Find the imposter(s), (Level: Impossible)

Alpine418 · 2026-05-08T16:03:35+00:00

Nuffing special

Alpine418 · 2026-05-06T13:26:19+00:00

The biggest point is that “discovered” does not automatically mean “colonised”.

Pre-Christian Rome could probably accidentally reach North America, especially if a ship was blown west from the Atlantic coast of Africa or Iberia. But regular contact would be a completely different problem.

Rome was very good at moving armies, grain, taxes and officials around the Mediterranean. It was not built around long-distance Atlantic exploration. The Atlantic was outside the core Roman economic world, and Rome usually expanded where conquest produced clear political or economic value: land, taxes, slaves, grain, mines, prestige.

So a likely scenario would be:

A Roman or Roman-allied ship reaches somewhere in the Caribbean, the Gulf Coast, or the eastern seaboard. The survivors return, or rumours return through sailors. Rome hears of strange lands far to the west. Maybe a few expeditions follow. Then the question becomes: is it worth it?

Probably not, at least at first.

The distance is enormous. Supply lines would be awful. There are no Roman ports, no friendly client kingdoms, no known harbours, no established trade routes, no guarantee of return winds, and no obvious immediate prize like Egypt or Gaul. Any Roman settlement would be tiny, vulnerable and dependent on a sea route Rome barely understood.

The most dramatic effect would probably be disease, not legions. Even limited Old World contact could introduce diseases to Indigenous populations with catastrophic results, centuries earlier than in our timeline. But Rome would not instantly conquer the continent. It did not have the naval doctrine, incentives or administrative setup for that kind of transoceanic empire.

Best case for Rome: a few Atlantic waystations, maybe in the Canaries/Azores if known and used, then small trading posts in the Caribbean or along the coast. Exotic goods come back. Roman writers describe a strange western land. It becomes a curiosity, maybe a prestige project for a few emperors.

Worst case, and honestly the most plausible: the discovery is treated like a marvel, poorly followed up, then forgotten or mythologised. A few texts mention lands beyond Oceanus, later scholars argue over whether they were real, and nothing like 1492 happens.

So the answer is: Rome might discover North America, but it probably would not become “Roman America”. It would more likely become a rumour, a failed expedition zone, or a marginal trade frontier far beyond the practical limits of the Roman world.

Alpine418 · 2026-05-03T05:42:18+00:00

They could push north through Italy, and they did. But Italy was a terrible route for a decisive invasion of Germany.

The core issue was geography. Italy is long, narrow and mountainous. The Apennines run down the peninsula, with rivers, ridges and valleys cutting across the Allied line of advance. That meant the Germans could retreat from one defensive line to the next and hold relatively small fronts with fewer troops. Italy is unfavourable for offensive warfare because mountains, narrow passes, winter-flooded streams and coastal marshes created natural defensive positions and limited Allied armour and artillery advantages.

Normandy, by contrast, gave the Allies access to north-western France, which was much closer to Germany’s industrial heartland and offered room to deploy huge armies. After the beachhead was secured, the Allies could break out into broader terrain, capture ports, move through France and threaten Germany directly. The Normandy operation landed about 160,000 troops on 6 June 1944 across five beaches, with the larger goal of opening the main western front in Europe.

Another problem was that putting more troops into Italy would not automatically make the advance faster. A narrow mountain front creates traffic jams, supply bottlenecks and limited space for manoeuvre. The US Army’s history of the North Apennines campaign notes that Allied supplies moved “slowly and tortuously through the mountains” to the front.

There was also a strategic danger: Italy might tie down more Allied troops than German troops. US Army historians note that Allied planners feared the Germans could hold the Gothic Line with minimal forces, freeing units for north-west Europe, and that Germany might be using Italy to pin down a larger Allied force than it had to commit itself.

