Actually getting license from company who manufactured it is little bit connected to political. Especially in Korea as Korea’s domestic military market is not fully ‘market economy’
If Gaijin is so concerned about the lack of vehicles in the Japan why would they add the South Korean K9 SPH (Norwegian version) in the Swedish Tree? It’s pretty clear where they stand.
Also China was implemented with Taiwan and Italy has received an country they have military ties with so both examples are not really an comparison to South Korea-Japan.
3 Likes
The actual larger problem is the sheer amount of vehicles that South Korea has, it would easily surpass the Japanese tree in terms of top tier vehicles.
1 Like
+1 but add them to Japan so japan doesnt suck
1 Like
But that doesn’t really matter. Italy has no business having soviet vehicles they have no connections with such as BMPs, soviet helicopters and T-series tanks. SK and JP have more things in common with their vehicles for air, naval, and ground. And they are still allies as well, most of the hatred comes from what happened in WW2 but recently even SK wants to improve relationships and both do active joint drills together mainly with their navys.
(I want to add that this is not me saying SK should go to JP just that vehicle design wise they wouldn’t be vastly different compared to Italy vs soviet designs.)
5 Likes
Valid points. I should of dug more info on the whole allies thing.
South Korean vehicles would be cool to have in game, but the big dilemma is where they should go.
Personally, I don’t really want a Korean tech tree. Even if it’s unified, it’ll be Israel 2.0 in many ways.
As for Japan, I’m sorry, but the case for South Korean vehicles in their tree is really, really weak. Even if we were to factor politics out (which we shouldn’t), Japan has and had nothing to do with South Korean vehicles. They don’t use them (or vice versa), and they had no role in their development. The argument is basically “they’re close by!” which would be like someone saying, “Italy struggles with top tier, they need to get a Leclerc, they’re close by!” and you might laugh at that, I would too, but it’s the same logic. Yes, I’m aware that Japan is struggling with a lack of vehicles, but that shouldn’t give them the right to pilfer tanks from another country because of geographical proximity.
In any scenario, Gaijin has said in the past that they won’t add SK vehicles to Japan, because the only thing they have in common is both being countries in East Asia. And they could’ve added the K9 to the Japanese tree, but they added it to the Swedish one. They could’ve also added a ROKAF F-16 to Japan’s tree, but they didn’t. Seems pretty clear where they stand on this.
As for where they should go, perhaps just add them on a case-by-case basis, where it makes the most sense. There’s already the VIDAR in the Swedish tree. For example, the K1 should definitely go in the American tree, because it’s a derivative of the Abrams, and GDLS was heavily involved in its development. Whereas the K2, that’s a bit trickier. You could just add it to the US too, but people would say the US doesn’t need it. If a Polish tree is ever added, it could go there. It could also, hear me out, go in the Swedish tree, since the Norwegian army considered adopting it. Yeah, that’s quite flimsy, but I’m out of ideas here.
3 Likes
There’s not actual reason to split it up into multiple trees; that makes no sense. Just as well, they have more vehicles on the ground than Israel does, and has their own indigenous aircraft production. I think they are more than qualified to have their own tech tree in the game, if not SK only, united Korea also being an option.
1 Like
Bit of a late addition to this very extensive convo but as the rare and elusive (well maybe not that much in this thread thinking about it) South Korean I think this is a pretty good summary of how i feel on the matter.
While yes, I more than understand that Japan needs some augmentation - I just don’t see why it has to be us and not a third party country that actually has dealings with Japan. My interpretation on the matter is that if Gaijin adds (South) Korea under Japan many people will see it as Korea being ‘under’ Japan in both the figurative and literal sense - something we very much will fight tooth and nail over considering our modern history of colonial rule. While we are allied to Japan through the US it’s as that statement implies - through the US. The US has to basically middleman the alliance because Japan-Korea relations are a very fickle thing and we both stay allied in part due to us both being allied to the US - not exactly the kind of relations you’d expect if we cooperated in military development (which we do not)
On the matter of a full Korean tree I think it could work - I’m fine with splitting up vehicles case by case (early K2s have German made powerpack/transmissions which would make some funny arguments for a German K2 which I don’t know what to feel about) and the K1 being a modded XM-1, but I’m also fairly for our vehicles going to the US because while yes, the US is a major tree, our military development has incredibly close ties with the US and also exists in part because of the US.
