Good question.I'm looking forward to playing Korean tanks and Thai tanks in WT and seeing more Korean and Thai players who live near my country.This reply may be a bit long, but it is a testament to the importance I attach to this proposal.
So far, China, Japan, and Israel are the only three countries that do not have 5 lines in the Land Warfare Tech Tree.They do need sub tech trees to augment their tech trees.
However,it's worth considering that Should the Korean Tech Tree and the Thai Tech Tree be merged into the Japanese Tech Tree.I believe that the consent of Koreans should be sought before merging the Korean Tech Tree into the Japanese Tech Tree.Most South Koreans are disgusted by their own tanks being in other countries' tech trees (especially those that have committed aggression against them).Of course, I don't deny that the integration of Korean vehicles into the Japanese tech tree will save Korean players the cost of research vehicles. At the same time, they will also have a more complete sortie queue for a better gaming experience.It's a win-win indeed.Otherwise, the "Korean Tech Tree" will most likely become like the Israeli Tech Tree – sparse, repetitive, and boring.As for bringing North and South Korea together, I think it's better to forget it. The equipment of the two sides is too different, and the cost of learning to adapt to different equipment is too high.North Korean equipment can be added to the Chinese tech tree, since they have a common teacher - the USSR, but with their own developments and innovations.More importantly, because of the Korean War (also known as the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea), the Chinese and North Korean people forged a deep friendship.Finally, there is Thailand, where most of his equipment comes from foreign trade.For example, the T-84 from Ukraine and the VT-4 from China, both are among the top tanks in the world.Undoubtedly, the VT-4 must be the brightest jewel of China's technology tree (it is said that some of its technologies are more advanced than the ZTZ99A, and of course more expensive).As for the T-84, it is very embarrassing that the Russia-Ukraine conflict has forced us to consider whether to add it to the Soviet tech tree, even though many of its technologies have been accumulated in the former Soviet Union.In addition, with Thai equipment scattered across different countries' tech trees at the same time, it will be very difficult for Thai players to play with different tanks in their own country at the same time.So, judging by the number of vehicles in Thailand and North Korea, it seems that adding them to the Chinese tech tree in a whole line will make more players profitable, and it is very practical.What's even more subtle is that their vehicles are just right in strength to connect perfectly in BR11.0. For example, before BR11.0, there could be various equipment of the Korean People's Army, including the "Cheonma" tank (a deep modification of the T-62), the "Songun" tank, and the T-54 series tank. The BR11.3 can be equipped with a North Korean newest Kim Brahms (which looks like the Abrams but is equipped with General Kim's troops), and its two external anti-tank missiles may give it a fighting power in the BR11.3. As for the future BR11.7 and even BR12.0, VT-4 and T-84 can make their debut.
5 Likes
I’m gonna restructure ur sentence so its easier for the rest to read it:
From 弗拉基米尔 伊里奇 乌里扬诺夫
Good question. I’m looking forward to playing Korean tanks and Thai tanks in WT and seeing more Korean and Thai players who live near my country. This reply may be a bit long, but it is a testament to the importance I attach to this proposal.
So far, China, Japan, and Israel are the only three countries that do not have 5 lines in the Land Warfare Tech Tree. They do need sub tech trees to augment their tech trees.
However, it’s worth considering that Should the Korean Tech Tree and the Thai Tech Tree be merged into the Japanese Tech Tree. I believe that the consent of Koreans should be sought before merging the Korean Tech Tree into the Japanese Tech Tree. Most South Koreans are disgusted by their own tanks being in other countries’ tech trees (especially those that have committed aggression against them).Of course, I don’t deny that the integration of Korean vehicles into the Japanese tech tree will save Korean players the cost of research vehicles. At the same time, they will also have a more complete sortie queue for a better gaming experience. It’s a win-win indeed. Otherwise, the “Korean Tech Tree” will most likely become like the Israeli Tech Tree – sparse, repetitive, and boring. As for bringing North and South Korea together, I think it’s better to forget it. The equipment of the two sides is too different, and the cost of learning to adapt to different equipment is too high. North Korean equipment can be added to the Chinese tech tree, since they have a common teacher - the USSR, but with their own developments and innovations. More importantly, because of the Korean War (also known as the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea), the Chinese and North Korean people forged a deep friendship. Finally, there is Thailand, where most of his equipment comes from foreign trade. For example, the T-84 from Ukraine and the VT-4 from China, both are among the top tanks in the world. Undoubtedly, the VT-4 must be the brightest jewel of China’s technology tree (it is said that some of its technologies are more advanced than the ZTZ99A, and of course more expensive).As for the T-84, it is very embarrassing that the Russia-Ukraine conflict has forced us to consider whether to add it to the Soviet tech tree, even though many of its technologies have been accumulated in the former Soviet Union. In addition, with Thai equipment scattered across different countries’ tech trees at the same time, it will be very difficult for Thai players to play with different tanks in their own country at the same time. So, judging by the number of vehicles in Thailand and North Korea, it seems that adding them to the Chinese tech tree in a whole line will make more players profitable, and it is very practical. What’s even more subtle is that their vehicles are just right in strength to connect perfectly in BR11.0. For example, before BR11.0, there could be various equipment of the Korean People’s Army, including the “Cheonma” tank (a deep modification of the T-62), the “Songun” tank, and the T-54 series tank. The BR11.3 can be equipped with a North Korean newest Kim Brahms (which looks like the Abrams but is equipped with General Kim’s troops), and its two external anti-tank missiles may give it a fighting power in the BR11.3. As for the future BR11.7 and even BR12.0, VT-4 and T-84 can make their debut.
