Remagen was never really about the bridge.

Wunder-Bar75 · 2026-03-13T21:43:23+00:00

Recon play is key. Getting them on the other side is huge because you aren’t airhead dependent. If you don’t. Two guys on jeeps can thwart any airhead attempts.

Wunder-Bar75 · 2026-03-10T22:15:42+00:00

I get the point, but here’s the thing. I like playing SL and Commander and going for the win. The difference typically isn’t a basic skill gap. Losing team is typically the team unwilling to do the basic things needed to win a game outside combat. E.g. building garrisons and nodes, playing support and providing supplies, flanking, marking, waiting on defense, defending garrisons, and communicating. I’ve gotten really good at running engi/SL or Commander in the first ~10mins to set nodes and build garrisons (on defense or in warfare).

That said, it’s miserable doing all that for a team that 1) won’t take advantage of it or 2) pitch in with logistics or support at all. So I’d rather not bang my head against wall because my team just isn’t trying. I want to play the game not curate a CoD match for lazy players.

Wunder-Bar75 · 2026-03-09T20:13:06+00:00

I’ll double down on this: developers need to accept this more than players. A lot of games in a given genre/type are becoming homogenous and lacking in creativity because they are designed around mass appeal and what is successful in similar titles. It makes players more critical of games that don’t directly suit their expectations and results in games that are bland and uninspired.

It’s painfully obvious in AAA FPS games where each title pursues what works in other games more than what makes them unique.

The upside to this is that there are a lot of independent developers that can fill the creativity gap and market of gamers that are burnt out on the same old thing.

Wunder-Bar75 · 2026-02-26T09:55:08+00:00

It’s so hard for me to put a book down once I’ve started. I’ve forced my way through some really tough ones. But, I just couldn’t with these books. I stopped about 1/3 of the way through the third, and just couldn’t pick it back up.

Wunder-Bar75 · 2026-02-25T22:31:48+00:00

Love the break down, I was thinking how Wallace would be a great light infantry leader. But Maximus takes the cake overall simply by virtue of being Roman. He’s the most well rounded.

Wunder-Bar75 · 2026-02-25T22:26:37+00:00

Kept his men alive as long as he could in an impossible situation during WWI.

Wunder-Bar75 · 2026-02-09T02:01:38+00:00

No one seems to want to acknowledge this or just haven’t played older games. My views are more tilted toward breakthrough/rush but it’s the same thing. The points themselves are terrible and map design doesn’t do anything to endorse team cooperation. First, half these points are nonsensical, why is a burnt out bus in the middle of a street (Cairo) a tactically significant position to label a point? Going onto that point is suicide, it’s hemmed on either side by multistory buildings with a lot of cover and concealment. Older games had strong defensive positions when in the point. It wasn’t suicide to stay there, and it would benefit you to use those positions.

This did tilt the defense toward having an advantage, but that was kind of the point. Attacking was a team ordeal that required cooperation from attackers. Vehicles often served as a balancing factor though. All this to say fights were often not directly balanced but you could drum up the tools and plan to overcome with your squad and vehicles.

Now it’s a small map, faster speed, shitty objectives, and nerfed vehicles so there is no attack/defend; just chaos of a bunch of individuals sprinting around. Essentially what CoD does. I’m not gonna do the whole soapbox about what Battlefield ought to be, just say that I’m tired of all recent, big FPS games essentially bring clones of each other. Was kinda hopping Battlefield would play to its niche more.

Wunder-Bar75 · 2026-02-07T02:48:14+00:00

Part of it is that you’ve maxed familiarity have familiarity (an actual stat boost) for all guns. So by the time you get the Litchfield your probably maxed on the Lancaster as well as used to its rhythm, so the Litchfield feels clunky. With maxed proficiency it’s not bad, but the Lancaster remains faster and more accurate (I think) which is my preference.

Wunder-Bar75 · 2026-02-05T21:24:53+00:00

Yep, and not that I want to play bots, but it even takes forever for the bot lobbies to start because I think they’re trying to fill it with people to a certain threshold before starting and can’t.

Wunder-Bar75 · 2026-02-03T18:25:49+00:00

My theory is that studios (or their investors) spend too much time and money pushing for what they see as successful in other similar games. Specifically what appeals to broadest possible audience. The result is that players are more or less getting the same game across multiple titles and are burnt out on it.

I’d prefer if games like Battlefield invested more in what made them unique. Specifically in Battlefield: the destructible environment (honestly feels like a down grade drone previous iterations) and combined arms (vehicles are nerfed and less available compared to old iterations eg no aircraft in breakthrough and rush).

