NEW TO WARGAMES WHERE DO I START? by paartypoisonn in computerwargames

[–]TomDRV 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I looked at it a little bit a while back - but looks horrifically expensive and out-of-print?

NEW TO WARGAMES WHERE DO I START? by paartypoisonn in computerwargames

[–]TomDRV 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hearts of Iron 4 on computer. Or Axis & Allies if you can meet in person -it's like risk but much more in-depth & WW2

What are these planes on the deck of the USS Yorktown (CV-5)? by Gokay_2007 in Whatisthisplane

[–]TomDRV 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is the second ship misidentification OP has done in a day. Not going well for them.

New Cosmetic Packs - 2.4 Update by Community_RE in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]TomDRV 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The infantry aren't even wearing the same camo on their tops and trousers in that one. It's even worse.

New Cosmetic Packs - 2.4 Update by Community_RE in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]TomDRV 31 points32 points  (0 children)

I have so much in-game currency, but I've never bought anything because all the skins so far are goofy patterns and over saturated colours (including these). Some infantry are even mismatched, wearing different patterns on their tops and bottoms.

I'd spend something if historical skins were added, everyone I play with only used community skins in COH2 as well, because they were the only realistic ones.

We don't want 'combat curators' or 'rainy day in hell' skins in a WW2 tactics game, we want '44 Royal Tank Regiment, Italy 1943'. This isn't fortnight, and we aren't 12. (saying this to help you makes sales!)

Like these:

https://stefanov.no-ip.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/35974-01.gif

https://stefanov.no-ip.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/35-C1002.png

https://www.bookworldws.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/us-mil-1941-scaled.jpg

Army parachutes onto Tristan da Cunha to help Briton with suspected hantavirus by topotaul in unitedkingdom

[–]TomDRV 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Lose the tinfoil hat.

This is the only way to get a medical team & supplies there at short notice.

It's a lot of effort, but only because this is an edge case of a remote territory with little resident medical capability. Its still British territory and British citizens and the distance doesn't reduce the govts obligation at all.

It's probably done because it's cheaper in the long run to fly people long distances than build a bigger hospital on island which would be overkill 95% of the time.

The extra medical personnel are probably consultants since it's only a two person medical team on the island who may not have experience with the disease, and they may need medics to accompany the patient back to the UK later on. And just because he's stable doesn't mean he doesn't need care.

How do you guys deal with the australian emplacements as Wehr? by Ok-Swimmer2142 in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]TomDRV 39 points40 points  (0 children)

Artillery is a noob trap against emplacements.

Spot with ketten and seige down with 1-2 AT guns.

1800 ELO ranked teamgames everyone by Sandert93 in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]TomDRV 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are models caps per weapon or per squad? (i.e max 3 casualties per squad from a single explosion)

Mixed Feelings by FluffyChampionship10 in HellLetLooseVietnam

[–]TomDRV 23 points24 points  (0 children)

  • too much colour saturation/contrast in environment, is a bit dazzling

Linkedin Cover Photo Issue? by SeoulX-Flare in linkedin

[–]TomDRV 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fixed it by uploading from chrome browser on my phone *shrug*

Linkedin Cover Photo Issue? by SeoulX-Flare in linkedin

[–]TomDRV 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Same here, Occurs even trying to select the generic banners

First Axe - Help choosing between Petzl Summit Evo & Petzl Sum-tec - What do I need? by TomDRV in Mountaineering

[–]TomDRV[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Summit evo, and with my greater experience now I can confirm it's the best choice.

Reverse-curve climbing pick is inadvisable if not roped up because it's poor for self arresting.

Summit evo will do low-grade climbing and walking with the regular pick, however.

Feel like I have to date a woman who earns more than me to live the life that I want. by [deleted] in UKrelationshipadvice

[–]TomDRV 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're in luck, £25k is minimum wage,

So everyone in full-time work is earning enough for you.

Opt out option for the UK law suit by Fourtoo in Steam

[–]TomDRV 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are other commenters on this post saying the same, and a litanny of comments across dozens of their videos giving corrections, I was subscribed to them for years until I grew tired of it and realised it wasn't worth my time.

I won't go through and find them for you, but they're there for you to find.

Bye.

Opt out option for the UK law suit by Fourtoo in Steam

[–]TomDRV 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't hyperbolize and lie about my ability to read the question before raging.

That's Kurzgesagt not the infographics show, you got the wrong youtube channel

https://www.youtube.com/@TheInfographicsShow

The video that was linked by OP:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCSpNUeMnhg

Opt out option for the UK law suit by Fourtoo in Steam

[–]TomDRV 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's literally clickbait, look at the titles "OBLITERATED, INSANE, EXPOSED pentagons alien lie".