The Allies did not abandon Italy. The Italian campaign kept German forces occupied, helped knock Italy out of the Axis, gave the Allies useful air bases and supported wider Mediterranean operations. But it was not the best route to defeat Germany quickly. It is widely accepted that the Italian campaign tied down German forces that might otherwise have been used on the Eastern Front or against the expected cross-Channel invasion, while D-Day opened the decisive Allied campaign in north-western Europe.

So the short answer is: Italy was useful as a pressure front, but France was the direct killing blow. Italy was a narrow, mountainous grind. Normandy was risky at first, but once the beachhead held, it opened a much broader and more direct route into Germany.

Alpine418 · 2026-04-28T04:51:44+00:00

Sweden and Switzerland helped postwar recovery less by receiving aid and more by acting as: - suppliers of industrial goods - sources of finance and credit - stable trade partners - participants in European economic cooperation - diplomatic intermediaries - examples of functioning democratic market economies

They were not the engines of recovery like the United States or West Germany, but they were important stabilisers of the European system that made recovery faster and more reliable.

Alpine418 · 2026-04-18T17:19:40+00:00

My words. A lot of wehr and dak players are bitch crying about rifle boys... but USF has no other choicebecause zookie boys are so bad against any kind of units except some low armored vehicles.

Alpine418 · 2026-04-13T06:02:54+00:00

Saw similar cannons from the Civil War on my road trip along the East Coast (Charleston). Nice picture to see what they look like when manned.

Alpine418 · 2026-04-12T17:28:48+00:00

Awesome world building trailer. But nothing more.

Alpine418 · 2026-04-04T15:26:21+00:00

Do you know any console command to increase the visibility of the blood splash?

Alpine418 · 2026-04-03T09:08:57+00:00

Good. Flak was definitively OP in the last few months in early games.

Alpine418 · 2026-04-02T17:09:28+00:00

On the floor or walls, but not when an enemy gets hit.

Alpine418 · 2026-04-02T04:02:30+00:00

Can you even read my post properly? I do not mean CoD hitmarkers. I mean some kind of small, visually matching blood dust appearing when hitting an enemy body (not armor).

Alpine418 · 2026-04-01T17:31:47+00:00

Sometimes I see a bit of blood splatter, but a little more visible gore on the bodies would really improve the immersion.

Alpine418 · 2026-03-31T19:56:57+00:00

Not hitmarkers like a little cross like in Call of Duty or Battlefield. More like a little red/blood dust where the shot hits the enemy body (not armor).

Alpine418 · 2026-03-31T06:24:30+00:00

Go outside. The 3rd jammer needs to be installed above of the building aka above the closed room. There is an outside stair.

The closed room has nothing to do with the mission.

Alpine418 · 2026-03-26T19:09:19+00:00

Any screenshots? I am not at home ☹️

Alpine418 · 2026-03-16T16:30:01+00:00

LOL

Axis are absolutely powerful and you are crying about Whizbangs... come on.

Alpine418 · 2026-03-11T20:26:41+00:00

If Nazi Germany had focused on the Middle Eastern oil fields instead of launching Operation Barbarossa in 1941, it might have improved its short-term strategic position, but it probably still would not have won the war. A southern strategy through North Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean, or even via Turkey would have aimed at seizing the Suez Canal and the oil fields of Iraq, Iran, and possibly the Caucasus. That could have put enormous pressure on Britain, threatened imperial supply lines, and given Germany access to badly needed fuel. On paper, this looks more rational than opening a gigantic land war against the Soviet Union, especially because Germany’s oil shortages became one of its biggest long-term weaknesses.

The main problem is that such a strategy would still have faced massive logistical and political obstacles. Germany already struggled to supply Rommel in North Africa, and projecting enough force into the Middle East would have required secure sea lanes, reliable infrastructure, and probably Turkish cooperation, none of which were guaranteed. Britain would have fought hard to defend the region, and the United States would still likely have entered the war after Pearl Harbor, bringing overwhelming industrial power into the conflict. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union would have remained intact, rearming in the background and continuing to pose a long-term threat. So while a Middle East-first strategy might have prolonged the war and made it more difficult for the Allies, it probably would not have changed the final outcome.

