I’ve seen replies above in this very thread asking for Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam etc to go to Japan.
Please tell me something new.
1 Like
Wouldn’t say that is so controversial, all of it makes proper sense.
The South Koreans wouldn’t necessarily start with Sabres though, having received some prop aircraft as well. Especially combined with North Korea they would have a comprehensive air and ground tree as an Israeli styled nation.
Well when I said comprehensive I literally just meant that it would be able to function in the game for both air and ground battles, that the size would be big enough.
Quality wise it is quite terrible, that I can very well recognize.
The main reason why I would wish for an independent Korean tree is to not see the incredibly potent ground tree go to waste, which would be mostly unique and because I don’t think the Koreas don’t really make sense as sub-trees anywhere.
Japan and SoKo of course have very poor historical relations (though I recognize why it would be a good sub-tree for them).
USA absolutely doesn’t need a sub-tree at all, so we can write that off too.
Many people say that China should get NoKo as a sub-tree, but I very much disagree.
Hardware wise they share very little and NoKo has much more in common with USSR equipment, which is what the majority of their tanks are ultimately based on. As a matter of fact, Iran had a greater influence over NoKo weaponry than China did if you ask me.
It also doesn’t help that China really doesn’t need a sub-tree, considering that they have the greatest growth potential of any tree currently in the game.
If a sub-tree were to get picked for China though, Pakistan would make more sense than NoKo as well.
All this leads me to the conclusion that I’d like to see them independently instead of as sub-trees, though I do recognize that most of their stuff outside of ground would be copy/paste.
4 Likes
Is it just me or forum did a weird one?
(other than mod removing a flagged post)
Except the fact that South Korea has no military relation to Japan at all, while all these countries have some relations to the countries they are subtrees of. ROC split form current day China in the civil war, South Africa was a state of the United Kingdom, same as India. China was a key partner of Vietnam during the Vietnam War, and need I say anything about Soviet states being in the USSR tech tree. There has not been a single time in history where Korea was allied with Japan, the only time being close being its hostile occupation by Japan. Current day they are not related to each other at all except participating in war games hosted by the United States, which is not related to them being in a tree together. The only reason people say this is because they don’t understand politics and because they do not understand Asia at all and simply think “Asian country is considered blufor, so they should be on same team. Asian country is considered redfor, so they should be on same team.”
There’s far more argument for North Korea to be with China given their close relations over the years, however North and South Korea being their own tech tree together would be a situation comparable to China and ROC, since they were split off in the civil war that occurred after World War II when Japan fell.
6 Likes
This is how I see it should fit.
- Foldered with the M48A3K is the M48A5K with 105mm cannon
- Foldered with the K1 is the K1E1 (better electronics)
- Foldered with the K1A1 is the K1A2
- K263A3 is the Korean version of the M163
- K-SAM Chunma is the Korean VT-1 platform
- I would’ve put K9 Thunder in rank 4, but the Norwegian premium is rank 5
Edit: This is just a rough idea with future add on, but as I mentioned above, this would fit much better in general as it bolsters where Japan is lacking
12 Likes
I’m not sure if people would like this suggestion or not but if we are insistent of South Korea being a Subtree why not Israel, they like Japan needs a subtree to fill up their TT however unlike Japan, Israel did help develop some of South Korea’s weapons and vice versa, Israel and South Korea unlike Japan and South Korea don’t have bad blood towards each other and the K1’s & K2’s would compliment the Merk’s more than the Type 90 & 10. I am going to let actual Israeli’s, South Koreans and Israeli mains debate about this
Two other things to note: Firstly not all TT’s need to be huge, sometimes the appeal of some TT’s is that they are not huge, yes they may have some gaps but that is a sacrifice that I can take as long as it’s not too bad. Secondly if South Korea becomes a standalone TT it’s not like it can have a Subtree of it’s own (most likely in the form of Singapore since they do have some unique designs and unique upgrades of existing vehicles and enough to justify a Subtree but not enough for a full TT)
1 Like
Nice you have successfully ignored 80% of the Korean vehicles that they currently use.
1 Like
The issue with the Japanese tree at the upper tier is that the gaps are massive with very little line up to go with. The only saturated BR is at 9.0, everything else has gaps that are big enough to be an issue.
1 Like
This logic can be used to justify any country except the Arab ones going to Israel. Israeli technology is used in everything by everyone. Hell, Israel could get an American subtree under this logic. Israeli military technology is used en mass by everyone. If you really want to give Israel a subtree, how about Chile? Israel didn’t just sell stuff to Chile, they nearly singlehandedly kept their military afloat for 40 years. Chile operated M-50s and M-51s. The justification of Israeli tech being used justifies nearly anything to them! By your logic, the Leopard 2 A7 V could go to Israel because it uses the Israeli Trophy HV active protection system.
This is what the tree could look like, and even this is missing a Piranha IB with the Blowpipe and Mamba missiles and a Piranha IB with a Cockerill 90 mm.
3 Likes
You’re welcomed to help me add on, and list vehicles that I’m missing. I’ll update the list as time goes.
You missed out on my entire point, again.
Then by this metric why don’t you just have the game be one giant tech tree and have everyone research whatever they want?
4 Likes
Exactly. By their logic, that works because everyone used everyone else’s technology at some point.
Then by your metric going as far back as 1600 all and any current commonwealth nations should not have their vehicles be added to Britain then, since it was less of a “friendly gesture” and more of a hard conquest around the world.
I am not opposed to Chile being a Subtree of Israel infact I strongly support that suggestion, i’m just saying that Israel can have another subtree ontop of that and South Korea could be a possible option. Is there better alternatives out there? Yes and you can possibly think of a few but South Korean subtree in the Israeli TT is far from the worst idea out there. Another reason why i mentioned South Korea in relation to Israel is that they share a lot of common geopolitical stances towards each other (e.g both are staunchly Anti-DPRK)
What you don’t understand is that those countries became allies and are currently allies with said country. There has not been a single point in history past 1600 where Japan and Korea were allies. You’re fundamentally arguing against how the game works with countries working together because you want more vehicles in the country you play, even though they have literally NOTHING to do with each other.
2 Likes
And my entire point is to ignore the political side of things, having it constantly be brought up instead of prioritising gameplay is something I never understood, for a video game.
here
The tenets of your logic here are as follows:
- Country B used country A’s technology
- Country A and Country B share similar stances on certain issues.
That is the logic you have laid out there. By that logic, do you know what else works for Israel? Slovakia, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Czechia, Thailand, Vietnam, and Myanmar, just to name a few. See how that line of logic you’re using becomes a problem really fast?