Oops. Neglected this for a bit too long. Tree has been updated slightly:
M2020 (2023) → M2020
M2020 → M2020 (P)
Both moved to Rank VIII
M2010-II APC replaced with 323 (14.5mm), same BR, less anachronistic
Pŏn’gae-3 moved from 9.3 to 10.0
BRs of some Chinese SPAA adjusted according to recent BR changes
A lot of this is just ‘parity changes’ to match the United Korean ground forces tree, so that both options are updated and viable.
Every vehicle (except for 3 I haven’t suggested yet) have links to their respective suggestions, and I will be working on adding mini descriptions for every vehicle that doesn’t have one yet over the coming days/weeks once I’m less busy.
That is an incredibly tendentious response, and a ridiculous way to express support for the addition of an united Korean tree. This statement is a thinly veiled attempt at political propaganda. North Korea has as much, if not more, unique vehicles that can be added to War Thunder. Sub-trees are unnecessary as both countries are Korean; such an implementation implies separate lines for both nations, which would be a poor implementation. Neither country is adequate as an unique tech tree on its own.
To be fair this is arguing semantics. A subtree is essentially a nation within a nation. Any clearer definition than that has never really been provided by Gaijin. And since any nation in a tree under another nations flag functions essentially as a “subtree” it’s fair to say that as well.
Just like it’s fair to call ROC a PRC subtree right now, being a different nation under PRC tree flag, despite not being an official subtree, but rather implemented similar to what we’d see with Korea.
This way, just like China, both countries are included and I feel like just like China again, the nation with the bigger playerbase will get the flag, thus the “main” nation spot. And this is undisputably South Korea.
In terms of player base, yes, obviously South Korea is bigger/the only one. In terms of vehicles though? They’re split pretty evenly. Just counting the numbers of vehicles in my United Korea proposal:
South Korea: 52
North Korea: 48
South Korea has slightly more copy-paste vehicles.
I think it would be ‘unfair’ if the tree was labelled South Korea. Either just Korea, or United Korea.
But this is a little off topic for the North Korean sub-tree.
Could be also done with united predecessor’s name - “People’s Republic of Korea”, no?
As for the whole idea of DPRK tree Im all for it in any shape or form. United Korea tree would be interesting, but I have a feeling it will just create China 2.0 with half of the things being copy-paste from WESTFOR and EASTFOR, while adding to China as sub-tree might offer some flexibility and fill the gaps (like I wouldn’t mind quad SPAA without being catapulted to 10.0 by PGZ04A and it 9.3 for some reasons)
Not really, since the PRK existed for just over 6 months in the North, and barely 4 months in the South. Didn’t have any military of its own either. It would be a bit like renaming the British tree to the British Empire because it has Indian and South African vehicles in it.
Valid points. I think a United Korean tree adds a lot of unique vehicles, and I generally don’t mind the mixing of different vehicle styles, but I can see why some people don’t, and that’s why this sub-tree suggestion also exists.
In my opinion, the implementation of an united tech tree could go with a split flag to acknowledge the current political reality, with a diagonal forwards slash, the flag of DPRK on the left, and flag of ROK on the right. But with the name of “Korea” tree.
I agree that this is an argument regarding semantics; as far as I can tell (my comprehension of English is sometimes subpar) the official news posts by Gaijin announcing “subtrees” do not use that word, rather, they say “tree of nation X will be introduced in nation Y”. The definition of “sub” is underneath or below, implying power relations; this to me seems like a poorly constructed term.
ROC cannot be said to be a subtree… The vast majority of countries correctly recognize the one China principle and the legitimacy of the PRC’s government as opposed to the ROC. You can say otherwise, but in official communications (by Gaijin) there will rightfully be no deviation from international consensus. However, to my knowledge, neither South or North Korea have specific and exclusive principles on international legitimacy, as opposed to China. If Korea is introduced, I doubt that South Korean players will be angry over the naming of “Korea”, as the very name of South Korea is illogical for a unified tech tree. Of course, it could be called ROK, but use of “Korea” instead does not take a side on the issue. Rather, it may be supported, even, as most Koreans in both nations desire reunification.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
