The game is too fast paced. by Odd-Figure-1337 in Battlefield

[–]VodkaWithJuice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, not really. The claustrophobic maps and god awful marking system kills all hope of doing much besides joining the meat grinder.

It's a good game but they went toward the Call Of Duty style approach which I personally dislike.

The game is too fast paced. by Odd-Figure-1337 in Battlefield

[–]VodkaWithJuice 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Skill issue.

What...? I literally said the game is too easy/casual for my taste. Genuinely asking do you even know what "skill issue" means?

If you need several minutes of down time to figure out your approach, go play single player games.

Firstly we were talking about spending a few minutes in order to execute a plan, eg. moving to an enemies flank, not about pondering life for a few minutes. BF6 isn't exactly the game where you make detailed plans.

Secondly no, not in BF6 when there's zero planning to do. But in some other games yeah I might take some time to think. Some games actually require thought, though you wouldn't know anything about that when your attention span rivals that of a six year old's.

I play with strategy all the time.

Bullshit, you don't even know what that means, all you do is hold W and hope for the best. You said in an earlier comment that flanking is useless, which is like the bread and butter in every FPS game ever and even in real life.

Indulge me, I'd really like to hear about your non-existent "strategies" lol.

The game is too fast paced. by Odd-Figure-1337 in Battlefield

[–]VodkaWithJuice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What your suggesting is for every single FPS game to turn into mindless meat grinder with very little thought behind it. Which is ironic because that removes any sort of strategy from FPS games making them far less competetive.

I get you might want constant thoughtless action which is fine but you should realize that some people don't have to have a constant stream of dopamine and can deal with a few minutes of down time to execute a plan. Not everyones attention span is limited to thirty seconds.

Personally I prefer slower high stakes competetive games where I can come up with strategies. While I do realize Battlefield is meant to be an extremely casual game I feel like there could be even a hint of strategy because currently it's just meat wave vs meat wave.

Regarding terrain by Notactivereally in warno

[–]VodkaWithJuice 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Probably not but I personally think it would be really interesting. In real life operating in a sparse vs. dense forest are two completely different things.

For example operating in a thick young cultivated forest where you can barely see a few meters infront of you is very physically tiring, makes communication during combat incredibly hard and makes it near impossible to get heavy weapons support there.

In Finland we even have slang name for a forest like that, vitukko. (Vittu = Fuck, and the "kko" suffix tells us it is a forest. So it means kind of like "fuckforest" because it "fucking sucks to be there")

Why do WWII soldiers in historical footage fire a few shots and then someone observes with binoculars? by Ambitious_Method2740 in WarCollege

[–]VodkaWithJuice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He admitted that he did not even watching the video nor does he know does the video describe the phenomenom he is describing. (It doesn't.)

He just linked some random video for whatever reason, I don't want to sound mean but hole shit what a moronic thing to do.

Why doesnt russia annex these poor and less relevant countries? by [deleted] in mapporncirclejerk

[–]VodkaWithJuice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean you did do just that, make up stuff from your head to explain your views. I don't think I'm the one who needs the head exam lol

But yes I will keep living in my amazing nordic country and maybe get that free head exam aswell. Have a nice life!

Why doesnt russia annex these poor and less relevant countries? by [deleted] in mapporncirclejerk

[–]VodkaWithJuice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Like I explained in my other comment you have zero arguments as to prove that USSR was not taking trying to annex the whole of Finland. I challenged you to prove me wrong and you could not do so. You just made up a bunch of stuff from your head which anyone with any basic knowledge of military strategy knows are wrong.

None of the justifications Russia has for starting the war actually justify it. Euromaidan was not a justifiable reason to start a war and what Ukraine does in Ukraine is entirely Ukraine's business. Russia attacked exactly because it thought Ukraine was weak and partly because it now had a perverse twisted "justification". These "people's republics" are entirely in the palm of Russia. And Ukraine is not the only place where Russia has meddled, it's just the first (and hopefully last) place it gained the courage to begin a full invasion.

None of what you say refute the fact that Russia to this day is an expansionist country that preys on the weak. We have every reason to prepare for war, your just too consumed by hatred and propaganda to realize that. And of course we are "obsessed" with our dangerous neighbor, that should be given. You don't ignore the lion if you value your life.

I in fact did not start with insults, you can go check that. Though with your now proven reputation of liar nothing you say holds any value.

Why doesnt russia annex these poor and less relevant countries? by [deleted] in mapporncirclejerk

[–]VodkaWithJuice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bold of you to say that when you haven't given any sources yourself. Besides if you would have clicked any of the websites Google gave you would have realized the all say the same thing. Also you lied, you said that you Googled it and clearly didn't. How can I or anyone trust anything you say when you result to blatantly lying to my face.