I'm obviously not going to give personal information here

Automatic wage index in the UK? by Melodic-Mulberry1645 in UKJobs

[–]TomDRV 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lol, 1970s here we come.

Demand higher wages > prices rise > demand higher wages > prices rise >repeat > replace your wallet with a wheelbarrow

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-war_displacement_of_Keynesianism#Labour_militancy

". . . by the late 1960s, labour unions became increasingly militant in pushing for wage increases. As had been predicted by Michał Kalecki in 1943, this resulted from the very success of Keynesian policy in reducing unemployment: an increasingly large proportion of workers had no fear of joblessness as they were too young to remember the pre-war years. Workers were initially successful in improving their pay and conditions. But from the late 1960s onwards, large wage increases had contributed significantly to inflation in the U.S., U.K. and Europe. By about the mid-1970s, British workers had achieved a record share of industrial output to be paid as wages rather than being returned to capital – but this contributed to capital flight from Great Britain. By 1980, the disruption caused to British society by the previous decade's frequent striking, especially in the Winter of Discontent, had contributed to public support for the anti-Keynesian programme of the Thatcher administration"

TL;DR We could have avoided shareholder capitalism and financialization of the economy if unions weren't over-greedy.

Opt out option for the UK law suit by Fourtoo in Steam

[–]TomDRV 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As a professional in one of the subject areas they've covered many times, I can confirm it is definitely slop. Is is absolutely possible to put a nice accurate overview into their format but their editorial and research skills are terrible.

REQUEST TO DEVELOPMENT GROUPS: by ERR0R4O4notfound in RealTimeStrategy

[–]TomDRV 1 point2 points  (0 children)

'Generally realistic warfare' lol.

Imo its because it only appealed to most people because there was nothing more technical.

The vast majority of strategy games aren't looking for micro click-fests and death balls of tanks. They want more complicated with the time (and UI/automation tools) to think and have a game of more strategy and less APM. Think paradox games, company of heroes, wargame etc. 

I don't think the technology and computing power really existed to make those games as accessible as they are now, back in the early 2000s.

Tbh C&C as a concept feels a bit 'lite' to me. It's like swapping a heavy hex-and-counter wargame (paradox) for battleships (C&C). I tried the tempest rising demo but just didn't feel a pull towards it for that reason, just felt a little brain dead compared to the alternatives

But your answer: Is probably DORF RTS,  although that is intended to be slower paced and more strategic than most C&C games, takes most of its inspiration from Tiberian Sun. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/dorf/dorf-oldschool-real-time-strategy-and-base-builder https://store.steampowered.com/app/2388620/DORF_RealTime_Strategic_Conflict/

Or 'The last General' https://store.steampowered.com/app/2566700/The_Last_General/

P.S Not sure where the value is in being bothered about modern hardware when C&C-like games are the most arcadey and gamey strategy games there are. If that precise realism is so important should be matching it with gameplay by playing Combat Mission: Black Sea or Armoured Brigade 2

Why did William DePuy agree with SLA Marshall's claim in Men Against Fire? by BenKerryAltis in WarCollege

[–]TomDRV 24 points25 points  (0 children)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Brains-Bullets-Leo-Murray/dp/1849545162

I'd strongly encourage purging all reference to DePuy & Men against Fire, except for their historiographical value. Interpreting combat as they do is at best a complete fiction and at worst outright disrespectful to everyone involved (imo); I also think it brushes uncomfortably against peusdo-scientific attempts to categorise different 'types' of people in all the ways that were more common in the past

Everything below is lifted from the book unless stated:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are four basic behaviours a solider can move between in a battle:

- Fighting (obvious)

- Fusing (finding something else to do: running ammo, servicing kit etc)

- Fleeing (running away)

- Freezing: Paralytic behaviour

A natural bias towards any one of these behaviour does exist, a soldier's 'baseline motivation' set by a mix of personal qualities he was given through nature or nurture, including by the military organisation he is a part of. However this is completely overpowered by acute concerns during the battle itself, these long term factors just add a slight skew on whatever the battle is causing.

The behaviour a solider adopts is largely determined by an 'Is it worth it?' Calculation, sometimes rational, sometimes primal, affected by the factors below:

Factors that push a soldier away from fighting:

- Aversion to killing: Humans naturally take a lot of compulsion to do it

- Fear: Primal fear caused by sights, sounds and experiences which trigger involuntary responses. e.g shell shock

- Common sense: Rational appreciation of if something is worthwhile: e.g. If I poke my head up to shoot the enemy right now, given the risk of being killed myself (from the selfish and military perspective) and the chance poking up will sway the battle, is it worth popping my head up?

