|
YF-23 posted:It is a staple character arc LoGH employs, and does it often enough that I have to consider it a fault: to introduce a major character, and show you how good they are, they are shown either fighting alongside or against complete idiots in order to look good by comparison. It breaks immersion (you'd expect two powers who have been at war for over a century to have at least figured the basics of warfare out) and it makes the geniuses of the series feel less than they are supposed to be (Reinhard's a genius... but only because the entire rest nobility class is borderline worthless, really, and it doesn't really take a genius to surpass them). how does the most relatable and factual thing in the series break your immersion
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
Eh it's not that accurate. There are a lot of fuckups but we only really hear about them, not the ones who are functionally competent if unimpressive which probably makes up the majority.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Eh it's not that accurate. I know it's not a 1:1 comparison, but read up on World War I and its commanders. The lengths some of those commanders went to kill their own troops with time-honored tactics that no longer worked was impressive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
StrixNebulosa posted:I know it's not a 1:1 comparison, but read up on World War I and its commanders. The lengths some of those commanders went to kill their own troops with time-honored tactics that no longer worked was impressive. That's a special case and as far as I'm aware doesn't apply to LOGH. The second Punic War is probably more comparable but even then the commanders weren't universally incompetent but obviously outclassed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Eh it's not that accurate. half of american politicians are openly trying to make themselves richer, and the only opposition party is in the process of destroying itself by trying to purge anyone who's even remotely popular outside of their own centrist circle jerk that keeps losing elections
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
the american military lost a war to a bunch of third world farmers
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Insurgencies are hard as gently caress to win especially when your home turf doesn't give a gently caress about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
coconono posted:watched the first 2 episodes and I guess I need to watch the movies first for real because there's no loving way the FPA forces could gently caress up a 3 sided flanking move like that. I need a better explanation than "lol we didn't listen to the only competent guy in the room" There's a good chance this scene was ripped straight from a history textbook.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
Pomp posted:how does the most relatable and factual thing in the series break your immersion What bothers me is not the degree to which it is there, as much as how often the series uses it as a narrative device. It ends up feeling cheap, caricaturish.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Insurgencies are hard as gently caress to win especially when your home turf doesn't give a gently caress about it. they're especially hard to win when you're winning hearts and minds by torching villages and their residents
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Pomp posted:they're especially hard to win when you're winning hearts and minds by torching villages and their residents Lol if you think they gave a gently caress about winning hearts and minds. That is just how you sold it to the commoners.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Looking back at the last decade, nevermind the last century, incompetent people having too much power and authority is incredibly realistic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
The bastard child of Truniht and Otto Von Braunschweig got elected president ffs,
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
I suppose the lack of communication dates back to when you needed runners and horseriders to send messages between armies. And whoops, technology got better but communication stayed bad, who would've guessed?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:The bastard child of Truniht and Otto Von Braunschweig got elected president ffs, We really got the worst of both worlds 
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Billzasilver posted:I suppose the lack of communication dates back to when you needed runners and horseriders to send messages between armies. tbf even light speed communications don't mean poo poo if you disperse your maneuver elements too far from each other to be mutually supporting
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
Billzasilver posted:And whoops, technology got better but communication stayed bad, who would've guessed? The author, because he chose that condition in order to constrain and support the story, themes, and mood he wanted to convey?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Billzasilver posted:I suppose the lack of communication dates back to when you needed runners and horseriders to send messages between armies. Also ECM and communication interception makes it difficult
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
I want to say that the whole 'split your massive army into three smaller armies and get owned' was something straight out of history but I can't remember which historical conqueror happened with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
Superstring posted:I want to say that the whole 'split your massive army into three smaller armies and get owned' was something straight out of history but I can't remember which historical conqueror happened with. I don't know if that battle is meant to represent any particular battle, but it's an example of a fairly basic military concept known as defeat in detail. Napoleon in particular was really good at this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
Superstring posted:I want to say that the whole 'split your massive army into three smaller armies and get owned' was something straight out of history but I can't remember which historical conqueror happened with. Wikipedia posted:1862: Stonewall Jackson's Shenandoah Valley campaign, in which Jackson defeated three Union commands (a total of 60,000 men) with his own command (of 17,000 men), by fighting each of the enemy columns in turn while the Union commands were separated from each other by impassable terrain or a significant distance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
There it is. I thought maybe it was one of Hannibal's or Alexander's. History is cool y'all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
this show is so good
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
Attacking numerically superior opponents by attacking them individually is an old tactic. Everyone who fights an opponent like that does that. It doesn't always work tho. Plus it's rarely effective against single opponents, more useful against coalitions, as separating your army is generally a bad idea. CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Dec 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
Stonewall Jackson! Yeah I totally remember learning that in 8th grade, that’s probably why I liked those episodes so much!