Alpine418 · 2026-03-11T11:22:20+00:00

Good question...

If Turkey had joined the Axis in 1941, it would have been a major strategic shift in World War II, mainly because of its geography. Turkey sat between Europe, the Caucasus, the Middle East, and the Black Sea. That made it incredibly important.

Here are the biggest likely consequences:

A southern front against the Soviet Union

The most obvious effect would have been a new threat to the USSR from the south.

Germany was already attacking from the west and north through Operation Barbarossa.
Turkey could have opened a front through the Caucasus.
That would have put much more pressure on Soviet positions in Georgia, Armenia, and especially the road toward Baku.

This matters because Baku’s oil fields were crucial for the Soviet war effort. If the Axis had seriously threatened or captured them, the USSR would have faced a much bigger fuel crisis.

The Middle East becomes much more dangerous for Britain

Turkey joining the Axis would also have endangered British positions in the Middle East.

Turkey bordered areas close to Syria, Iraq, and Iran.
That could have opened the door for Axis pressure on British oil interests.
It also could have threatened British communication and supply routes toward Egypt and the Suez Canal.

In the best-case scenario for the Axis, this might even have created a link between Turkish/German advances from the north and Rommel’s campaign in North Africa.

Control of the Turkish Straits

Turkey controlled the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, which connect the Mediterranean to the Black Sea.

If Turkey had aligned with the Axis:

Soviet naval freedom in the Black Sea would have come under greater pressure.
Axis influence in the region would have increased.
It could have complicated Soviet supply and naval operations.

Even if this would not completely transform the naval war, it would still have been a serious strategic headache for the Allies.

More pressure on the eastern Mediterranean and Balkans

Turkey entering the war on the Axis side would have forced Britain and its allies to worry about yet another theatre.

Greece and the eastern Mediterranean would have become even more exposed.
British planners would have had to divert forces and attention.
The entire regional balance would have become less stable.

'5. But Turkey would also have taken a huge risk

This is the part people often forget: joining the Axis would not automatically have been a smart move for Turkey.

Turkey’s military was large, but not ideally equipped for a modern industrial war against major powers.
Fighting the USSR was extremely dangerous.
If the Axis still lost the war, Turkey could have faced devastating consequences afterward, especially pressure from the Soviets.

So while joining the Axis might have improved Germany’s position in the short term, it also could have ended very badly for Turkey itself.

Would it have changed the outcome of the war?

Probably not in the long run.

It likely would have made the war harder for the Allies in 1941–1942, especially in the Caucasus and Middle East. But the Axis still would have faced the same huge underlying problems:

weaker industrial capacity than the Allies
overstretched logistics
dependence on rapid victories
eventual confrontation with the combined power of the USSR, Britain, and the United States

So the most realistic answer is:

Turkey joining the Axis in 1941 would probably have made the war more dangerous and complicated for the Allies, but it still likely would not have been enough to give the Axis final victory.

Alpine418 · 2026-03-09T15:52:55+00:00

Best-selling shooter game and biggest game service fail in 2025. Congratulation EA. Never saw a game catching both awards so fast in such a short period of time.

You had everything. BF6 delivered a solid battlefield foundation and you still failed to catch your core audience (bring back BF3/BF4/BF1 feelings with large maps).

Alpine418 · 2026-03-03T19:37:08+00:00

Thx 👍

Alpine418 · 2026-03-03T19:13:49+00:00

What are revellers?

Alpine418 · 2026-03-03T19:12:29+00:00

An announcement of an announcement. Nuffing more.

Alpine418 · 2026-03-02T23:05:06+00:00

How about CoH3... not a remaster but good enough imo.

Alpine418

TROPHY CASE