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
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
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.
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)
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.
Because when I talk about this tree to people I know and they seem confused, I specifically built this tree to have around 6 vehicles at every rank, to make the tree easier to grind. This is not the full list of South Korean vehicles that could be added to war thunder, and the tree could just about double in size if we were able to add everything they used, but I felt that lowering the copy paste as much as possible, and having as mostly different and very unique vehicles was far better than just as many as possible, making the grind even worse.
politically speaking south korea would fit better in US but reallistically and by gaijin logics it would end up in japan, tbh i would like to see more the type 10 with aps than a subtree lol
Sorry, but a military exercise (organised by the US in the first place) isn’t a reason to add South Korean vehicles to the Japanese tree when they otherwise have nothing to do with the development or use of these vehicles - if anything, I wish people would talk about that more than the politics, because that’s the most important one imo.
Germany, Italy, Britain and even China (among many others) have taken part in RIMPAC exercises organised by the United States, shall we put all their vehicles in the American tree?
May I weight in my opinion? I would love to see Korean vehicles in War Thunder as well! Ch’ŏnma-ho is one of the memorable ones for me, thanks to War Game Red Dragon.
In my opinion, the best way is the Independent Korean tree, be it from Rank 3/4 or from Rank 1, while the 2nd best one is US-China one; South Korean vehicles to US, and North to China.
Believe it or not, I do believe that Korean tech tree is possible, with its rich history, it can even begin from Rank 1 like many other nations, starting from Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea’s equipment to the modern South Korean’s and North Korean’s ones. While the early/low tier parts of the tech tree might look copy-paste like Chinese, I do believe that, with Crew Voices, Skins, and decors , those vehicles can feel unique and not-so-cheaply implemented.
Example of low tiers/early vehicles for Korean Tech Tree
Can anyone offer me a reason as to why this can’t be a Japanese sub-tree, other than political sensitivities?
It would mean that Japan and Korea would share a much larger tech tree with more options, as opposed to bloating the US tech tree or adding a very slim Korean tech tree (see the Israel problem).
Even if you throw out political issues between the two countries it still wouldn’t make sense because these two countries have no military connections unlike the other subtrees, it’s like asking for China to receive Austrian vehicles. Japan also has other subtree option which would make sense
The US was never an option as it would be unnecessary and an standalone South Korea could be possible but the majority would rather see an United Korean Tree (NK+SK) which would have more ground vehicles then some minor nations.
Because half the vehicles have nothing to do with Japan and shouldn’t be there, especially things like the K1 tanks which were designed with US help, are massively based on the XM-1 and for which the US provides composite armor. Then there’s stuff like the Russian BMP-3, T-80U which shouldn’t be even in the US tree if added.
In addition, most of SK additions would be at 8.0-11.7, where Japan already has a filled out tree with actually good vehicles (8.0-9.7), only lacking in SPAA at 11.0+ (which will be rectified when Type 81 gets the radar missiles), while the SK additions alone wouldn’t make a good lineup at 10.0-11.0 where Japan has nothing, while the US does have something, altough mediocre and which could be filled in with SK (or if they actually ever add non event vehicles there). The US 8.7-10.0 is also pretty atrocious.
Anyways, I just don’t want to see the K1 tanks in the Japanese tree as they logically make sense only in the US tree, the other SK vehicles can go wherever.
US 8.7-10.0 could easily be fixed by adding later M60 variants, wheeled guns like LAV-90/105, and “Century” jets that we skipped over on the way to the F-4C
What kind of balance and research problems would it cause? Maybe in sim some adjustments would have to be made but the United Korean Tree would not be any different from some other nations in-game.
However gaining information might be difficult to find but we have some estimations and information of certain North Korea assets as these have been shipped to foreign countries.
