Інсталювати Steam
увійти
|
мова
简体中文 (спрощена китайська)
繁體中文 (традиційна китайська)
日本語 (японська)
한국어 (корейська)
ไทย (тайська)
Български (болгарська)
Čeština (чеська)
Dansk (данська)
Deutsch (німецька)
English (англійська)
Español - España (іспанська — Іспанія)
Español - Latinoamérica (іспанська — Латинська Америка)
Ελληνικά (грецька)
Français (французька)
Italiano (італійська)
Bahasa Indonesia (індонезійська)
Magyar (угорська)
Nederlands (нідерландська)
Norsk (норвезька)
Polski (польська)
Português (португальська — Португалія)
Português - Brasil (португальська — Бразилія)
Română (румунська)
Русский (російська)
Suomi (фінська)
Svenska (шведська)
Türkçe (турецька)
Tiếng Việt (в’єтнамська)
Повідомити про проблему з перекладом
Ця тема закрита 
Правила і настанови обговорень
Поскаржитися на цей допис
You insult about "high school understanding" while it is you that just base your argument on the result you want and not on the merits of the actual situation in itself. You want a certain outcome so you do mental gymnastics on Olympic level to get to your conclusions.
You even aren't inherently consistent with your own flawed logic. Because somehow attacking Soviet was ok because they had "plans" that they hadn't acted upon on Europe other than Poland but it was not ok for France and Britain to act because of the "plans Germany had.
And yes I condemn Germany for imperialism. Imperialism and expansion for power is to be condemned rightfully.
So you then use whataboutism to deflect the horrors the German Reich did with "yeah but other also did bad things". Yeah that doesn't absolve you. I can't go around and rob a bank and say "yeah but there are people that are murderers so its ok". One of your argument isnt even based on events of the time but of a historical event in the case of US.
Your goalpost moving about when the war started is just you who arbitrarily decide when you think the war started. As I said if Germany would just have not attacked Poland or surrendered to Britain and France there would be no war. See the second point is on the same level as your argument. It could as well be Italy that started the war as if they didnt declare against the allies the war would be a local war. See how your logic isnt working?
So you say Britain and France was going to go to war against them? They just won a war recently against Germany where the terms of peace was according to their liking. Why were they going to war? This is just some silly imagining.
Ok so German culture is dying because people dont think of famous figures the way you want them to? So by german culture you mean "People should think like me or otherwise they are killing german culture because I am the arbiter to decide what is german culture"
Culture develop and isnt static. The current generation have get a full historical view of these figures and then get to make their opinion. Sure few historical figures hold up to modern morals and therefore these people are often viewed as such. No culture war here.
Its like saying "If you dont like Angela Merkel you are killing German culture". Which is a silly take. But its all aligned with how your "logic" works.
So you try to say its poor just because it isnt aligned with your political ideas.
Sorry but you are a textbook example of "Not too intelligent but cant accept it so move into conspiracies to trick themselves they know better." Just because you read some disproven manifesto doesnt make you know things.
You clearly dont understand the situation outside of what you have read by some false takes. The world isnt flat. You havent done any analysis at all. You have decided you dont like the outcome of facts so you try to figure out how to angle events so that you can fantasise up takes that lead to your predetermined outcome. No one but disproven conspiracy theories hold the "takes" you have and you cant point to any serious source for any of your ideas.
Also because you lose games to fireflies doesnt make them broken. The testing team and the wider community understands they are in a decently well balanced point.
The game isnt a 2km AT game. Only on niche open maps are these game deciding.
On your first point, samuel untermeyer a jewish community leader called for a 'holy war' against the State of Germany by the global jewish community. untermeyer would found The Focus which was a jewish lobbyist group petitioning the UK leadership for war with Germany.
Collective action does not require a formalized state, there are numerous examples of non-state entities taking action, many times aggressive action, that leads to conflict between two parties.
Your first point is very silly, conflict is obviously not solely found in formalized State-orchestrated wars.