The US tree also suffers from a very inconsistent anti-aircraft suite ingame - while air superiority is the main doctrine for the US which really can’t work properly ingame on a consistent manner the actual anti aircraft vehicles are either somewhat gimped (LAV-AD missing its IRST radar from what I’ve heard, although I could be wrong, I.Chaparral for the US not having the top missile for the vehicle because ‘the XM975/LAV exist’ while the former can’t even perform its role ingame currently due to missile nerfs and the second being primarily a MANPADS system on the whims of the automated missile seeker) and our SPAA options would mean that the US could conceivably have a much augmented anti-aircraft vehicle suite compared to how it is now.
Of course a separate tree would just shut most discussions down on what goes where so ultimately Gaijin will have a say on the matter, I guess?
A seperate tree of just “United Korea” would be interesting, though perhaps it’d be better if the DPRK went under China and ROK has its own tree.
Don’t forget to give the ROK the BMP-3 and T-80U!
2 Likes
I think ultimately either a South Korean only tree or a United Korea tree is the only option, since the only other place it goes is the US, and this would just clutter the US tree. The thing about sub trees in other nations is it’s normally a single line on the side going down, however South Korea simply has too many vehicles for this to work. And if you spread it throughout the tree it’s no longer a US tree and is now just a mixed tree.
1 Like
You’d think that the argument for a nation having too many vehicles would be taken seriously, but then again, ZA got made into a sub-tree too :/
1 Like
With Hungary kind of breaking that trend of subtrees only being in one line (mostly, since the ZSU-57-2/23-4 make it two lines) and also with the point that aside from the K1, K2 and our anti-aircraft vehicles/IFVs things like the M48A3/A5s (I’ve also even seen a M48A2C in the War Memorial Museum) could just get foldered which would cut down a lot on the actual vehicle count per line, since you could group say, the XK1 and K1, the two K21s in rank 6 into one, both K21s in rank 7 into 1 etc and I think you could add it into the US tree if need - not saying we should but just that it’s not as outlandish as you’d think at least in my opinion.
As for the DPRK side of things eh just add them to China. CN already sports the Shenyang and while the DPRK isn’t exactly inclined to side towards RU or CN since they like to ride the fine line for support from both sides it can get hard to pick one of the two, but since Chinese MBTs do get a bit linear I think the North Korean stuff wouldn’t be too outlandish there.
If they add a few of the Korean vehicles as event vehicles for the US then it would mean less stuff in the main TT so I think a subtree would work, otherwise both options would in my opinion be fine and the US vehicles would still hold a majority after some redundant foldering (M48A3/A5K foldering etc) as they’re the backbone for most lineups anyways.
Hungary wasn’t the first one to break the one line trend
All South African SPAA are in the SPAA line, same goes for Finland
The only vehicle that broke the trend (aside from SPAA) is the BT-42
3 Likes
I did think of mentioning Finland but aside from (again, the 57-2) the ItO 90M which was around pre-subtree I figured it wasn’t substantial enough to mention it but fair point (same for SA/UK I guess with the ZA-35)
Rest of the things I said I still do stand by though
It’s not just ZA-35 either, there’s the Yster- and Bosvark too as well as, more notably, the ZT-3 in the TD line.
Sub-trees “spilling over” to call it so is something that has happened before, just not to a great extent. It is not a strange occurrence per say.
I guess, does happen and I do agree it shouldn’t really be a major consideration to not add something as a subtree moreso just a minor consideration to not clutter the tree too much
1 Like
That is a very fair concern.
Sub-trees should remain just that, else you get a shared tree of sorts. Sometimes this could he beneficial, but often times very much not so.
1 Like
Honestly for US specifically I think it’d be hard to even crowd out the US vehicles since they spend by far the most money cooking up the wackiest of vehicles in droves so you’d always have a US dominant lineup anyways (think of all the old Merks and AMBT etc not really making people only play those over US in lineups as the US ones are usually the backbones)
1 Like
The US most definitely is a nation that should remain it’s own.
It is arguably the least required to have another nation integrated into it, especially when things such as South Korea are better distributed elsewhere or left independently for the purposes of War Thunder.
The integration of South Korea into the US tree would he detrimental for both nations involved.
6 Likes