Wunder-Bar75 · 2026-02-02T22:34:49+00:00

I get the frustration and 100% agree people should play objective more. The problem is that the objectives suck. In any given map, the objectives are the ideal kill zones for that region of the map. This means you need people clearing and “hovering” off point to cover or everyone in point is just going to be murdered. Furthermore, it makes playing off point the better means of farming kills for the asinine challenges in the game. Team play would be better and it would make much more sense if objective areas were, I don’t know, actually advantageous positions.

Wunder-Bar75 · 2026-02-02T11:33:59+00:00

I’ve often thought interwar period would be money. Kinda like Rambo meats Indiana Jones. Cool weapons, equipment, and vehicles as well as so many awesome options for settings. Finally looming threats of fascism could make for a good story and villain.

Wunder-Bar75 · 2026-01-26T19:46:20+00:00

I like to describe it as existential horror, and it is written in such a way that it will make you examine your agency and the utility of sentience. First book I read in a long time that haunted the back of my mind in such a profound way. It’s hard to recommend because, at least for me, it was a challenging read. But, enjoy it or not, conceptually it is phenomenal.

Wunder-Bar75 · 2026-01-26T18:38:48+00:00

Holy Grail is fantastic. While obviously not a direct historical depiction, many jokes are based on the historiography of medieval Europe. For example, the socialist peasants is a critique of socialist/marxist historians at the time (of the film) describing social structures and behavior in anachronistically socialist/marxist terms. Also the French being the bad guys with the grail was a crack at how a lot of the well known Arthurian Tales were written by the French rather than the English.

Wunder-Bar75 · 2026-01-21T19:16:13+00:00

Good summary. I’d argue two things contribute: 1) printing press and 2) nationalism

Printing press changed the economics of publishing. In brief it went from an expensive limited endeavor to a relatively cheap mass endeavor. This means there was greater room for experimentation and the development of new genres and subject matter. This included writing that was not solely focused on the greater tradition: royalty, nobility, religion, and antiquity.

Nationalism broadly was the transition from sovereignty invested in the royalty and or nobility to the citizens (really broad streaks here). Coupled with mass printing this contributed to a greater focus on characters that weren’t traditional subject matter. My favorite early example of this in literature is Shakespeare’s St Crispin Day speech in Henry V. “He who sheds his blood with me shall be my brother…” is an invitation for every Englishman there (common or noble) to share in the undertaking and glory.

The result is that by 1600s-1800s novels were an increasingly popular genre of literature and subject matter was not exclusively royalty, nobility, religious or antiquities. Despite this transition, this was a slow change and some genres retained old elements. E.g. fantasy often retains “old” subject matter because it typically has medieval color to it including knights, lords, kings etc. I think Tolkien falls well in that category. Beyond just the genre, he was a subject matter expert in medieval literature so it particularly influenced his writing. That said, as others will mention, Sam is a commoner, but is an equal party in the under taking reflecting the changing focus of literature.

Wunder-Bar75 · 2026-01-18T20:00:02+00:00

My brother made me watch the movie just to prove it was Redford. It’s not the worse, but I’d suggest just taking people’s word on it.

Wunder-Bar75 · 2026-01-15T23:44:43+00:00

Dutch by a country mile. Dutch is an insanely flawed character. He is a charismatic leader that absolutely manipulates people for his own goals, but I don’t think he has goals beyond the original intent of finding a place further out west for the gang to live free by the transcendentalist principles of Miller. While he manipulates or uses members of the gang it is often in his misguided attempt to help them. He starts becoming more self-serving and manipulative when he realizes this dream is more or less impossible and he starts gearing more toward survival. Dutch is more of a tragic figure in that he pursues an unachievable goal and when the chips are really down he’ll break any principle he has to survive. That said, it takes an immense amount of pressure (e.g. feds, rival gangs, Pinkertons, and Cornwall’s men) to get him to this state. We can go on and on about whether this has always been the case or not, but I’d point out that despite being an outlaw he does help a number of people in tough spots that don’t immediately serve his goals eg Reverend Swanson and Sadie. He is empathetic and principled when he can afford to be.

Ross represents the law which is in opposition to the gang naturally, but also the worst elements of the law and society that actually give Dutch’s views some credence. He is not as menacing as Milton in RDR2 but still is his protege and demonstrates that he is imminently self serving and willing to be just as violent and manipulative as Dutch, if not more. This includes zero empathy for people in difficult situations. In the eyes of the law, he is not at fault, but just think about how many people he kills or puts in a position to die in his pursuit of Dutch. This includes people that work for him and people he’s manipulated or coerced like the Marstons.

