Thank you :)
The only BR gap I’m not really happy with is the one from 9.7 to 11.3 in the DPRK tank destroyer line, but there literally aren’t any options unfortunately. I might try and fill out rank 3, especially for south korea, a bit more with some copy-paste if I can find any. I do think there might also be too many SPGs around Rank IV, but unsure of other options tbh.
You have some foldering play room considering how Gaijin has done it after its backlash. You can folder semi-related vehicles. If you can keep it condensed down to 2-3 vehicles per Rank, it really isn’t that bad. Also don’t feel bad if there’s nothing you can put there. If you can’t use anything, it is what it is. There are worse trees already in game in that regard.
If you’re good with it, I’ll take a look at the BR’s and see if there’s anything that can be shuffled around.
Of course, please do! I tried to folder what I could but I prefer foldering based on vehicle type rather than BR like Gaijin does, so I’ll folder stuff that’s 0.3 BR away but are related (e.g. K55 and K55A1) rather than two completely different vehicles that just happen to have the same BR, lol.
edit: It also does make me wonder whether organising it by vehicle class rather than nation might be better. My gut reaction is no, but it could be interesting. Might balance some of the branches out in terms of vehicle number.
I think the split by nation is a good idea, but if you did mix it, keep it majority split as much as possible.
Nearly all of the maps are still WW2 based, and I often wonder how many players quit the grind before ever reaching past WW2. Personally I researched the WW2 tiers of every nation in air, ground and a tiny bit of naval before starting to play higher tiers of ground.
KW2 SPAA->K-30W Cheonho
I recommend to folder the K-30W and K-30. The two have very similar weapon systems.
And why no Chaffee?
BR of Type 82 (2015) is too low. It must be at least 8.0 BR since it has MANPADS. And after moving Type 82 (2015), you can add Type 82 (1992) to the remaining space.
There was an error in what I wrote. KM423 is the ammunition carrier, and KM422 is the launch vehicle. However, since the KM422 only has two spare rounds, it seems better to replace it with the K200 TOW.
K-153C is not an official name, but a name given by Armored Warfare. I recommend using K-151 (AT-1K).
M48A1 for V Rank Premium
This article from 2018, 2 years before AW added it, calls it the K-153C. Do you know if there’s a different name for it that the South Korean military use?
I had them not foldered because the M1989 and K-30W are at the same BR, and otherwise you’re forced to research 2 8.3s in a row, instead of 8.3 → (optional 8.3) → 8.7
Might add as a reserve vehicle.
A) It’s unlikely to be that effective; the gun only fires APHE and HEAT-FS rounds so 8.0 would be awful for it. And is it worth bringing it up so high so that it can very rarely get 1 plane kill? I haven’t seen any photos that suggest it has storage for more MANPADs, so it very likely could just be 1. and b) it’s removeable and could just not be added. I don’t see the need for it, and if it will increase it’s BR too much, then it’s not worth it.
Looking up the information, I found that it is using the name K-153C1.
The Type 82’s main gun is the same as that of the Type 62 light tank, so it can use HEAT-FS
Meant to say HEAT-FS as well. It still wouldn’t do well at a high BR – the ZTS63 with the same gun is at 7.7 with a LRF and APFSDS, and at that BR it’s still not very good. Having a tank without a LRF or APFSDS, just average pen 85mm HEAT-FS at 8.0 is a recipe for disaster, lol. Bearing in mind you’ve also got stuff like the Object 906 at 8.0 with similar ammunition (same 300mm HEAT pen, much better APCBC pen), a stabiliser and an autoloader.
K9 doesnt have laser rangefinder and TVD. 8.0 is too high and 7.3 will be better.
What needs to be added
You can add the little-known K1E1. This is different from the commonly known K1E1 of the 21st century, which was the name of the prototype stage of the K1A1. (Similar to American naming convention.) In-game, this can be differentiated from the K1A1 by using a lower level of ammo than the K1A1. In this case, the K1E1 (120mm) and K1E1 (105mm) will be equivalent to the M1A1 and IPM1 of the current American TT.
KAFV 30A: Unlike the KAFV 30M, it is a manned turret and has different armament. Since there were two variations using 30mm, “30” was followed by “A” and “M” to differentiate them.