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Attacking numerically superior opponents by attacking them individually is an old tactic. One of Napoleon's great innovations was organizing his army into self-sufficient combined arms divisions called Corps de Armee and skillfully maneuvering them along multiple parallel routes while remaining mutually supporting. This allowed him to divide his forces for strategic mobility and rapidly re-combine them when he wanted to offer battle. Because he was usually on the offensive this meant that he maintained a great amount of surprise and initiative. The Corps de Armee was structured so as to be able to resist an enemy army for at least 24 hours, and no Corps ever marched more than a day's march seperately from another one. Napoleon's commanders were give what are now called "mission-type" orders - broad instructions on what they were to accomplish but not how to accomplish them. They were expected to use initiative to make what decisions they needed too. Napoleon's Marshals were all a bunch of characters too, pretty similar to Reinhard's posse of Imperial Admirals. Berthier is literally Kercheis, down to the quote. quote:Marshal Berthier was Napoleon's Chief of Staff from the start of his first Italian campaign in 1796 until his first abdication in 1814. The operational efficiency of the Grande Armée owed much to his considerable administrative and organizational skills. edit: Marshal Murat was known as the "Dandy King", was briefly the King of Naples and was a dashing cavalryman and flamboyant dresser. When he was executed by firing squad in Naples his last words were "Soldiers! Do your duty! Straight to the heart but spare the face. Fire!" Polikarpov fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Dec 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
Napoleon's Marshals even had a bunch of dumb petty rivalries that made them basically incapable of working with each other in Napoleon's absence just like Reinhardt's crew. I think Bernadotte might have been the funniest marshal because he basically dragged his feet every time his corps was needed in battle until Sweden randomly made him their king under the impression that he'd improve their relations with the French, even though Napoleon hated his slothful incompetent rear end. Eventually he led Sweden to join the coalition that finally deposed Napoleon. Somebody needs to make a show about the Napoleonic Wars because they're wild as hell and have all kinds of crazy personalities rising to prominence left and right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
I think most people who like LoGH would appreciate the movie Waterloo, for the same reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
I only recently discovered the glory of Waterloo and it's quickly become one of my favorite movies. It's kind of incredible both the scope of the resources needed to complete the film and the degree to which it all basically worked, down to having some of the best dramatic editing I've ever seen. We need the soviet union back if only for their contributions to film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 07:48
|
|
|
This Waterloo?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 07:56
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:This Waterloo? That's the one, yeah. Sergei Bondarchuk 1970.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2017 10:09
|
|
|
So how do I watch this show outside of  ? Streaming somewhere? Also what historical documentaries do I need to watch first to understand the references in this show?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 04:37
|
|
|
Pyrocat posted:So how do I watch this show outside of The legal streaming option is HIDIVE. They have 95 episodes released and will have all the episodes released by February 15th. However, it does not include the 2 movies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 04:47
|
|
|
Pyrocat posted:So how do I watch this show outside of I don't think you really need to watch any particular historical documentaries, just have a real broad strokes understanding of dudes like Napoleon, Caesar, Alexander the Great, Adolf Hitler, the American Founding Fathers, and events like the French Revolution, WW2, the Roman Republic turning to the Empire...the more random European and US history you know the more you'll get out of LoGH, but usually the show doesn't make overly specific references, instead preferring to draw on history to construct a narrative that "makes sense" because of its resemblance to things that have actually happened. Like Rudolf the Great is pretty much explicitly Space Hitler but his rise to power could easily be said to resemble any of Hitler, Julius or Augustus Caesar, or Napoleon, without being a wholesale rip off of the events that brought any of them in particular to power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 05:05
|
|
|
Actually, LoGH entirely references future geopolitical events, so you'll get all the references as long as you'll live to experience the next ~40 years
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 05:11
|
|
|
HenryEx posted:Actually, LoGH entirely references future geopolitical events, so you'll get all the references as long as you'll live to experience the next ~40 years it did reference the bush administration claiming the iraqis would greet the americans as liberators about a decade before it actually happened 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 05:15
|
|
|
The Novels/show also take an absolute ton from the romance of the three kingdoms, and other classics of chinese history. I believe that the author is a specialist in Classical chinese history so it makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 05:18
|
|
|
It's almost like the deeds of men remain the same, no matter what age it is...
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 05:24
|
|
|
logh is a documentary
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
Logicblade posted:It's almost like the deeds of men remain the same, no matter what age it is... I haven't watched this in probably 10 years, but I cannot describe the chill this one line still sends through my spine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 06:24
|
|
