well they rarely name there stuff to the public good chunk are N.A.T.O. names or names given by south korea.
To me their vehicles are unique enough. It won’t be as weird as seeing an Abrams along side a ZTZ99A for me… We already crossed that line so a one Korea tech tree is not as jarring imo.
3 Likes
What? You think this TT you just said aren’t full of C&P ?
3 Likes
Poland and Czechoslovakia under Yugoslavia?
4 Likes
Lol
3 Likes
Also did you missed this part?
4 Likes
Why are y’all still expecting Korea to be in Japan when it has been mentioned hundreds of times why it wont be there because militarily wise it dont make sense. Aside from that Japan already received many subtrees.
Also elaborate how this would literally be Israel, just because its starts at Rank III (when it can easily start at I or II)? It offers far more unique (modified) diverse vehicles than the current Israeli TT and would be on par (if not better then) with Yugoslavia in the Ground wise.
Poland can be its own thing and Hungary is already a sub of Italy.
13 Likes
Form what I’m aware, barring a meager amount of logistic vehicles, Ki-9s and Ki-54s as well as other left over scraps from Japanese occupation, both countries don’t really have much Japanese involvement in their respective defense forces or industry.
Also Japan already has Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, it should be fine with those 3 and thus won’t need South Korea, let alone both.
Hungary is an Italian subtree and Yugoslavia wouldn’t need Polish and Czechoslovakian vehicles.
(Barring both being allies in exile for most of ww2 and several former Yugoslavia nations joining NATO, I can’t really think of a link for Yugoslavia and Poland).
9 Likes
But still😭
1 Like
Who is “we”? Are you french?!
2 Likes
You what? Putting Korea and Japan together? They barely begrudgingly tolerate each other at the best of times!
9 Likes
Still same argument, even after the official confirmation…I would say, get real.
5 Likes
Mate, with all due respect.
They will not get real about this argument.
And you will face tons of rationalisation, such as…
“Magazine02 said it with disclaimers! Those are also subject to change, be delayed, or EVEN CANCELLED!”
Then they would want it to be cancelled.
And still would be complaining like… ‘South Korean subtree to Japan, and North Korean subtree to China’ because ‘Copy-paste is bad, and it will be another israel tech tree which could be boring…’"
Then, I am wondering if ‘a unified Korea tech tree is bad, because of the copy-paste problem’…
Then… ‘aren’t adding separate Korean sub-trees in two nations bad? because those are also copy-paste…’
I love this forum, and I love players who push the most controversial option with ill-constructed rationalisation…
And ‘that’ is one of the reasons why I am supporting this idea.
Imagine it… how awful their logic would be after official implementation of the Korean tech tree…
We even have precedents of some radical US main who wants Israel as a subtree of US TT, IIRC.
Of course, unique modifications from Korea look sick, too. ;)
Soviet tanks on steroid and such.
8 Likes
I think people keep forgetting that Gaijin uses Nations, not States to determine tech trees
1 Like
Heu…
The main issue is does Japan really need a 4th subtree when there’s still plenty of Thai, Malay, Indonesian and Japanese additions left?
7 Likes
Honestly, i’ve seen a bunch of suggestions for “new tech trees” recently, and this might be a bit of a stretch too forward, it’s very unlikely we get any of those nations as a standalone tree, same for Greece, Yugoslavia and others.
1 Like
Already confirmed to be an Israeli subtree.
5 Likes
oh ok that’s great
I really do find funny how the same guy keeps coming here to say “no mom I don’t want it” then gets trashed, disappears for some time, then comes back and the cycle repeats itself
I just want to play the NK Su-25 mate
5 Likes