The German policy was excessive but not hateful. the jewish community in Germany had significant numbers of people who were hostile to Germany and behaved in ways antithetical to the flourishing of the German people.
A cost-benefit analysis was made and determined the jewish community's detriments outweighed its benefits - this is not a debate for here, but you cant say its "hate". Its in a sense barbaric but its not a hateful policy.
Furthermore, all state declarations are "arbitrary" in a penultimate sense - again neither here nor there.
As for your second point.
Its ridiculous to consider equivocate with Hitler's restoration of Germany and re-assertion of German rule on German lands and liberation of German people to be "lighting matches".
If Hitler was lighting a match in the darkness of post-war Germany, then Britain was a malignant sorcerer immolating 30% of the planet.
It doesnt really matter what Hitler said but for the record, he said war between the European powers would be catastrophic and it was the thing he most wanted to avoid. In all his speeches and private conversations he always lamented the tension and conflict.
Acknowledging war as probable or necessary is not the same as being-pro war or wanting war.
For your third point.
Those aren't The "Poland" of 1939, if you want to talk about formal nation states and their right to sovereignty ok, but dont backpedal and equate informal pseudo-states or tribal confederations with formal nation-states.
The "Poland" you wax so poetic about was a post-war construction crafted solely to disperse German power and influence for the purpose of preventing the rise of a continental hegemon that could rival Britain's thalassocracy.
It can not be denied Austrians are a subset of German people. The division would be as absurd as saying those dwelling the Alps are not Germans but Bavarians, those dwelling along the Baltic are Prussian not German, or those along the great western River are Rhinelanders not Germans.
We do not know what Germany would have done in peace time without looming war to a place like Czechoslovakia but his wartime plans were more than charitable - so much so the British had to orchestrate the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich to actually drive a wedge between the Germans and the Slovaks.
In any case a military occupation was necessary to prevent further pogroms against the German people.
Britain had a history of Conquest and colonialism which is bad, but in the timeframe of the 30's and 40's it is German aggression that puts the world at war. Hitler made repeated and continual demands and admitted repeatedly to his personal aids and military officials that he sought war. The difference here is I haven't defended British colonialism or the American genocide of the natives, they are still gross behaviors of history that should be denounced. You keep pointing to them as if it's some sort of "gotcha!" while using double standards to suggest that Germany's methodical genocide and blatant aggression (much of which was founded on braindead ideas like Lebensraum which assumes a 0 sum game, which is ridiculous when you look at the economic growth of both population dense small countries and sparsely populated larger countries - you don't need to kill or steal from another to live especially not on the international scale) is fine and good for Germany to have done and denouncing it is wrong and bad.
"It's not the modern Poland" okay, by that logic Nazi Germany isn't the same Germany as Kaiser, Weimar, or the HRE and so has 0 claim to any land outside the borders it has. As a matter of fact the German state as one unified existence is a Bismarckian invention that had 0 historical legitimacy.
It's very easy to arbitrarily draw lines in the dirt and say "well, that doesn't count because X" it seems really odd that all the arbitrary lines you draw are there specifically to defend nazism.
The Poland I talk about was so fake that it had some of the highest levels of resistance despite some of the lowest levels of external support. That wouldn't happen if there was no sense of community within the population; particularly if those populations were as German/Prussian dependent as you earlier argued. It wasn't just against Nazis either, it resisted communist occupiers too because go figure after the third partition the Polish people wanted sovereignty. The growth and strength of Polish nationalism after the partition is evidence that there's a national identity there and a legitimate nation to boot. It existed and was illegally partitioned, modern Poland can still easily trace its roots back to the first republic.
Germany didnt have designs on Britain or France.
The USSR did have designs on the rest of Europe.
There is no flaw in reasoning here. The West was a net aggressor against Germany primarily because of an irrational fear of the Middle European bloc, Western Europe has always felt this since the days of Pike and Shot when French Knights no longer ruled the field, industry and numbers became supreme and this general trend of fear of more industrious and numerically greater nations has long reigned in Western Europe.