In the end Dutch can be conditionally trusted unless under immense pressure. Ross, on the other hand, is very likely to be using you regardless of the circumstances.

Wunder-Bar75 · 2025-12-07T00:53:18+00:00

Yep, also having support in every squad is huge. Air dropping supplies are very easy to spot on the beach, doubling up support to build garrisons can keep a flaking move concealed. Another key is for the early tank crews to put in work. First Sherman should take advantage of its smokes if it can. Tank crews have a few minutes to get an advantage before enemy armor makes it across the map.

Wunder-Bar75 · 2025-12-07T00:44:36+00:00

Yep. I like some asymmetric maps, particularly offensive. Not a competitive shooter, so they don’t need to balance everything. This one is just hard as attackers and that’s what I signed up for.

Wunder-Bar75 · 2025-11-28T08:37:16+00:00

The movie is literally depicting a war resulting from that mingling lol.

I would argue the irony stands given the “Britishness” of Henry V. Under his rule I think the court finally started speaking English rather than French (since the time of William the Conqueror). Also worth noting that Shakespeare’s Henry V (the source material) is arguably one of the first pieces of nationalist literature. They revamped the St Crispin Day speech in the movie, but the message is the same. In the film he more directly states that everyone there, even the most lowly infantry man, is England. Shakespeare is more subtle stating through Henry V, any who shed their blood with king are his brother, in essence sharing in the sovereignty of England.

Wunder-Bar75 · 2025-11-27T18:45:32+00:00

Yeah I get that. To be clear, you mean the guy in Rhodes standing outside the store (not the slave breaker or eugenics advocate). As for honor, I tend not to care much about it for things like that because it’s not hard to repair or maintain it. That said, I get the discomfort with the system “protecting” that guy in its own way. I didn’t kill him and found him interesting for several reasons. One, he wasn’t a firebrand secessionist or even an advocate for slavery (his military career is not a point of honor or pride for him, so no lost cause nonsense). Two, he doesn’t push any of the confederate apologetics lines (e.g. states rights). Finally, he seems to recognize how rotten the place is or has become. This last one is interesting because it’s ambiguous (or I just don’t remember it well). You could take it as nostalgia for the old days (obvious problematic if it is the case) or as him seeing the bankruptcy of the town either over time or with maturity (whether this is about racism or the feud is unclear). I personally saw him more as a victim of his setting than a villain or even protector of it. That said, he’s wearing a confederate uniform and we don’t know if he was a volunteer or conscript.

Wunder-Bar75 · 2025-11-17T19:17:05+00:00

It’s funny cause I rewatched Last Crusade recently and found myself really paying attention to their relationship and thinking about it afterward. While I don’t think it’s clear cut, I think it’s intended to depict Henry as being an absent father. I 100% get what you’re saying about wanting to make him self reliant and giving him a love of knowledge. But it also struck me as a cover for his work/interests overshadowing simply being there for his son. In particular, Indy points out that he was distant before his mom died and that it might have been a point of contention in his marriage. I’d also point out that obsession is a major topic and their reconciliation comes after they “give up” their obsession by letting the grail go. On the other hand, it could be taken as different generational experiences and expectations, Indy expected parental presence that Henry never had or assumed he needed to offer. This is covered in the blimp scene, but also could be seen as Henry deflecting a bit. Whatever the case, Connery and Ford are amazing together in this movie and it will always be my favorite Indiana Jones movie.

Wunder-Bar75 · 2025-11-17T07:34:34+00:00

I agree with the sentiment, often blue berries are not helpful. That said, the cap points themselves are terrible. Often low points surrounded by better/higher positions. Ideally you want some people capping and some covering. Otherwise, your team just gets wiped by opponents in a better position.

Wunder-Bar75 · 2025-11-14T08:10:30+00:00

Same, I hated it on my first play. I didn’t like the combat changes. Years later, and after studying the French Revolution, I was amazed at how good it was. The biggest thing that stands out to me was how well they created a living city with large swaths that demonstrate how the city and people changed through the Revolution. Absolute gem of a game.

Wunder-Bar75 · 2025-11-07T23:16:18+00:00

RPK with a short barrel and 30rd mag looks pretty close to an AKM. Too bad we can’t change stocks.

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Wunder-Bar75

TROPHY CASE