|
All the (Soviet, at least) weapons are named after rather interesting people who had a role in preparing (or failing to prepare) Russia for the upcoming war - might be worth expanding upon. Also, the very first screenshot in the LP should link to this.
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2014 10:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 20:42 |
|
|
A video of the intro / outro scenes might be handy. Also, thanks for including the audio link. I think I know what the last song in the LP should be.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 08:25
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
For a moment I thought our literal (long lost?) brother was leading the partisan squad.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
The partisans are the most successful resistance movement in WWII history (with the arguable exception of the Yugoslavian resistance)*. They also had some really good songs. The interesting part about the parties attempts to run the partisan movement is that the very moment the authorities in Moscow managed to establish a secure connection to the major partisan armies and demand that the start following a centralized plan (circa 1944) is the moment the effectiveness of the movement dropped considerably. Obviously enough - even if we assume that the proper authorities received absolutely full and correct information of the local conditions, formulated a brilliant plan and related it back to the locals, by the time the information filtered back and forth the conditions were likely to have utterly changed. That's why the Viet Cong's (coincidentally cooperating with Russian military advisers) military doctrine emphasized the independent initiative of local troops, even while striving for a common strategic goal. * Reading various relevant 1950's American literature is kinda adorable. "What's the a good example of a resistance movement from the last few years? Err... the French and the Italians. Yeah, can't think of anyone that did more than those guys to free their country from the Fascist menace." ... Part of the issue with POW collaborators is that according to Stalin's Command#227, "Not a Step Back", any Soviet soldiers who surrendered to the enemy, regardless of the exact circumstances, were classified as traitors. So someone risking life and limb to escape from a prisoner camp and make it back to the Russian side may well continue that trip all the way to Siberia - possibly accompanied by their entire family. Not the most enticing of prospects. Nevertheless, units recruited from POW's / local population were generally kept behind the front lines. Not only were they much better suited towards policing the local population than fighting on the frontlines, but when posted to the front, the desertion rates would skyrocket (despite everything I said a moment ago). The Idel Ural Legion, a (primarily) Muslim Tatar army composed with the help of the venerable Mufti crossed over to the Russian side almost in its entirety. Even police forces posted behind the front lines, like Gil Rodionov's infamous "Druzhina" could well massacre their German officers and start helping the partisans.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Comrade Premier Stalin, truly a man of The People
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Everyone has incredibly WASPy (WSA?) names. Where are all the Tatars / Ukrainians / Moldovans etc?
Xander77 fucked around with this message at 13:17 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:WSA? White Slavic...what? quote:But since you mention it, I have noticed that Soviet/Russian war movies like to insert token non-slavic folk in groups that seems to consist solely of Slavs otherwise. There was this one movie I can't remember the title of which had a token Kyrgyz, and in Белый Тигр the loader(?) was a mongoloid fellow of unspecified nationality. Then again, how did this work historically? Is it really likely that there would be a noticeable amount of ethnic diversity in the units depicted in the game? ... The answer is no. If anything, relegating said ethnic representatives to the role of token minorities is a misrepresentation of the actual demographics and their contribution to the war effort.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 12:07
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:Atheist? Not a cultural category like "protestant" is. And is it even possible to be considered Slavic and non-White at the same time? quote:I was thinking more along the lines of "units would likely be composed of whichever nationalities were common in the area it was recruited from", i.e. you shouldn't expect to see very many tatars or armenians outside units that were raised in Tatarstan/Armenia respectively. But if they mashed all kinds of nationalitites together haphazardly, then I suppose that fictional depictions should reflect that.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 13:08
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Uhhhhh, why would you NOT want to keep (potential) military members from the same area within the same group? Since the Soviet army (like other armies, but let's not get sidetracked) was also viewed as a venue for political pedagogy, mixing the various populations and making sure every soldier ended far from home and in an odd environment was (unofficial?) policy. Xander77 fucked around with this message at 13:44 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 13:40
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:
Every other "Eastern" legion - Armenian, Gruzian, (It goes without saying that there's a major difference between volunteers and conscripts [much less conscripts from the ranks of war prisoners] - the same shared loyalty can emphasize the united commitment to a shared ideology, or the hardships of being forced to be in an fight you never asked for) For that matter, look at the history of rebellion in 18th and 19th century US forces, which didn't drop the notion of regiments raised in the same locale serving together until after the civil war.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:So we can agree that conscripts, volunteers and traitors don't work, which invalidates your whole point since this essentially started with the concept of recruiting native units within a country's own military forces. Also, you have a very odd idea of "native" units. There was only one class of "natives" within the Soviet Union - ethnic Russians born in Russia.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
So, we're all learning something today.Jobbo_Fett posted:"In the mid-1920s the territorial principle of manning the Red Army was introduced. In each region able-bodied men were called up for a limited period of active duty in territorial units" Now let's go to an actual Russian source: As of 1938, "The territorial system was finally abolished, with all remaining formations converted to the other 'cadre' divisions" (mentioned in the article you've linked, oddly enough). However, the harsh conditions of the war (primarily the huge losses of manpower in the first few months) forced the High Command to ignore the principles of unity that motivated the abolition, and form divisions "on the spot" out of the forces available on location. However, even among these "national" divisions, the numbers of the ethnic majority rarely breached the 70% threshold. The "national" divisions survived until the mid-50's, at which point they were abolished once again. So let's see if I've got this right: 1. During WWII, ethnic minorities fighting side by side with ethnic Russians would have been a common sight. 2. However (despite what I assumed), there were divisions / regiments / other units which would have had a majority component of a single ethnicity.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Aww. I think it would have been more interesting had we taken part in the Yevpatoria Assault. Interesting bit of trivia - at the time, the USSR didn't really believe in "Elite troops", the Red Army being highly egalitarian (the very notion of slightly special privileges for officers being re-introduced shortly before the war). However, the Marines (or even the ordinary sailors) had to go through a more rigorous application / training process, which turned them into de-facto elites in comparison to the everyman soldier. Germans apparently dreaded the notion of encountering the "Black Jackets". Xander77 fucked around with this message at 03:01 on May 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 20:42 |
|
|
The Sandman posted:So, which exciting battles do you think we won't see in the next campaign?
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 19:35
|
|