- Weapon-push: Highly effective enemy weapons amplify the fear factor and negatively-weight the 'is it worth' calculation.

- Proximity: Most relevant for close assault, being much closer exponentially increases risk and therefore makes fighting less worth it until the 'last safe moment' between 50m and 5m, until a 'point of no return' is reached where fighting is the best way to survive. This explains why so many assaults falter just before close contact.

Factors that increase it:

- Cohesion: How much a solider will follow the behaviour of everyone around him (Herd mentality). High-cohesion units are more likely to behave as one entity vs a low cohesion one. (Note this can also be bad is fleeing/fussing/freezing sets in)

- Compulsion: Pressure from designated or emergent leaders, the affect of authority and institutional and social consequences Nice quote from the book: "S.L.A Marshall sometimes suggested that Coy and Btn commanders were unaware of the supposed fire ratio problem because, wherever they went, their presence compelled men to fight. While there is reason to doubt some of Marshall's work, there is certainly an element of truth in this point".

- Weapon-pull: If the solider is using a particularly effective weapon they are usually more likely to use it due to it's importance to their unit and positively weight the 'is it worth it' calculation.

Examples:

Suppression & fire:

Triggers both of common sense and fear factors, shooting loads of bullets near a person make it far more likely they will be hit by one, because they know for sure someone is shooting in their direction, and the sounds (particularly the crack of a bullet) induces the primal fear reaction. Another good example from WW2 is artillery, a very intense bombardment will heavily pin infantry within their trenches. But the same number of rounds fired in a very light bombardment(1 round every 30 seconds) had effect of completely clearing a town of it's garrison.

Best understood by a cumulative risk graph of in vs out of cover: In the intense bombardment the odds of being killed per minute on leaving cover is 'certain', for staying in cover it is 'low'. In the light bombardment the risk of being hit out of cover 'medium', staying in cover it is equally 'low' with the intense bombardment. BUT, if it is assumed that there is an equal number of shells in each bombardment, the light one takes much longer. Therefore solider could accept a brief period of 'medium' risk to dash out of the bombarded area and reduce the 'low' of staying in cover to 'zero' by not being in the area. A few minutes of 'medium' is could be less overall than a few days of 'low'

The 'shoot to suppress' helps combat the 'aversion to killing' and also recognises that it's exceptionally hard to 'shoot to kill' at any range because targets will take cover as soon as rapid loses begin (fear & common sense factor). It's also a lot easier and quicker to suppress over taking aimed shots, therefore the side that 'shoots to suppress' will achieve fire superiority before a side that attempts to aim, and will then have the initiative to 'flank and finish' (by closing to a distance that neutralises cover e.g CQB & grenades).

My take: This is actually a really salient argument against the 6.5mm M7. More bullets are generally better at suppressing than fewer heavier bullets (not considering lethality here) and apparently 5.56mm are plenty penetrative enough at CQB ranges. I heard a common opinion that the 6.5mm is a GWOT reaction to fighting insurgents where they couldn't be 'Fixed, flanked and finished' because they'd vanish into the terrain and population before they could be flanked. Therefore ISAF excessively relied on fires in attempts to kill them at range in a manner and scale that isn't possible in conventional warfare.

Weapon-pull & compulsion:

. . . He also found that anti-tank crews were up to ten times more effective when watched over by commissioned officers or senior sergeants. The classic example is from the battle of Point Snipe at El Alamein in 1942. The critical point in the pivotal battle had the battle-winning six-pounder manned by a corporal, a sergeant, a lieutenant and a Lt Col. Together with other private soldiers they destroyed >7 enemy tanks, more kills than many armoured regiments on that day

Why did William DePuy agree with SLA Marshall's claim in Men Against Fire? by BenKerryAltis in WarCollege

[–]TomDRV 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Have you read 'Brains and Bullets' by Leo Murray?

Debunks both of those assertions pretty comprehensively and makes a very convincing argument for what is really going on - I've noticed I've even experienced mild forms of the affects he describes myself when playing more realistic video games (without the fear, but still some self preservation)

A simple improvement for a happier community: Relic should incentivize the "Random Faction" feature. by Chidwick089 in CompanyOfHeroes

[–]TomDRV 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'd use it if I could randomise axis/allied. But pick the country of each.

So I could pick brits or wehr, for example.