While I get the PRC+DPRK and ROC+ROK subtree idea, there is one glaring issue. Gaijin can’t officially make an ROC subtree, as for that they would need to state PRC and ROC as separate countries, which they sadly won’t do due to the controversy that would bring from the PRC side.
So if they add it it will most likely be a simple “Korea to China” explanation that will assume ROK as a collateral for the DPRK joining PRC rather than a subtree for ROC. Sure, they could add it to a more separate ROC/ROK line, but then there is no more space for a DPRK line.
So in my opinion it’s best to avoid this issue and add a Korean tree, and different subtrees for China.
Korea is one of those countries that if you put either or into another nation you are just wanting a lot of bad press and a considerable amount of controversy. It isn’t one of those countries the populace will shrug off. Since they won’t.
DPRK as a subtree for China would be a workable concept, but ROK in the China tree wouldn’t really make much sense. It’d be almost as problematic as making them a subtree for Japan.
IMO there are only 2 ways get ROK into War Thunder that wouldn’t cause problems. Either the united Korea tree or as a subtree for USA. And USA doesn’t really need a subtree.
The only thing I have an issue with is that the Ground Forces would have to start at Rank IV to match the Air Tree because I highly doubt we would see Rank III without any CAS support. It’s possible since it’s only one rank difference but I don’t think it’s likely. Other than that looks good to me. Sure there’s Copy and Paste but if anyone wants any new nations, then we’re going to have to have C&P. +1
Frustratingly nothing that would fit at Rank III. The US did claim a few air kill as La-7s, but these are most likely misidentifications of La-9s and La-11s. North Korea also restored an abandoned Ki-43-II (Rank I, 2.7) but it was never airworthy.
Shortly after the J10A update, Mr. Baranikov, the chief game planner of War Thunder, said in a special live broadcast to China that China has other sub-trees in preparation besides Pakistan
i dont know why people always talking about historical issue or sth… but now Korea and Japan are very close aliies against threats from china and russia. And if u add Korea vehicles in WWII then theres many Copies. Id like to see K2 or some unique vehicles produced by South Korea appear in our game. but not with a long tech tree full of american and soviet copies :)
Check out the suggestions because there are more domestic unique vehicles in Rank III/IV, yes there will be CnP but like mentioned from Rank III/IV there is like 33% CnP. If we talk about the whole tree it’s 20-30% CnP.
So yes, you will face American and russian full CnP (extensive modified foreign vehicle still unique) but no this will not be lines of CnP as you claimed.
This also doesn’t mean much as neither are actual allies, they only work together as partners (security cooperation) just like how Japan works with Indian, Australia and etc on security.
I got some nice news in regard to North Korea’s aviation. Some years ago North Korea displayed (mock-up) some new aerial weapons they working on like the AGP-250 as shown in my previous comment but also a new what seem to be Beyond Visual Range AAM.
Now i am happy to say that this particular BVR missile has undergone testing on the MiG-29 platform. The AGP-250 (rocket boosted assume) and the electro optic glide bomb next to it have also been displayed in front of the MiG-29 and and next to SU-25 platform and have been carried on the North Korea’s new MQ-1 clone.
It has just passed the development proposal stage, and development has been approved. Therefore, a physical prototype does not yet exist. As it is a conservative derivative, it is not expected to be technically difficult or take a long time. However, it is my policy not to include ‘what-ifs’ or arbitrary combinations (e.g., someone thinking, ‘The F-5C is a derivative of the F-5A. The F-5A had some units with countermeasures and others, separately, with an RWR, so why not just combine those features!’) in the tree.
The LAU-88 has a technical issue that, while not critical, can be somewhat bothersome. When an LAU-88 is mounted on an inboard pylon and equipped with three AGM-65D missiles, the aircraft’s tail fin is exposed to the motor exhaust of an AGM-65D in a specific position. During the A-50 program, an expert inquired with KAI about this, and KAI responded as follows:
“According to various test results, this issue involves exposure for only about 2-3 seconds from rocket motor ignition until the missile departs from the aircraft. The accumulated thermal fatigue over the aircraft’s total operational lifespan has been determined to be at a level that does not compromise aircraft safety, thus it is not considered a critical problem.
(The horizontal tail surface temperature changes were also measured during T-50 flight tests.)
As a corrective measure, the standard operating procedure is to carry two missiles during normal operations, with the three-missile configuration restricted to wartime or urgent and unavoidable operational scenarios. For reference, we understand that the current F-16 also experiences the same issue you mentioned.”
