|
Mortabis posted:Even when I lived in Nashville I never heard it called that. I've never heard it called that in Richmond for christ's sake. My parents never heard it called that when they lived in Birmingham, Alabama in the '80s. Who actually calls it that? Other than cranks on the internet. My US History teacher in 11th grade, in 1998, in Danville, VA. Also the textbook we used which was published when Nixon had just won the presidency. The "irony" is the school was over 50% black.
|
#
¿
May 21, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 08:33 |
|
|
Drone posted:So I found this fantastic radio site that lets you pick a country and a decade and it'll take you through a playlist of popular music from the era. No idea how completely accurate it is, but it's going to be pretty great for HOI4 background music: http://radiooooo.com/ This is really cool thanks. Great for my silent hunter games as well.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
ExtraNoise posted:The modding stream was pretty helpful. 90s kids get it
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
Wait till they pan down and you see them all wearing rollerblades.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
The point is one of the biggest operational insights, which hoi4 is trying to simulate, is the failure of tank/tank destroyer battalions that were organized separate from divisions. The UK, France, and USSR all used tank battalions and they all eventually moved to the tank division because of the dominance of this German organisational invention. Well ussr went to the tank corps, which also should be modeled. If it doesn't have these two things the game is probably going to be bad.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Riso posted:A Soviet corps is about the size of a western division. Yes and no. Pure manpower yes. They tended to have a lot more in the way of support weapons though and this gave them a decided advantage when they were going 1v1. There is a reason the soviets won and it isn't pure attrition.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I think probably a more accurate operational insight is that every major power began to coalesce tank and infantry units into combined arms groups in various ways. In the beginning of the war, the countries were so bad at handling tanks that you could literally just roll whole battalions down roads in road column and bust up dispersed anti-tank positions, and in 1944 attempts to replicate that resulted in huge losses. The US used independent tank battalions throughout the whole war to beef up the infantry divisions and the main problem this had were the battalions shifting around, making them less able to coordinate with the infantry. The idea of mixing in tanks and infantry was sound, though after the war the model for divisions were US armored divisions, not infantry divisions. I largely agree but it wasn't "shifting around battalions" that prevented infantry and tanks coordinating, it was coalescing disparate command chains. Having a division that includes tanks and infantry organically fixed this and is part of the reason why Germany was so dominant on the attack early on.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Yeah, I understand that, but sprinkling in the Stug companies, indepedent tank battalions, etc was hardly a worthless waste of time and I get kinda peeved when I see people cite that as a problem. The French infantry tanks did not lose them 1940. The R35 and Hotchkiss tanks that were thrown in with the A-grade infantry divisions probably weren't a major factor in why France lost. The doctrine that led to the french infantry tank lost them 1940. The panzer division leads to the panzer corps. It gave them the armored spear point that led to operational breakthroughs. Tank divisions vs tank battalions are critical to operationally gaming the european theater in ww2. What else are we talking about gaming here. This is exactly the level of stuff hoi should be simulating.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
'41 the t34 was a piece of poo poo. It couldn't go 20 miles without breaking down and a 2 man turret no radio is a recipe for complete uselessness. Just because it could bounce a pak 36 shell at anything over 500 meters doesn't mean it actually contributed anything to the war.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Look at the niche it is filling Historically they were used for taking out fixed fortifications like bunkers so they should get a bonus to that.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:The wiki says combat engineers give this bonus, so that niche is filled I think a game where we have 5 different abstractions of tanks isn't one that is strict on only having a single unit fill a niche. Having something that provides the engineer bonus plus hardness wouldn't be a bad idea.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:So the number of AFVs already in the game is justification for adding more? Just be consistent in game design so it isn't a mess to play? Have only one tank imo.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Having more than 1 AFV from 1936 to 1947 is a mess? Did you play hoi3? If not there was a thing called the combined arms bonus where you made a division with a certain ratio of hard and soft elements and you got a straight buff to the division. So for gameplay purposes there was never a point where I'd go "man thank god I teched to heavy tanks they really saved my bacon" because the only thing that really mattered was the combined arms bonus. If something is useless, cut it out because otherwise you are just creating a bunch of options that are meaningless. If you are going to have a unit designer make it so you can really sperg out over the numbers and min/max different units that are effective or don't include it at all. I hate busy work in games.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Crash74 posted:Aren't these things horrible lovely death traps? The russians called it "a grave for six brothers"
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
The interesting thing about the sherman is it never got a reputation for burning easily among the russians because as it turns out it burned less frequently than the t34. Most russian designs had worse ammo storage than even american tanks due to their tight design and often had ammo just rolling around on the turret floor. Also any time I see a tank with rivets it reminds me of this story about an Italian tank and a non-penetrating hit that snapped off a bunch of rivets and they killed a crewman while they were bouncing around the cabin. I wonder if other armies had that problem.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:No, because other armies didn't make their tanks as lovely as the Italians Japan built a tank with the gun pointing the wrong way.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
