3 Likes
To be frank, to all parties involved, it is like playing an act such that they will not be treated as “weak” and no one want to escalate the level of conflicts to affect other cooperations and business.
Perhaps, but I do think there is a reasonable argument for why some nations in that area perhaps shouldnt be paired with China in much the same way that Ukraine shouldnt be a sub-TT of Russia.
Though, we do also have Taiwan in the same tree as China… so…
3 Likes
I agree, my argument was not an intent to say some ASEAN countries should be in China TT or not, just feel that some people may not realize the different aspects of China-ASEAN relationship.
2 Likes
Yup, thats fair.
I dont think anyone would be happy with the placement in either place on “political grounds”
But as for need, then Japan is likely more in need that China is, especially as China can always just get US tech via Taiwan and there are likely more appropriate sub-TTs for china like Pakistan
2 Likes
Not to even mention that China still has an absolute boatload of domestic stuff still yet to come before it ever needs a sub.
Whereas Japan, in certain areas, is already scraping the barrel a bit.
2 Likes
Yep, that should be the more important reason to add a Sub-TT and why I think South africa was stupid let alone India for Britain. We have loads left to be added
1 Like
Not anymore. After Japan acquires the Thai sub-tree, the CAS is already strong enough, and the ground vehicles will be supplemented by the T-84 and VT-4 in the future, well, at least the T-84 will definitely appear. So, most of Japan’s problems have already been solved by Thailand :)
What
I can still see additions like the Malaysian f18 or South Korean K2 being of notable benefit to Japan in the future. Also does Thailand aid Japan in terms of top tier spaa?
No, only the Chinese FK-3 air defense system and the American M163. So I said “most of the problem solved”. However, there are also many countries that suffer from spas, so this is not a big problem. Didn’t Gaijin say they would fix this?
If Malaysia and South Korea also go to Japan, it will be stronger than the United States/Germany/Sweden, and I don’t think that will happen. Also, South Koreans probably don’t want to see that.
I’m happy that it’s a premium because otherwise I would have to waste my time grinding 400k for another top tier ground vehicle that the US doesn’t need while the abysmal winrates would remain.
The only way to fix it is through Singapore as they are the only ones with a good SACLOS missile system in the form of the V-200 RBS-70 and a top tier system in the form of the Spyder SR. The only other option would be Myanmar which would have the 2S6 with no M1 upgrade and maybe a purchased but not delivered Pantsir since both were essentially bought with Japanese security grants.
1 Like
Ok, I got fair to heated and have claim down some.
But my point still stands.
Any possibility of mix nation line-ups, should be based on RL groups(and when the nation was in it). As not only dose it limit the max claim of nations, because if the two Nations aren’t in an alliance(or other reasonable group to use for a military game) you shouldn’t be able to use it together
Over I said so/feel like “valid claim” which has neither reason or stoping point. As that can easily escalate to the world for most if not all nations.
there is a clip of a pantsir not being able to lock onto it and needing to try and hit it with guns with out any kind of guidance
1 Like
Eh, we’re just being caught up but with more and more moderns additions being added we’re going to once again be left behind so while this helps for now we arent future proofed like every other country CAS and SPAA wise (we do have the Tan SAM Kai II however its afaik only 14km so still sub optimal)
2 Likes
I dont think they want to go to china either.
Better propellent and efficient nozzle design can drastically improve a missiles performance.
I never said Korea should go to China. Where did you get that from?