9 Likes
While I fully agree with your statement, I still think that South Koreans that are angry about their tech going to Japan should just put that hatred down and move on, like with the rest of the world.
2 Likes
While it’s not really my place to say that SK players should just have to put up with being in a shared tree (Most likely with the Japanese), what I never hear from people who don’t want that is a viable alternative.
The only other nation in game with any level of ties to SK is the US, and they absolutely don’t need a sub tree, especially one consisting of almost entirely US equipment up until the mid/late Cold War.
And I think everyone’s in agreeance as to wanting to see SK representation in game. The K series tanks are interesting designs that have taken off recently, and some of their other indigenous vehicles seem intriguing (The K21 sounds like a fantastic top tier IFV).
Meanwhile, Japan desperately needs a subtree that can help their high tier lineups, and the other potential candidates like Thailand and other SEA countries have little to no indigenous designs. While people want more lineup options, I don’t think anyone wants a subtree filled with nothing but more copy paste.
3 Likes
I’m gonna quote from a certain someone on the SK thread: “I think ultimately either a South Korean only tree or a United Korea tree is the only option.”
From the same person when you try to tell them it should go to South Korea: “If by best way you mean literally worst way, then you’d be correct.”
Not hard to guess who, but I rather not mention him.
Thanks!
Yeah. I am so, so unhappy about that. Faction uniqueness is important.
2 Likes
Ultimately the solution for me is something along these lines, but even more radical. Here is my logic: we should have as many nations as possible in the game, with a few tech trees as possible. That means tech trees and nations are no longer synonyms in this game.
Because nations are a good marketing tool, with flags and all, I think nations should be “subfolders” inside a tech tree, which would be the umbrella-folder.
Example: you have a Germany tab with the German flag and an Italy tab with the Italian flag, as sub-folders under a tech tree called “Continental Europe” (or whatever).
If you just want to play one or the other, you have that option. For example if you want to grind Italy you can do so without ever having to touch a German vehicle.
If you want to mix their lineups, you can, because Germany and Italy are in the same folder. This immediately solves the issue of lineup holes - even if you want to primarily grind Italy, at least you can add an Ostwind II to your lineup, or whatever.
This way you still keep national trees and don’t have to tell people something inherently anti consumer like “the national trees no longer exist!” It’s just a different way to organise them.
This allows you to put basically all nations in game that you could possibly want, even if they have a literal single vehicle, because they would always have lineup options.
It also allows you to keep flavour unique. For example: Hungarian WW2 stuff would be “The Kingdom Of Hungary” and would go in the same Continental Europe folder mentioned above. Communist Hungary however would have its own flag and placement inside the tech tree for Soviet/WarPac vehicles. So you would still be able to play communist Hungary, but the Hungarian T-72 would be fighting alongside its technological brethren… So that these super-trees would feel genuinely unique to grind and play.
Likewise the DDR would go in that supertree, rather than be glued to West Germany (or even worse the Third Reich in the case of a hypothetical DDR PT-76 for example). Chinese mainland vehicles would be in this “communist” tree, Taiwanese vehicles would be in the “Anglo” tree that would encompass the USA, UK and friends, Israel, etc…
And since I’ve mentioned three of these “folders”, I’ll say I would keep the fourth one for wildcards/odd export vehicles/international tree for countries that don’t strongly belong to either of the aforementioned three.
Of course details are arguable, for example where you place Japan exactly.
Imho this would solve a ton of problems with the game. Lineup holes become a thing of the past, so no more bending over backwards trying to pigeonhole vehicles in empty spots with dubious results. No more limitations on adding extra countries.
Much less imbalance in terms of teams (such as one side having no AA) because you have a much wider selection of vehicles to choose from.
And since the matchmaker would now have to assemble teams from combinations of four factions, not ten, it would have a much easier job, which when combined with the increased vehicle density, would allow us to introduce massive BR decompression without even mildly affecting queue times.
I know this will never happen, but I truly do believe it would make WT incredibly more enjoyable for everyone involved… And much easier for Gaijin to work with.
Sounds nice, but it wouldn’t really solve much of the issues still since people who don’t want to play AA won’t ever touch AA, people who only wants to grind that single nation because reasons would also not grind other nations, and lastly some will make the argument that it makes nations “meaningless” and “'pointless”, as you “might as well group all the tanks together instead”.
