South Korean Ground Forces Tech Tree

Suggestions Ground
167

Won’t Japan still have Thailand as an option, being allied in WWII?

And even beyond that there are nations with better modern relations in the SEA region. The point isn’t just about what happened in WWII, but also how Koreans to this day perceive it.

The Philippines for example are right now considering to buy the Type 10 MBT and Indonesia is buying ships (I think). All three (Thailand/Philippines/Indonesia) would make more sense as subtree, and two out of these three (Thailand/Indonesia) would be fit for what Japan needs in a subtree.

1 Like
168

I was expecting you to say “Lebanese Christian Militias, Guatemala, El Salvador, Colombia and/or even Ecuador” but nope you decided to go full retard and suggest countries that either can be full TT’s within their own right or subtrees of current TT’s

Czechia, Slovakia

They can be a full TT within their own right due to having a lot of vehicles, both in terms of domestically built and domestic variants of existing vehicles

Spain, Portugal

Again they can have a full TT within their own right for a lot of the same reasons

Austria

They can be paired with Switzerland to be their own TT or the very least paired with another European Nation (most likely Sweden or Germany)

Thailand

They can be a Subtree of Japan due to their ties during the Second World War and a few shared common geopolitical interest today and before anybody go WhAt AbOuT tHe VT-4 AnD VN-1 they are not needed since Thailand have alternatives in the form of the Opolot and domestically built wheeled IFV’s

Vietnam

Gaijin will most likely make Vietnam a subtree of China inspite the fact that they have a very poor relationship and in the current day ironically have better relationship with Japan than with the PRC

Myanmar

This is the only one which i am not sure of but if i am going to make a guess it would either be added as part of the Chinese TT or be part of a future Indian TT

This leads me to the next point

The tenets of your logic here are as follows:

  1. Country B used country A’s technology
  2. Country A and Country B share similar stances on certain issues.

Nope, i take a lot of factors into consideration infact i mentioned some of them in this and the previous replied but you decided to intentionally ignore them in favour of hyperfixating on one aspect and one aspect only. Yes using that logic can be a major issue and i agree with you but it is disingenuous to assume i exclusively use that logic. Which leads to my final point. Ideally South Korea should be a Independent TT of their own with the possibility of having an Singaporean Subtree, I just suggested that as a possible alternative even if it is admittedly “out there” if a Independent South Korean/United Korean TT is an impossibility in the eyes of Gaijin. A South Korean Sub Tree in the US TT makes the most sense but the US isn’t really struggling with vehicles even in the later tiers and i cannot suggest pairing South Korea with Taiwan because Taiwan is in the Chinese TT because reasons

1 Like
171

Fully support this tech tree being independent since it was made, and hope it will be independent as it should be!
A giant +1 from me as always!

7 Likes
172

North Korean equipment based WOW

1 Like
173

Jesus some people in this thred are going full on crazy about politics and “connections” but that’s beside the point. I personelly think South Korea sub tree will work with the Japanese tech tree in a good way, in the end of the day we play this game to have fun with vehicles we like.

But here is an alternativ idea, why not combine the South Koreaan tech tree witch a Turkish tech tree? As all u may know or not! That Turky did come and fight with South Korea against the Chinese/North Korea, both countrys love and respect each other and have shared many of there tech and vehicle between each other. It will make sense to combine both as one tech tree and add it to the game, but again this is just an alternative idea i have.

8 Likes
186

Due to historical and political considerations, it is unacceptable for South Korea to join Japan’s technology tree, but South Korea is too thin as a single technology tree, so I propose to combine Israel and South Korea, both of which are Allies of the United States, and South Korea is Israel’s first free trade partner in East Asia, which shows the close relationship between the two countries. Based on realpolitik ties and the balance of the game, an Israel-Korea alliance is desirable.

187

Don’t Say that You are gonna jynx it, anyways gaijin would prob still leave it i’m the japanese tech tree cuz it’s lacking content like what they did with china and now italy

188

Thankfully, War Thunder is not a fully historical or political game.

3 Likes
189

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’

191

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
193

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
195

+1 but add them to Japan so japan doesnt suck

1 Like
196

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
199

Valid points. I should of dug more info on the whole allies thing.

201

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
202

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
203

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?

211

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
212

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
213

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