Britain was always working on a divide and deal strategy for continental Europe not wanting any potential Napoleons to rise and challenge the British maritime hegemony which made possible the wealth of the British Empire.
These concerns are not totally misplaced but a microcosmic equivalent would be like killing a baby because its parents were your rivals.
They feared what Germany may become because of how powerful Germany had been.
However the fear was misplaced, at least for Hitler, who was unashamedly an Anglophile and did not harbor the anti-French sentiment of the Junkers - a group Hitler himself was suspicious towards at least on a personal level.
You condemn Germany but give moral primacy to powers far more imperialistic.
If you condemn German imperialism then your condemnation of Germany ended in 1919 and has no place anytime thereafter and you should support Germany for throwing off the pseudo-colonialism of Versailles which like many colonial treaties by the West was constructed to keep a foreign people down and a non-threat.
You can not be against Imperialism and pro-Versailles for the latter serves the purposes of the former; therefore on some level you must support some of the German restoration effort, as you would all who seek liberation.
Its not whataboutism to point out the hypocrisy inherent in your sentiments.
Also I think its kind of silly for you specifically to condemn imperialism while you use technology and circulate wealth that exists solely as the result of imperialism but whatever.
There is no shifting of the goalposts.
"WWII" is a historiographical construction - your level of analysis is too superficial and you are mistaking the historiographical idea of WWII for the reality of the series of events that the term "WWII" is attempting to conceptually circumscribe.
The Germans made no war on The West. The world was at peace until Britain's declaration of war. In fact one can not even blame France for if Britain had stayed out it would be the Second Franco-Prussian war with Poland as a catalyst not The Second 'World' War.
There were still efforts for war with Germany even Germany had never taken any land, the group The Focus was pushing for war with Germany independent of any geopolitical land disputes.
My logic is sound because we can take our level of analysis to the geopolitical reality of the time, Germany was undergoing a restoration effort, Britain and France first covertly then overtly opposed such efforts for the reasons I had stated above.
In strict terms - Germany only declared regional wars whereas Britain made it a global war.
Furthermore, if Germany surrendered, there would still be a war obviously because who would Germany surrender to if there was no war? Surrender occurs during a war, therefore a German surrender would necessitate a war already occurring. See how your Germany surrendering example does not work because its tautological and pre-supposes the existence of a war which you claim it would prevent existing?
Why were Britain and France going to war? Britain was lobbied, France and Britain both wanted to keep Germany weak to eliminate a potential rival in a restored Germany. The simple reality is that geopolitics are not determined by ethical behavior but by being honorable enough to sustain credibility while also being as cutthroat as possible because it is a zero-sum game - this is especially true for colonial powers like Britain and France who must maintain a frame of legitimacy or risk an evaporation of their Imperium.
You are misunderstanding what I said about the offensive against German culture. The teleological praxis of denazification was to remove the German ability to assert itself over itself and therefore eliminate its ability to assert itself over others on the world stage, a total pacification, in the same way african or latin countries can be drawn up and corrupt leaders installed to ensure they are 'sociable' even to terms hostile to the national well-being.
I am saying people should be free to think whatever they will, the freedom of thought in Germany would lead to reverence for figures like Bismarck, Frederick The Great, Arminius, and Adolf Hitler, and this would spark the fire of Liberty and Germans would demand justice and self-rule - which are two things the American and to a large extent other Western Governments do not want. Power does not tolerate rivals. I am sorry you had to hear this from me (someone you dont like) but Western Statesmen seeking to preserve their power are basically never charitable if the choice is presented.
It is literally illegal in Germany to be 'too patriotic' to love Germany too much. This extends to German history and German culture. This is why they remove statues of Great Germans like Frederick the Great. This is a form of genocide according to the UN.
