Pretty much all lowtier fighters and then some of the mid tier is pretty much the same(newer ac would be nice)
Doesn’t matter if ROC is not a sub tree, China is the home for ROC vehicles while Japan is the home for Thai vehicles, it really is that simple. There are 2 arguments being made against the VT-4 to Japan:
- It can’t be added this update because the timing would be insensitive.
- Japan can’t get the VT-4 because it’s a chinese designed vehicle.
I’ll mostly leave argument 1 aside, because fair enough argument and the simple solution is to just wait and release it in a later update.
Now argument 2 is the stupid one, mainly because it shows how hypocritical these people are. So Japan can’t get the Thai VT-4 as it is a Chinese designed/produced vehicle, but they will gladly request the M1A2T which is a fully US designed/produced vehicle.
Subtrees should not be lesser nations. They should be equals, and treated like their own nation. There is nothing that gives US, Chinese or even Japanese players the right to have their vehicles in one place, but not nations like Thailand, Hungary or Finland.
But I do think subtree nations should get their own research tree, under their own national flag and name. This is just one of many things I think need to be improved with subtrees implememtation.
2 Likes
At least, there is no hatred between China and the United States
1 Like
The subtrees for ground are more or less used to give struggeling nations leopards(italy)
VT4 joined Japan in the same way that a Middle Eastern country’s vehicles joined Israel or Ukrainian tanks joined Russia. This is a very sensitive issue.You can’t just ignore these reasons just because you don’t care about the historical legacy of the East.
2 Likes
This is not about “hypocrisy” at all — the real issue is that it hurts the feelings of players.
There is no such deep conflict between the US and China, but there is a serious historical and political conflict between China and Japan.
If American players believe there is an issue between the US and China, they can always raise it in a separate discussion.
But forcing Chinese-designed vehicles into Japan’s tree ignores this reality entirely, and will naturally cause backlash from Chinese players.
2 Likes
Not that simple, for reference:
1 Like
To be honest, when I saw Leopards all over the game, I really felt a little too monotonous.
Yet at the same time China has Vietnamese vehicles even though they have an interesting history and China likes bullying them irl.
So again, every tree has vehicles like that. It’s just that Chinese players really believe in the “rules for thee but not for me” mindset, that they should get special treatment.
1 Like
The only positive for the chinese playerbase is when this will be implemented is that other players will see its shortcomings
1 Like
Koreans are no different (atleast some) when it comes to adding them to japan…
Looks like you really have no understanding of history. Do you actually know how the “Vietnamese” T-34 AA in the game came to be? It is a direct product of Chinese aid — a Soviet chassis fitted with Chinese twin 37 mm guns. Without China’s direct involvement, it simply wouldn’t exist.
4 Likes
Yeah, it’s a shame really. Nations like Hungary for example have much more to them than just a free Leopard, Gaijin just don’t use that potential.
I mean if it were Thai people that were against the Thai sub tree for Japan I would have had a different opionion, but these are people that have nothing to do with it. If they didn’t want Chinese vehicles in other trees maybe they should have pressured their government not to export anything.
It’s time for these people to open their eyes that they have massive double standards instead of participating in the mental gymnastics world cup 2025.
Bully? Until now, there are almost a thousand armored vehicles from China in the Vietnamese army. China has given Vietnam countless help in the past (even during China’s most difficult times), and the Vietnam AA of the Chinese TT also relied on China’s assistance to exist.
1 Like
If the “standard” for Middle Eastern vehicles and Ukrainian vehicles still exists, then the opinion of Chinese players is not a “double standard”.
1 Like
The difference is there is no such standard. Gaijin chooses not to engage with these, but don’t openly refuse it. They avoid the issue altogether in a way that cannot be proven to be a political move, since simply not adding them is not necessarily political. Denying them would be however.
For the Thai VT-4, the equivalent is not to deny the VT-4, but to add another tank in its place without directly denying it. It wouldn’t need to be added, but the denial would make it political and unfair towards Thai players.
2 Likes
This comparison should be China and Japan. Comparing Thailand and Japan together is distorting the question. Do you think the Middle Easterners will agree to the addition of foreign-made Middle Eastern weapons to Israel?
1 Like
Why should it be China and Japan. Your government approved exports of the VT-4 to Thailand. As soon as they got handed over Chinese WT players lost any right to complain over where they get placed.
Same that when as soon as the US handed over the M1A2T to Taiwan, US WT players lost any right to complain where it would be placed.
And again, something something comparing current or recent conflict to something from 80 years ago.