are you the gaijin’s employee？
“If the VT4 doesn’t get added, no one is going to buy the Japanese premium to grind the Japanese tech tree.”
??? are you serious?
1 Like
As they should, no point in adding a subtree and then refusing to add one of their main vehicles.
cause this topic is talk about VT4 ant T84. are you really talking the TOPIC?
Yes. If you really need to ask me that, then maybe you should read my comments here.
IM A SIM PLAYER.AND I AM AGAINST MORE STUFFS LIKE NATO T80U.
AND THATS IT
Im so tired of you guys. Good luck, anyway the next version won’t have VT4 in Japan
1 Like
if you guys really play top tier SIM
you will find out how bad the NATO T80U is
Quick reminder that this is still valid.
6 Likes
And I already said it’d have a different camouflage, roundel, might even be too low in BR to face the Chinese VT-4. So, read my previous comments please.
War Thunder is not everything in life doesn’t mean we shouldn’t express our dissatisfaction.
1 Like
Again, I don’t wanna talk about politics, but things in East Asia is not like things in west Europe.
For more reference you can slide the scroll bar and read post No.47 in this thread.
1 Like
Nice point
The rightful addition of VT4 to Thailand is historically accurate. How can you complain as a sim player when you don’t want to simulate the realities of exported vehicles, potentially fighting against their exporter country?
There are several features that are put in place to prevent misidentification. Different camouflage, think about their position, ping them, and it could tell you if friendlies are in that area. Whatever other reasoning you have, honestly… if ID-ing tanks in sim is the issue… that’s a skill issue. Other than that, your ease of gameplay in sim does not concern the reasoning behind the addition of either T 84 Oplot-T and VT4 to Thailand.
Same here. I would be very dissatisfied if the integrity of the Thai sub-tree is compromised due to a problem not caused by the Thais themselves, but by selfish and disrespectful third parties who unfairly think splitting the VT4 off from the sub-tree is a valid solution.
9 Likes
The opinion of chinese players on the matter should be disregarded
1 Like
Yes? Ussr doesnt need a subtree? There is no reason why you would ever add ukraine to ussr.
A united east european tt would be much preferable.
The same thing cant be done eith asian vehiclrs as there are nowhere near enough vehicles to make a proper interesting tt. Malaysia, thailand and vietnam together dont have enough unique or interesting vehicles to make a decent tt. As such thailand went to japan.
If ussr wasnt the largest tt ingame then the discussion would be different.
What about asking Royal Thai Army and NORINCO themselves about this? So we can confirm wether or not we should get it in game right? Because talking to them are the only people that really produce and USE right? ROYAL THAI ARMY VT-4 MAIN BATTLE TANK. “THAILAND” make sense?
“hey thai army, can we have T-84 and VT-4? thanks.”
2 Likes
Right
At the time. “We have no plans or ideas” means that they wouldn’t at the time, and this was over a year ago. Nevermind the fact the Thai VT-4 is rightfully Thailand’s VT-4. In the news, you see people saying “italian F-35s” or “Hungarian Gripens.”
Its inherently disingenuous to say that is was a promise. I don’t see any promise here? I don’t see them claiming that they’ll NEVER do it. So even if the VT-4 qualifies as a Chinese vehicle (despite said version being only used and modified by Thailand), there is no promise, and there never was one.
As is the inclusion of Thailand as a subtree for Japan. Thailand has been a subtree since the start of the year, this is nothing new.
One South African vehicle, iirc added before SA became an official UK subtree. AND its event vehicle, so its practically unobtainable.
Debatable, the ASEAN tree ideas here are quite nice looking, iirc bigger than Israel’s tree.