Its amusing you consider stated goals of governments, national leaders, and historical events to be flat-earth conspiracies. You sound like someone who is defending a fiction against reality which I'm sure you'll claim the inverse is true, which is to be expected if you really are defending a poorly crafted narrative against real events and people.
That saying "get bamboozled enough and you'll defend the bamboozling" - something to that effect - it fits.
I play 78th Sturm so fireflies are non-issue. I am just pointing out how they are in an odd if not unbalanced position relative to their class of amor.
17 pdr got 125 mm pen at 2000 m range so that Panther A/G or Jagdpanzer IV can be destroyed with 45 % success rate. You can outgun 80 % of Axis divisions at max range who do not have access to Tiger II or Elefant. The strength and availability of 17 pdr compared to the armor of enemy tanks makes it the most effective anti-tank gun in the game. 17 pdr definetely overperformes right now, but I don’t know if nerfing is the right way. I prefer to adjust German heavies.
Tiger and Tiger II only have 5 r/m and that’s the worst stat of afv with that caliber. Both needs to be buffed to 6 r/m. You just need to compare the rate of fire with the IS-2. In theory the IS-2 is able to destroy 3/4 Panthers in a minute while the Tiger/Tiger II only could destroy 2 Shermans.
The Panther is in a weird spot right now. Bad in attacking light targets and an easy prey for even cheaper tanks. It feels that the developer don’t know what to do with the tank. The Panther G for a medium tank has the same availability like the IS-2 43. Additionally it only got 10 hp like medium tanks, but was on other ways treated like a heavy. I can bearely remember that the hp got up to 12 hp now, but I am not sure if that is correct. The armor oft he Panther is quite low compared to other tank models like Sherman, T-34 or IS-2. The frontal hull of the Panther D was 80 mm (55° vertical) thick an the turret 100 mm while the mantlet was 110 mm thick. The side was 40 mm (40° vertical) what should be 52,2 mm (40/cos(40)) effective armor thickness compared to the 45 mm ingame. The A model got an Kugelblende for the mg that improved the armor quitely. Withe the G model the turret was changed to 120 mm on the lower parts and the drivers hatch on the front plate was removed. The side armor was increased as well to 50 mm (30° vertical) what makes an effective armor of 57,7 mm. The armor of the Panther D should go up to 130 mm, the Version A up to 135 mm and the Panther G up to 140 mm. The side of the models D and A needs to go up to 50 mm and for the model G to 55 mm/60 mm together with price increase of 5 – 10 points. With these changes the Panther would get a needed survivability boost to fullfil his role as longe range tank destroyer.
Panther armor: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerkampfwagen_V_Panther
Armor calculation: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerung
German mgs got nerf after nerf. Reduced supression, precision down to 8 %, can longer shoot under 100 m, lost much of their ammo and very important infantry no longer gets less damage with vet. The latter means that Infantry are more resistant to MG 34/42 suppression, but the Axis still take the same damage from the more accurate Allied mgs with vet. Additionally Allied mgs like DT or tomorrow the Bren got buffed too.
I would prefer to finally give back Axis squads their mg ammonution. According to “MG 34 and MG 42 Machine Guns“ page 39 German squads carried 1800 rounds for the mg. That makes sense if you consider that ther infantry tactics were build around the mg. Squads with one or double MG 34 are one of the worst 20/30 points squads ingame. Quickly out of bullets without much damage inflicted, because MG 34 has one of the worst if not the worst damage per round. Precision back to the standard 10 % wouldn’t be wrong for MG 34.
Summary of the suggestions:
Tiger/Tiger II rof up to 6
Panther D frontal armor up to 130 mm, side to 50 mm and price 5 or 10 points up
Panther A frontal armor up to 135 mm, side to 50 mm and price 5 or 10 points up
Panther G frontal armor up to 140 mm, side to 55 or 60 mm and price 5 or 10 points up
MG 34/42 back to the standard 1200 rounds ammonition and MG 34 precision back to standard 10 %.
Unfortionally Eugen will not have the time to add theses change till tomorrow when the dlc is released.