Not how I see it but I’ve seen the argument elsewhere similar to this, I quote from the same guy i quoted above: “Then by this metric why don’t you just have the game be one giant tech tree and have everyone research whatever they want?”
Edit: For context, this was my question prior to it:
If you trace this comment far enough, you’ll find out the person I’m quoting.
These are different things though.
Let me make a different example. Playing as an American or Russian can be problematic on Mozdok or Fire Arc, where German guns have the advantage. Or you could end up with USSR and America on the same team having overwhelming CAS availability. This way, all factions in the match would have tools to be competitive almost anywhere instead. If players don’t use them, it’s their choice.
And in this scenario, they still could.
To continue with the example, you can play Italy alone if you so wish. Having researched German vehicles as well would just give you the additional option to mix German vehicles in your Italian lineup.
Well, if we’re talking research and progress, no. Nations would still be researched individually.
Also, “grouping nations into four factions depending on technological ties” is hardly the same as having no factions at all, it boggles the mind that someone would unironically make that comparison.
If anything, that sort of pointlessness is what we have right now. If you grind your way through the tech trees, how many M109s, Centurions, Shermans, T-34s, M60s, T-72s, Leopards etc do you have to research, spade and play? Trees look more and more interchangeable. In this scenario, there is really only one faction where you would find T-72s… Unique flavour makes factions more meaningful, not less.
Here’s an issue, people might not want to go through grinding other nations to play the nation they want, at least depending on how they do the reshuffling. Let’s say if they put Leopard 2A4 > Leopard 2A5 > Leopard 2A6 > Strv 122A > Strv 122B PLSS, what if I want to grind just the swedish stuff, for example. Ofc I’m making a scenario where Gaijin kinda just “screwed it” and put everything together, which is highly unlikely, but your example also requires people to have grinded other nations out as well, which they very well might not do.
Yeah and this brings me back to what I say above, it wouldn’t change much in terms of gameplay, but it just offers a potential chance for people to maybe use vehicles from another nation in a single line up. It’s not something I personally disagree in, but I can see quite a few people very much not like it that way either and will stick to their guns and grind that one nation only.
… I literally just explained that they would not need to. Have I written so in a way that is not clear?
Research would not change. This is just about which vehicles you are allowed to include in a lineup. If you only researched Italy, you play just Italy. If you researched Germany too, you can mix them. Can, not have to.
You open the Sweden tab and research Swedish stuff exclusively. The end
No, it doesn’t unless you want to. One of my objectives was specifically to preserve player choice.
So after re-reading, you basically just want to separate nations under certain “blocs” then, in a way.
1 Like
Something like that, yes. I mean, in a sense, the game is already doing this, right? Hungary will never fight Italy in Ground RB, because they are in the same tree, only in their case you don’t have the option to researching Hungary without also researching Italy.
What I would do is simply extend this logic - group all nations in a way that makes factions unique and varied, but with the difference that you can research nations individually.
2 Likes
Idk how I would feel about that ngl, tho it does bring back the good old days of “historical” MM, even tho you can’t realistically do that anymore now lol.
My issue would be how you would separate China and Taiwan, since now that’s a full nation together in game anyway, and where would you put Israel? Would the “communist bloc” be in any extra disadvantage given it only has two real nations that are of the communal side? How about WW2 separation? etc etc
Another day, another delusional poll
SK won’t be added under Jp Tree
9 Likes
Ok, any reasons or you’re gonna just go ahead and not bother? :)
1 Like
If you have the vehicles researched, you keep them researched when they move - you have one in the “WarPac folder” and the other in the “Anglo folder”.
I would say in the Anglo folder: most of their vehicles fit the mold technologically, and the more unique ones bring variety to that folder, like some of the crazy Israeli SPGs not yet added to the game.
I don’t think it does: USSR and Communist China are already two very strong trees for this folder, but there is potential for a lot more, like North Korea, Arab modifications to Soviet vehicles; WarPac members from the Cold War era, like the DDR and communist Hungary/Romania/Poland etc. Plus modern day Kazakhstan etc.
I’m not thinking about this in terms of an era-based matchmaker or anything like that. The Turan would be under Kingdom of Hungary tree and so would be in the Euro folder. The Hungarian T-72 would be under the communist Hungarian tree and therefore the WarPac folder.
Simply put, there are no reasons to link Korea to Japan except for geographical proximity. And I must say that I am tired of hearing about U.S.-Japan-ROK Trilateral Cooperation or that ‘but… their diplomatic relations have gotten better in the last few years’ nonsense.
5 Likes
To provide a visual example, there was this suggestion on the old forum about adding the flags of subtrees as “tabs” under the main tree.
My idea would be visually similar, only in this case there are technically no subtrees, just national tech trees you access inside four large folders.
3 Likes