Originally, I did not particularly care if SK was added as a subtree to Japan, and I say this as someone who is Korean. However, the OP @보지사냥꾼 makes a very good point in stating that any subtree would kneecap the further development of Korean vehicles in this game, and would otherwise dilute the Japanese tree. If you look at my activity history, I play Japan vehicles the most. I’m only interested in seeing Japanese vehicles/prototypes fill the gaps in the tree, not in Gaijin putting in any half measures to be lazy. I’m rather sick of copypastes being used to fill gaps, even if they come under the guise of a subtree addition.
While I am sure others have done so already to an extent, I’d like to more substantially refute the claims made by some like @ChieftainWarrior , in a more civil manner. Claims that he is racist are rather ridiculous
- NK and SK only have geographical relations
Obviously the OC admits that they have historical relations. However these relations go on for thousands of years; NK and SK are both descendants of a single nation that existed on the penninsula for several centuries: Joseon. Just because attempts at reunification have not materialized thus far, this should not negate the historical connections. NK and SK have infinitely more in common with each other than any neighboring countries. I don’t know why the fact that the countries not have reunified yet should be seen as countering their cultural relations. No one here is saying that East and West Germans are a completely different peoples after being split for several decades. - He also goes on to list UK-South Africa, Sweden-Finland, and Italy-Hungary. He insists that there is a formula where subtrees “are given to nations with at least 1 of these traits”. I fail to see how NK and SK fail to satisfy the close, geographical and historical relations metric he uses for Sweden-Finland and UK-South Africa. I would argue that the relations of NK and SK are exponentially stronger than those two relations, let alone Italy-Hungary. For example, the Swedish language is an Indo-European language whereas Finnish is Uralic.
- Just because nations are not allies does not mean they should be precluded from a tree. This is a facetious argument. Why are Czech vehicles in the Italy tree, even thogh Italy was a member of the Axis which supported the invasion of Czechoslovakia? That argument makes no sense.
- There is already precedent. The Chinese tree exists as the sum of two constituents: PRC and ROC. Whether he likes it or not, this tree is already is the game, so it should not be surprising if there is a United Korea tree. And, PRC and ROC succeed in the formula he set forth; they share both historical and geographical ties.
- The US and USSR do not need any subtrees. This should not be up for debate. These are nations that have( or had) immense military-industrial complexes. The different variants and protoypes made by each nation means thousands of possibilities for each.
My problem is that OC claims to be a purist and is following a formula for which nation gets which subtree, yet refuses to follow that formula when it checks out for NK and SK