Same goes for Wikipedia in much of Europe. But the point is that I wasn’t making detailed descriptions for everything, it just needed very brief information that is very difficult to get wrong. I’ll have a look and see if I can replace some of the sources with better ones though :)
Broschure of KAFV
5 Likes
Always +1 to the United Korea tree.
But, SK T-80U shouldn’t be 11.3, since it has no thermal and can’t use 3BM46.
Also SK M36B2 has hull MG so it’s (almost)not identical.
And no K1E1?
8 Likes
+1. North Korea can also add some VTT chassis vehicles, which are an extended version of the Type 63 armored vehicle.
There are already some; the 323 light tank and 323 MLRS are on the 323 APC chassis. The 323 (122mm) and 323 (76mm) would be below BR 3.7-4.0 so I didn’t add them, they would be Rank II.
The 323 (100mm) is basically the same performance-wise as the M1972 Tŏkch’ŏn (100mm), so I didn’t see a need for it.
The 323 ATGM carrier is a possibility but it would be around BR 6.7, and 6.3-6.7 already has quite a few vehicles (9).
1 Like
Tbh the sk t80 will probs end up like the swedish one
I’m really looking forward to it since there are many large caliber guns +1
4 Likes
I voted yes but mainly because I want to see the Koreas get added. I’m not a big fan of a tech tree that doesn’t start at rank 1, the crew grind sucks and you can’t expert your crews for a LONG time.
3 Likes
Add South Korea subtree to Japan to fill poor top tier, scratch the rest.
3 Likes
That’s my main issue with this as well, I voted no as I think they should be added to Japan and China as sub trees. A lot of the North Korean vehicles are based off Soviet/Chinese vehicles anyway
5 Likes
You know… its ironic that thw k2 fills a similar role to the type 10, 4 second autoloader with a high penning round and sadly itnprobs has alot more armour…
1 Like
I believe that K279 and K279 Improved APFSDS are also better than Type 10 APFSDS, so while I put the K2s at 11.7, if the BR ceiling was increased, they should definitely be higher. They’re definitely some of the best MBTs currently, they should rival the later Leopard 2s with DM73.
1 Like
North Korea to China yes. South Korea to Japan no. In the context of a game that is largely WW2 themed, you shouldn’t do it.
7 Likes
-1
On which team would it be in SIM? SIM is still a gamemode. It would just make it even more unfun, with all the nato/soviet type tanks being on the enemy team when you play the respective desing.
2 Likes
Worst case, Japan can get Thailand and like you said North Korea can go to China. China, Taiwan, and a little bit of Pakistan are already in tree (even if there’s one NK vehicle in the tree). I feel like one more might be a bit overwhelming. If that’s the case, also worst case I feel like South Korea can get tucked in to USA since it wouldn’t have anywhere left since there’s a lot of connection within the vehicles. Doesn’t have to be its own specific line but could just be flowed into the tree. Idk, we’ll see what happens.
Hopefully United Korea tree 🤙
7 Likes
Rejecting a overall not bad tree solely because of the Sim battle? Interesting…
We already have a T-55A fighting a Finnish T-55M or Tiran-4, and it’s not even unrealistic.
5 Likes
really good work but I think both would be better as subtree.
North corea would be perfect for a china sub tree
3 Likes
-1 because even with a combination of east and west it still can’t even fill out a full TT. The low tier just also doesn’t look fun, a bunch of NK artillery systems with -1 or -2 deg of gun depression.
I don’t even think something like the M1975 Tokchon could achieve negative gun depression from the front with the 2 crates sitting in front of the turret.
This is also leaving out what the accompanying air TT would look like. 0 clean sheet NK designs with at best Soviet designs with a single domestic bomb. 4 maybe 5 clean sheet SK designs. Even stuff like the F-15K and KF-5E which are somewhat changed from something like a US F-15E are actually upgraded by US firms using US parts. At the very least Israel gets unique missiles for their fighters.
That’s because this Suggestion is incomplete. Too many vehicles were excluded.
5 Likes