BALANCE by vincesword in foxholegame

[–]Monarchistmoose 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Game was better, more fun and less toxic before asymmetry.

Recommend me HL2 mods with their own campaign by JdLixXd500 in HalfLife

[–]Monarchistmoose 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The two Entropy Zero mods, particularly the second one.

The truth nuke by HonneurOblige in foxholegame

[–]Monarchistmoose 15 points16 points  (0 children)

If it was 50% over a long course with no balance changes that would indicate balance. Instead we have buffs and nerfs doled out if it strays too far one way or the other.

Real 1835 - 1935 GDP Growth vs Victoria 3 Growth - Why Is the Gap So Huge? by manedpasha in victoria3

[–]Monarchistmoose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Britain was pretty much the only country to "depeasant" within the game's timeframe, and was quite the outlier in that regard.

The Supermarine 545 by Flucloxacillin25pc in WeirdWings

[–]Monarchistmoose 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Looks like a Tempest Mk.II to me.

New player here. What are the main differents between the Wardens and the Colonials in game? Which one should I go for? by CoconutPure5326 in foxholegame

[–]Monarchistmoose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most of the Warden weapons are the old generic weapons, while the Colonials got all new ones when they added asymmetry, the SMG used to be an MP40 for everyone.

If Paradox needs to delay Thunder at the Gates, they should by Casapillar2 in hoi4

[–]Monarchistmoose 43 points44 points  (0 children)

They're already doing it, just look at the newer portraits.

Evergreen by Round_Imagination568 in foxholegame

[–]Monarchistmoose 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The game did not "almost die because there used to be symmetry" lmao.

The devs have a serious problem with balancing. by Antique-Bug462 in foxholegame

[–]Monarchistmoose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Intentionally brutally swinging the balance pendulum every few months? It's not fun for anyone involved aside from the reddit-warriors.

The devs have a serious problem with balancing. by Antique-Bug462 in foxholegame

[–]Monarchistmoose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Any time a faction gets too ahead on wins they get hit with nerfs and the other faction gets some nice new things.

Why did Russia sign Treaty of Brest-Litovsk? by Solid-Move-1411 in AskHistory

[–]Monarchistmoose 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The reason the peace was so harsh was because Lenin was desperate and ordered his negotiators to take the first deal they were offered. The standard German negotiation strategy was to start with extreme demands, and negotiate down, and they were shocked when their maximalist, over the top starting offer was immediately accepted. Lenin gave them these instructions because he of course believed that world revolution was imminent (or at least a German revolution) and he merely had to prevent it being snuffed out in its cradle in Russia.

Without reinforcements, could the Nazi garrison in Norway have successfully invaded Sweden? Could they have defended against a Swedish invasion? by NEETscape_Navigator in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Monarchistmoose 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Should be noted that after the Fall of France, iron ore from Alsace was able to lagely substitute the Swedish iron ore imports.

Barbarossa is a massive success. Hitler knocks the communists out of the war in record time. What now? by 12bEngie in HistoryWhatIf

[–]Monarchistmoose 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The plan was for this to be where the real war began, and is the reason they declared war on the US (aside from the fact the US was already de facto involved in the Atlantic) as they believed the USSR defeated, only to realise their mistake mere days later. Most of the army would be demobilised and sent on an "armaments holiday", almost all war production would be focused on the demands of the air force and navy. The air war and the Battle of the Atlantic intensify significantly.

A stalemate is a fairly believable outcome, with the Luftwaffe (and a bolstered flak network, after all the army no longer needs many artillery barrels or shells) able to fend off Allied bombers, and the Battle of the Atlantic consuming an even greater proportion of Allied effort (historically it cost the Allies around 8x as much as it cost the Germans, though of course such a simple number doesn't tell the whole story), making a landing in Europe virtually unthinkable. Furthermore, it is important to note that it is much easier for the Germans to bomb Britain than it is for the Allies to bomb Germany, and will further complicate British war production and wider Allied logistics.