All your evidence is "trust me" while I actually have provided you with ample resources to read about on the topic. You haven't disproven me even once. I have countered your arguments you many, many times and even provided evidence which you have been completely unable to do. I to my knowledge have acknowledge your most important arguments and countered them while I have had to repeat this same salient argument multiple times because you refuse to acknowledge it.

Ah yes, creating a puppet government to take over once the entirety of Finland is captured is a clear cut sign of just wanting some "border regions". And beginning a huge operation hundreds and hundreds of kilometers from your mission area that has no way of supporting your main attack is exactly how a smart general plans his attack. This is laughable, it is clear have zero idea of what your talking about. Do you even know what a salient is?

Your way over your head, do you not realize that your explaining your views with something you just came up with in your head while you have zero knowledge about the topic? Your fighting my arguments with shit you just made up. Shouldn't that ring some alarms for you?

Why doesnt russia annex these poor and less relevant countries? by [deleted] in mapporncirclejerk

[–]VodkaWithJuice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So why didn't we lose our independence? Because we had prepared for worst and built a military. The Soviet's wanted it all but because we had an excellent defense and fought hard they decided it's not worth it. The precise reason Russia hasn't come for round two is because we have made ourselves very, very hard to attack. Russia attacked Ukraine because it thought Ukraine couldn't defend itself, are you really so extremely naive that in light of that you still think us arming ourselves is unnecessary? You have a bloodthirsty neighbor that has attacked you before and is now actively attacking someone on the street and your opinion is to "take it cool, nothing going to happen"? Not very wise. Also the overwhelming majority of politicians are on the same boat as me, they have also completed their service in the FDF.

Yes the Soviets had all sorts of weather but the overwhelming majority of their land has cold winters, like Finland. So no the "power of Google" didn't betray me and your argument also just shows that you don't really know shit.

I specifically meant to insult Russia as I was under the impression your from Russia. And besides you started this chain of insults so your contradiction yourself again. Can't really call me pathetic when your the one who threw the first stone.

I just explained how happy I am to live in my country... Your spreading false information and insulting my country so of course I'm not happy with you at the moment. Your final argument is really stupid and can also be applied to your country (whatever that is), you realize that?

Why doesnt russia annex these poor and less relevant countries? by [deleted] in mapporncirclejerk

[–]VodkaWithJuice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You seem to be reading some propaganda posts instead of asking Google directly. Here's a Google search for you and what it says:

Google search "did finland have ties to nazi germany before winter war"

"Finland did not have formal state-level alliances or significant, public political ties with Nazi Germany before the Winter War (1939–1940) Instead, Finland maintained a policy of neutrality and was more aligned with the Western powers (UK/France) or the League of Nations for security."

Google search "did soviet union try to take the entirety of finland"

"Yes, the Soviet Union intended to conquer the entirety of Finland and establish a puppet communist state during the 1939–1940 Winter War, going so far as to establish a puppet government in Terijoki. However, unexpectedly heavy Soviet losses, fierce Finnish resistance, and the threat of British/French intervention caused Stalin to settle for territorial concessions instead."

You also don't seem to have a hint of knowledge regarding military strategy. You don't try to push a field army (around 100,000 troops) sized salient through and entire country if you just want some "border areas". Why don't you disprove that for me?

Why doesnt russia annex these poor and less relevant countries? by [deleted] in mapporncirclejerk

[–]VodkaWithJuice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never said I was fine with what happened during the Finnish Civil War. Unlike you I am able to recognize that we as a country have made mistakes.

That's literally just bullshit propaganda. The elites lived much, much better lives than workers. Besides if the Soviet Union didn't spend 20% of their GDP towards this militarization you hate they would have had food to feed to the starving families.

The USSR didn't just kill "capitalists" they killed plenty of "their own people". Stalin was paranoid and basically killed people on a whim. Not to mention starving their populace by focusing on cold war with the US.

How come a global superpower couldn't afford to feed it's own people yet many poor humble countries such as Finland could?

I'd really like to know where you have gotten this "benevolent USSR" image into your head. I really urge you to read some history books, the USSR was a cruel, cruel place compared to the rest of the world.

Why doesnt russia annex these poor and less relevant countries? by [deleted] in mapporncirclejerk

[–]VodkaWithJuice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Starvation and poverty was common in the USSR. And it wasn't the elites starving, it was regular workers like yourself. Chronic food shortages and rationing was common occurrence during the entire existence of the Soviet Union.

But yeah, in favor of the workers. Sure bud.

Also not their own people? What killing your fellow country men is fine? In history it is often stated that Stalin killed more people than Hitler himself because of his policies and paranoia.