Well he did get his rear end kicked.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:The release version of the game will probably feature some bad AI behavior that should be fixed in the coming months, and the game will continue to be fleshed out through DLC and patches. Because they never really did get hoi3 right. They don't always fix their poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:True, but in fairness to them, that game was released in 2009. Since then, they have released CK2 and EUIV, and have earned back a lot of goodwill that was lost by EUIII and HOI3. If the game is significantly broken on release (not saying it is, I will wait and see just like everyone else) then who gives a poo poo about ck2 and eu4, because they will have released 2 dogs in a row. Giving a company money that releases garbage is just rewarding bad behavior and should be condemned across the board, regardless of future support.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:What? Stellaris is a good game, has received a decently sized patch and has more scheduled and has sold very well. Did they sneak in a bad game while we weren't looking? The point was it was in a state that never should have been released. They are still working on things that should have been included on the base game and will be patching them in over the next several months. If I pay to get my house painted and they gently caress it up, I don't thank them 3 months later when they fix it. You people are loving addicts I swear.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Smoremaster posted:yeah they should just delay it another year What is so insane about this?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Has anyone played a Japan game? How is the war in the Pacific? I just took over china and it was extremely easy. Dunno about the rest.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2016 11:58
|
|
|
mottbag posted:Is there a bug where you lose your navy? I got a notification saying that one of my carriers was destroyed by navel bombers, but it seems my whole navy is gone. RIP operation Sea Lion/Carrier focused Germany run. I came here to post this exact same thing. It really threw me for a loop a few times. Sucks because I've had to reload a lot now I'm facing off against the british navy in the pacific. Sometimes I don't even get a notification. Seems right now destroyers are extremely overpowered. I get into a carrier fight and the other guy has 30 destroyers to my 10 it is no contest.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
I thought the point of the BoB was that they didn't have the range, that the 109e could only pull like 10 minutes of combat time over London?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
Hey goons if you want to play in a *real* ww2 game I got a combat mission lp that still needs a few warm bodies. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3779496 I can promise enough assault guns and panzer variants to assuage that angry little grognard in you!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Most of those that directly benefited and upheld white supremacy were not the ones dying in the trenches. It is the primary reason why the idea of white supremacy was undermined really.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Gort posted:Well, yeah. But you can hardly argue that bigging up one particular racial group as being akin to gods and then having them be the cannon fodder makes sense. It's incredible that multiple nations across the history of the world would swallow such a line. The problem here is that they thought they were gods in many cases BECAUSE they were cannon fodder. White supremacy was thought (by many) to have been earned on the battlefield. When WW1 started it was extremely popular among all the white supremacist nation's middle classes because it was thought to be an opportunity to right a lot of ethnic and nationalistic wrongs AND they assumed they were going to share in victory spoils. What was laid bare was the upper classes considered the lower classes to be as worthless as non whites and had no intention of sharing. WW2 was that taken to extremes on both sides. A lot of communist organizations were the first to declare for desegregation, even before the NAACP. Fascism was started by your aforementioned white cannon fodder taking the traditional paternalism of white supremacy and turning it into annihilation. You are using an extremely modern and simplistic idea of white supremacy and of course it isn't going to fit well on a much more complex reality.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
I won the game as france and the only real trouble I had was manpower issues. As long as you keep that in mind and manage alliances well it is pretty easy. I rather liked playing them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Yeah I also went to war early as France. I also went communist which helped get the USSR on my side more quickly. For some reason though after everyone wins England decides to start a war over Belgium of all places and if you want a challenge, sealion is it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Japan also gets 2 EXTREMELY awful divisions in singapore of Indian troops.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
There was a period after midway where both sides carriers were destroyed or damaged and battleships ended up back as the primary projector of force. Carriers proved very vulnerable and poor at sustaining offensives. Just because there were no more great battleship line engagements like at jutland doesn't mean battleships were useless.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:Unless you wanted to attack during the day time without cover from land-based aviation then they were completely useless. Every successful operation was under cover from land based aviation so that doesn't mean much.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Was there land based aviation for Iwo Jima? They were hitting it with strat bombers from the marianas iirc. There was no Japanese navy left by that point though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
edit nevermind i misread
dtkozl fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Mar 7, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I think I'm starting to get the hang of naval mechanics but this could still be way the hell off. I found the same re: naval bombers/dive bombers. I tried going pure naval/fighter and they didn't seem to do as well as a mixed force.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2019 20:01
|
|
|
Gort posted:Carrier fleets with no battleline ships means enemy battleline ships can immediately shoot your carriers. You should put some battleline ships into your carrier forces so the enemy battleline doesn't immediately blow your carriers to bits. I did a game with japan where i ran a 4 CV with CAs and of course plenty of screens trying to keep the strike fleet fast, i think the slowest ship was 29 knots (or whatever the game uses for speed), much faster than any BB/BC and I found that while they didn't die they also didn't really sink anything. So I don't think it is quite that dire but they will kill your screen faster than you can kill theirs and eventually lose.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2019 01:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 08:33 |
|
|
Democrazy posted:Has Paradox ever explained why there isn’t any kind of playable Kingdom of Egypt? Seems silly to have a place which was supposedly independent (but not without British influence) as having lower autonomy than, say, India. there is probably one very specific reason they dont get involved in arab nationalism/socialism
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2019 21:51
|
|