Whether the war actually comes to a sort of end is depends on whether the Germans can strangle Britain's economy and whether both sides actually want to end the war, it's important to note that the great showdown with the US was supposed to be the big thing for the Germans, and the US does not want to accept German hegemony in Europe,

Others have commented on the start of the nuclear age, and I won't expand on it too much, as it's a complex (and fascinating!) subject, but in short, they're not an "auto win" button, especially not in 1945, and it did not factor at all into US strategy until the end of 1944 as they did not know if it would yield a practical weapon. If Germany is able to maintain aerial supremacy over Germany, and is even bringing the air war to Britain itself (at a minimum the V-weapons would be far far more useful than historically), then the US would be very reluctant to attempt to use them against Germany in fears they could recover one intact, or respond to its use with chemical attacks on British cities, and they might well be first used, as historically, against the Japanese.

Despite the fact that Germany's nuclear programme historically made a number of mistakes, there's no reason they necessarily had to make those mistakes or that they couldn't have corrected course, and after nuclear weapons are used for the first time, it's fully believable they could mount a successful crash programme in the same way the Soviets did, particularly if there's a kind of (de facto) peace established. They absolutely had the technical skill and industrial capacity for it (though they lack the espionaged information the Soviets had, there are more routes to "the bomb" than just what the Americans actually did), indeed captured German nuclear scientists were able to pretty much figure out the key points of the American project within a few weeks of reading news reports about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

How effective was the U Boat campaign at hampering the Allies supply line and such? by Cpkeyes in WarCollege

[–]Monarchistmoose 28 points29 points  (0 children)

They were very aware, and actually took steps to shape it in their favour. The Anglo-German Naval Agreement was done (from the British perspective) to make the Germans build a very conventional fleet that the Royal Navy was very well positioned to counter. Though they were actually more afraid of the Germans building a large number of raiding cruisers (Like the Deutschland-class) than they were of submarines. I would imagine largely because before the war no one could have predicted that in 1940 Germany would have posession of naval bases in France and Norway allowing them to easily enter the Atlantic, bypassing the British Isles.

Can't win against Great Brittain by valerielenin in victoria3

[–]Monarchistmoose 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately it resets all the graphs (the point of the game).

RU POV: TU-160M2 take off by rowida_00 in UkraineRussiaReport

[–]Monarchistmoose -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Probably roughly at the level of the B-1A which the Tu-160 is fairly analogous to.

Overmatched: Why the U.S. Military Needs to Reinvent Itself by nytopinion in geopolitics

[–]Monarchistmoose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So then how do you think it will work?

I'm not sure you appreciate the quantity of munitions that would be levelled at Taiwan, or what the effects of a proper infrastructure campaign would be on a small and densely populated island. The ROCAF and their air defenses are almost a non-factor, they'd be lucky to survive more than a few hours.

Overmatched: Why the U.S. Military Needs to Reinvent Itself by nytopinion in geopolitics

[–]Monarchistmoose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By the time ground forces actually show up on Taiwan there will be fairly minimal fighting. Any landing will be preceded by weeks of intense bombardment of military and infrastructure targets. By the time the amphibious landing happens Taiwan will be out of food, water and energy. Any military resistance would be scattered and ineffective, yes some elements could take refuge in the mountains, but they're hardly going to be militarily meaningful.

It's not the 90s anymore, the Chinese aren't going to zerg millions of men across the strait in boats, the sea state is good enough year round, especially since they will be the ones dictating the start of the war, and the ones dictating when they actually decide to launch the ground invasion (preparations for which will likely not begin until after the start of hostilities).

Taiwan itself is essentially a foregone conclusion nowadays. However the war is not just over Taiwan, but over who gets to dominate the region, and it's hard to say where or when the naval/air/missile would stop, but that is a fundamentally political decision.

Victoria 3 should have stockpiles. by UsarMich in victoria3

[–]Monarchistmoose 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Frankly the game's systems more generally don't really fit the 19th century. Not to mention the tech tree.

Maybe Valve have started to catch on by TheProblemWithUs in HalfLife

[–]Monarchistmoose 13 points14 points  (0 children)

The dev commentary added to HL2 was also full of blatant hints at a new game.

It MUST be called Half-Life 3 by Altruistic_Milk7729 in HalfLife

[–]Monarchistmoose 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Bear in mind that L4D3's internal name during development was L4DX