Tarantula: Developed by Doosan DST and exported to Indonesia in 22 units, it is the first generation wheeled armored vehicle of the Doosan-Hanwha lineage. (Tarantula - Black Fox - Tigon)
M1992 (AK-230)
What needs to be removed
M26 is only mentioned in Baek Seon-yeop’s autobiography without any sources, and there are no sources to cross-verify it. There is no testimony that a member of the M26 crew or saw the M26 in ROKA. On the other hand, official media of the ROK Ministry of National Defense and the ROK Army do not mention the M26 among the tanks operated by the ROK Army. Link
PV-1 and PV-2 have no reason to be in the tree. Like the S1 and S2 of the Strv 103, the PV-1 was used for road tests and the PV-2 for fire tests, and the both are not complete systems. The XK-1 on display at the War Memorial of Korea is more appropriate.
KM423 and KM424 are not required. While the game is celebrating its 10th anniversary, the only ‘Jeep-like’ vehicle implemented is the Japanese Type 93, and even this cannot ignore the problem that Japan did not have the option. Improvising a vehicle simply by fixing weapons on top of a jeep is not technically interesting, nor need it for form-up a lineup. There’s also no shortage of Korean vehicles in that BR range, so it would be more clean to get rid of them drastically. I want to see Korean TT in War Thunder, not Technical Thunder.
What needs to be changed
K9’s BR should be reduced. K9 VIDAR (Versatile InDirect ARtillery system), as its name suggests, has been ordered by the Norwegian military with several additional options for multi-purpose use, including coastal artillery missions, as well as LRF and thermal imaging equipment. It has different specifications from the K9 for the Korean military.
Remove “Rotem” from vehicle names. Like just as it is called “K2”, not “Hyundai Rotem K2”.
The official name of the wheeled SPAAG adopted by the Korean military is K-30W, and nickname is Cheonho. So their names are should be matching to K30 - K30W - K31 or K30 Biho - K30W Cheonho - K31 Cheonma.
Etc
I really like North Korea’s local classifications and notations instead of the inaccurate classifications of the SK-US intelligence agencies (like Chonma-I/II/III/IV/V) and inaccurate notations (like “Chonma”) that are widespread on the Internet.
Have you considered organizing the lines of the tree into light tanks / South Korean MBT / North Korean MBT / TD / AA?
The M48 and later South Korean tanks have different BR ranges depending on their ammunition. For 105mm APFSDS, there is a wide variety: M735, K270, K274, K274N, 105mm NG.
The “Jahaenghwasŭngchong 10hyŏng(Strela-10)” exists in models with 4 launch tubes and models with 8 launch tubes. It could be implemented like the BMP-1P upgrade of the BMP-1.
So newest updates, i think we can trust david on that one and seems like gajin is already doing quite a bit of research for K2
KAPS does not exist it was cancelled a while ago
The K2NO was only a mock up as well and does not exist
I’ve written a suggestion for this before, that’s all.
i am partialy confuses why we got K2 black panther suggestions then … but oh well
Do you happen to have any sources for this? Sounds interesting!
I’ve suggested it separately but I was unsure where it should go in the tree, considering the maximum pen I could find for it is ~51mm, and yet it’s fast and has a full stabiliser.
This is already in the tree as the Ch’ŏnma (1986), premium, BR 8.7.
Unless I’m missing something, this would be virtually identical to the KW1 FSV.
edit: nvm, seems to have APFSDS and be stabilised.
Already in the tree, under the name M1989, BR 8.3. M1992 is an alternate name, but M1989 is more accurate.
Will probably remove these next time I update it, sure. I misread the page for the KM423 and found that it specifically is just the ammunition carrier vehicle, and the launcher vehicle only has 2 rounds. I see your point about them just being technicals.
Will do all this in the next update.
Thank you! I took care to use them when I made all my North Korean vehicle suggestions; it’s incredibly frustrating to see all the inaccurate names out there.
Briefly. I might experiment and post it here if it looks okay; I’ll probably keep the current layout however, unless the alternative is clearly better and more appealing.
I will look into this, but my issue is that they’re unstabilised, and so sort of have a soft limit as to what BR they can go up to (before they just become frustrating to play). Currently I have them as being similar to the M48A2GA2, which I think works, but I could move one of them up/play around with their ammo choices a bit.
I assume you’re referring to the Pŏn’gae-3? (where’d you get that name?) In which case, I don’t believe the model with 4 launch tubes fires the modified Igla’s. North Korea operate the standard Strela-10, identical to the in-game version, with 4 launch tubes, and their modified version with different missiles as the 8 launch tubes version. I don’t know if that would work as a modification, as it’s a different model and missiles, and the two aren’t interchangeable.
Thanks for the detailed suggestions though! :)