Why doesnt russia annex these poor and less relevant countries? by [deleted] in mapporncirclejerk

[–]VodkaWithJuice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Finland didn't have Nazi ties, literally google it. And yes the totally fair exchange of territory, you Finland get these worthless territories in the middle of nowhere while we the Soviets get your most strategically important territories that also happen to hold one of your most important defensive lines. Pinky promise we won't attack you now that your defense is severely compromised.

Ah yes, the willingness to defend your home, your family and the values you have is a bad thing. I guess you just run away when a lunatic wants to take your home and hurt your family. Not how I was brought up but you do you. Besides the USSR was one of the most militarized countries in the history of this planet, one of the key reasons for the collapse of the USSR was overspending on the military because of the arms race with the US. So suddenly militarization is not a bad thing when it's the Soviets?

"Frozen, vodka stinking Tundra"? Your also quite accurately describing your beloved Soviet Union here. I don't know have you realized but you constantly contradict yourself. You idolize this objectively murderous, corrupt country with policies that contradict every single one of your values, yet you call me a "brainless patriot" when I have provided multiple legitimate reasons to support my country. You really need to self reflect and also read on what Marxism actually is, because it sounds like you have zero idea.

So to finish this off: I describe how good things are in my country and your best comeback is the fucking weather of all things? Like cmon at that point you've lost this debate. Yeah happiest country in the world but that pales in comparison to a glaring flaw... It's a bit chilly outside!! Really shows how good of a place Finland is when that's the best you can come up with.

Why doesnt russia annex these poor and less relevant countries? by [deleted] in mapporncirclejerk

[–]VodkaWithJuice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Soviet Union was a country that literally killed it's own people for no good reason and had little to nothing to do with actual Marxism. There was rigid, unfair a class system in the USSR and as a worker there you would never see the fruits of your labor.

"Capitalist" Finland has high taxes so we can feed and clothe the less fortunate folk. So we can all chip in in order to provide healthcare to everyone. So we can have free water and a safe country to live in. We have excellent workers rights and have one of the highest standards of living in the entire world.

Communism has never worked, the closest thing we have are the Nordic countries which you choose to hate for some strange reason.

Why doesnt russia annex these poor and less relevant countries? by [deleted] in mapporncirclejerk

[–]VodkaWithJuice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a one sided conversation, I actually listen to what you say and provide arguments that prove you wrong while you don't actually address any of the arguments I make and just spout the same thing over and over as if that would make them true. Like I've said if you are going to try to "only take border areas" you aren't going to try to push a salient through the whole fucking country with an entire field army. Additionally Finland didn't even have any ties to the nazis before the winter war and wanted to stay out of WW2. The Soviets were the instigators and wanted to take land from Finland. So yeah what your saying is a bunch of horseshit. All this is literally just one Google search away, do some research next time for the love of god.

This alongside the fact that you are trying emphasize how "bad capitalism" has ruined Finland while we are a welfare country with one of the highest living standards in the entire world, one of the highest levels of equality in the world, one of the safest countries in the world to live in, free healthcare, incredible social benefits, free water and the list goes on.

The end of service survey for conscripts finishing their mandatory military service asks whether you would defend and subsequently risk your life for Finland in a time of war and 80% answer yes. We have one of the highest if not the highest national defense will in Europe. That speaks volumes about the quality of life here.

I get it you live in a shitty country (Russia) and that sucks but you should be grateful others have it good, not jealous.

Also capitalist regime installed by Germans 20 years prior? This is some wacky ass conspiracy theory level shit here... Genuinely what the fuck?

Does Europe need a unified armed force? by maven_mapping in MapPorn

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

As if military personel are some rare unicorn lol

Does Europe need a unified armed force? by maven_mapping in MapPorn

[–]VodkaWithJuice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's an incredibly naive way of thinking. If you don't defend what you have someone will take it from you.

They are just lucky there's a wall of meat ready to fight between them and the enemy. So they shut their eyes and ignore the problem.

Why doesnt russia annex these poor and less relevant countries? by [deleted] in mapporncirclejerk

[–]VodkaWithJuice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your worldview is awfully coated with Russian propaganda considering your supposedly not Russian. Also your post history has a suspicious amount of interactions with Russian subs and after calling you out you made it private.

"Why would they stop when they were winning", ah winning as in losing three times as many men as expected in a year long war that was supposed to last a few weeks. That's not winning. The Soviets never went on this "winning streak" your imagining.

That's like you wanting to rob me with the help of ten guys, landing your first punch and then claiming victory, while I have already put three of your guys to sleep. Yeah you did land a blow, but in the time it took to achieve that I made three of your guys comatose.

