either.

Unlike with the T-34-85, which doesn’t require any modifications to the gun to fire 85mm HEAT rounds, I haven’t heard of the F-34 being able to fire rounds designed for the D-56T. Although maybe someone who knows more can answer that question? Could certainly work at ~4.7 if so.

Fair enough, I suppose it would’ve been more likely if these components were already proven to be compatible by the Soviets.

Neither does the Hungarian tanks to the Italian tech tree

1 Like

I think USSR / Russia as a subtree could work. especial war current events as North Koreans and Russians are fighting together in Kursk.

Unconfirmed. But that’s besides the point with the main point being - USSR/Russia doesn’t need a subtree, it already full and still can be filled with domestic vehicles and prototypes (in the worst case vehicles from Belarus and Kazakhstan can be added). If anyone get DPRK as a subtree it is China (more so since they have Korean MiG)

4 Likes

China doesn’t need a subtree either. They have plenty of vehicles to fill the TT, Gaijin is just really slow to add them.

The F-5 was built in China and sent to DPRK, so it made sense that it was placed in the Chinese TT

3 Likes

@DarKBird, what’s unconfirmed?

It not forum material, so leave it

I honestly think it’ll be Iran if anything.

@DarKBird, what are you saying? I don’t understand your messages.