This is how I see it should fit.
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
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)
Nice you have successfully ignored 80% of the Korean vehicles that they currently use.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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:
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?
You still haven’t answered my question, what is the reasoning behind bringing up political differences without thinking about gameplay side of things?
The solution to this really is to balance the two factors. For example, South Africa and India both still make the most sense to go to Britain despite the British colonizing them, but Ukraine shouldn’t go to Russia because… you know… the war.
That does not answer most of my question in regards to this current thread context. Is South Korea at war with Japan in the modern day?
They are not at war in the modern day, but not being at war isn’t the bar. Should South Korea go to Japan? The truth is that I don’t know. I don’t have an answer to that.
As of right now the argument made by them is that “because of past bad blood, SK should not go to Japan” but has it really been the case in the modern day? SK holding informal grudges isn’t the same as having a formal conflict with Japan in modern day context, and therefore it should be excluded from the discussion.