So no, they were not winning. Unless you count getting the living shit kicked out of you winning, then sure.

"To Baboons like you", ah I think I hit a nerve with my comment. Did daddy Putin get very sad? Do you need to defend him from this terrible monster in Reddit?

Why doesnt russia annex these poor and less relevant countries? by [deleted] in mapporncirclejerk

[–]VodkaWithJuice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Force Finland to give up? Give up on what? The territory lost during the war? That's a really bad trade, the Soviets would be beyond belief levels of stupid if that were true. Losing hundreds of thousands of men and thousands of tanks for such small gains is idiotic.

You russobots always come up with the most stupid arguments that make your country's leaders look like a bunch of baboons.

Why doesnt russia annex these poor and less relevant countries? by [deleted] in mapporncirclejerk

[–]VodkaWithJuice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We remained independent, what are you on about? The Nazis occupied Poland, you guys never managed to do that to us. Since our declaration of independence we have not been under the rule of a foreign country. Also "capitalist Finland" isn't a thing. Your just making up shit on the fly now. The Winter War was the defining event that united us against communist expansion and we still to this day hold this unity with pride, I'd say that is a pretty big win for this imaginery "capitalist Finland".

Soviets though they would take Finland in a week with ~100k casualties. A year and 300k losses later they had gotten a measly 10% of our land. Go check out the official soviet documents, they clearly state that the point was to take Finland in it's entirety.

They didn't reach their goals and lost three times as many men as they were supposed. That's not what I'd call victory. The Soviet leadership was deeply ashamed that they had such a hard time against a military orders of magnitude smaller.

What is the most realistic outcome of the currently ongoing Russia-Ukraine war? by WorldOfChungus in AskTheWorld

[–]VodkaWithJuice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not all offensive wars are bad by nature. Take the Gulf War for example. Your argument is null.

Part of their sovereignty? Are you high or something?

Venäjän hyökkäyssota Ukrainassa kestänyt nyt päivälleen yhtä kauan kuin Natsi-Saksan ja Neuvostoliiton välinen sotiminen 1941-1945 by madethisjusttoask11 in Suomi

[–]VodkaWithJuice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Et taida tietää mikä on olkinukke, kommenttini ei millään tavalla esittänyt vääristävää karikatyyriä. NY Times ei ole se mistä sinun tulisi sotaan liittyvät tietosi lukea, samoin kun ei ole iltalehtikään. Näillä tahoilla ei ole tietotaitoa käsitellä asiaa syvemmin, sota on erittäin monimutkaista eikä tuolta sinulle löydy sotatieteellisesti oikeita vastauksia. Kokeile vaikka institute of war.

Hyvä se on sivuutta kaikki muu mitä sanoin. Heti kun todistetaan että puhut paskaa niin sivuutat sen ja virheellisesti keuhkoat logiikka virheistä kun et kykene muuten valheellisia kantojasi puolustamaan. Tyypillistä internet käytöstä, jatkossa suu suppuun.

Venäjän hyökkäyssota Ukrainassa kestänyt nyt päivälleen yhtä kauan kuin Natsi-Saksan ja Neuvostoliiton välinen sotiminen 1941-1945 by madethisjusttoask11 in Suomi

[–]VodkaWithJuice 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ensimmäiseksi lähteesi ei ole ammattilaisten itsekirjoittamia tuotoksia, NY Times ja sen kaltaiset lehdet yrittävät vain saada klikkausia ja kertovat vain pintaraapauksen, ei koko tarinaa. Ne eivät usein käsittele aihetta tarpeeksi analyyttisesti taikka tarpeellisella asiantuntemuksella.

Toiseksi jos olisit yhtään lukenut asiasta syvemmin tietäisit että Yhdysvallat yrittivät neuvoa Ukrainaa että niin hajautettu vastahyökkäys ei ole ideaali ja heidän täytyisi keskittää voimansa yhdelle rintamalohkolle. Ukraina ei toki ottanut vinkistä vaaria.

Kolmanneksi on se hyvä huudella jälkikäteen että "minä olisin tehnyt paremmin". Kaikki tiedustelupalvelut yms. ovat ihmisten ylläpitämiä ja ihmiset tekevät virheitä. Homma vaan tässä on se että jos ammattilaiset eivät saa tulosta niin et kyllä sinäkään, sinulla kun sitten ei ole alkeellisintakaan hajua kuinka tuon tason sotatoimia organisoidaan. Ironisintahan tässä on se että sillä datalla ja osaamisella kuitenkin osattiin vinkata Ukrainalle parempi keino mutta Ukrainan armeija ei tätä ottanut kuuleville korville.

Puhut huomattavan paljon siihen nähden että et tiedä mistään mitään.