|
MrBling posted:In Crusader Kings 2 mercenaries can and will offer their services to the opposing side if you can't pay them. If you're lucky they just decide to go home, but they can decide to switch sides. Sometimes they just decide they need to be a bit more aggressive with their negotiations and loot the countryside to get their pay.
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
MrBling posted:In Crusader Kings 2 mercenaries can and will offer their services to the opposing side if you can't pay them. If you're lucky
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
i know there's a dearth of imperialists, but in pike and shot can you at least play as gallas
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:sounds like u mad Pike and Shot is a good game for learning why people alternately hate and love the cavalry. Sometimes of their own will they conduct a brilliantly timed flank charge that tears the entire enemy center to shreds, other times half your left wing is gone chasing one terrified unit of Swedish cavalry while the Swedes start rolling you up. HEY GAL posted:i know there's a dearth of imperialists, but in pike and shot can you at least play as gallas You can play LIKE Gallas as described earlier, but Pike and Shot doesn't really model generals in the base game. There are static portraits depicting an important general of the faction to show whose turn it is, but they don't do anything beyond look pretty. Pretty sure the Imperialists in the 30 Years War campaign gets Wallenstein for their portrait tho, though.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Tomn posted:...while the Swedes start rolling you up.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
It's fun as hell to pursue an ever increasing snowball of enemy cavalry through their cavalry's flank though. And yeah campaigns lets you pretend to be Wallenstein. It's the scenarios from the base game that are just lol protestants and for a surprise the French.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Also you CAN lose because your rear end in a top hat idiot moron cavalry won their skirmish with the enemy cavalry and proceeded to gently caress away off the battlefield chasing the fuckers they already beat instead of turning around and actually supporting the drat infantry. cav_through_eternity.txt
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Is this how people used to shoot guns?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:Sometimes they just decide they need to be a bit more aggressive with their negotiations and loot the countryside to get their pay. And occasionally if you piss them off enough they'll just seize your land in lieu of payment. And that's the story of how a band of Bulgarian mercenaries came to rule the city of Genoa. 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
My favourite thing about Gallas: "His army had earned for itself the reputation of being the most cruel and rapacious force even in the Thirty Years' War, and his Merode Bruder have survived in the word marauder."
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
IM_DA_DECIDER posted:Is this how people used to shoot guns? Wheellock guns, yeah. The pistols were held totally sideways or at a 45 degree angle to better ensure that the priming powder was laying against the vent leading to the barrel.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
IM_DA_DECIDER posted:Is this how people used to shoot guns? Well, I'd like to see you try to aim normally while riding that thing.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
IM_DA_DECIDER posted:Is this how people used to shoot guns? Hogge Wild posted:My favourite thing about Gallas: "His army had earned for itself the reputation of being the most cruel and rapacious force even in the Thirty Years' War, and his Merode Bruder have survived in the word marauder."
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Wheellock guns, yeah. The pistols were held totally sideways or at a 45 degree angle to better ensure that the priming powder was laying against the vent leading to the barrel. cool to know, thank you 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Well, I'd like to see you try to aim normally while riding that thing.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Wheellock guns, yeah. The pistols were held totally sideways or at a 45 degree angle to better ensure that the priming powder was laying against the vent leading to the barrel. this is really cool to know HEY GAL posted:that's a fake etymology, which is bad, but the word "marauder" was already around which means the joke was being made at the time, which is good owned by wiki once again  haha, cool to know, but i wasn't talking about the breed but that specific horse:  here's it in av size if anyone wants it:  
Hogge Wild fucked around with this message at 20:28 on May 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
100 Years Ago 15 May: The Battle of Asiago begins, Conrad von Hotzendorf's latest ridiculous idea to fight a war in the mountains, and by the end of the first day they're well on the way to complete victory. Can't say I'm surprised, that makes perfect wait what? That is not a misprint. It worked. Elsewhere: Edward Mousley is not doing well; Louis Barthas loses a friend; E.S. Thompson continues schlepping forward; Maximilian Mugge gets himself invited to tea with the Newhaven garrison commander. 16 May: They sign the Sykes-Picot Agreement.  The Battle of Asiago continues rolling on; General Haig has formally informed 4th Army that they *must* attempt to capture both the German First and Second Lines on Day 1 of the Somme; Louis Barthas is routing around No Man's Land; E.S. Thompson is getting blisters; Malcolm White is playing the role of a performing seal; Maximilian Mugge has been tipped off that he's to be transferred out of the 3rd Royal Sussex and into the Non-Combatant Corps. Well, that sucks.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Trin, sorry I didn't respond to your earlier question but... I worked out Baker's dates in the NCC and he is almost certainly at Newhaven in May 1916! Time for me to read Square Peg methinks! Interesting though, I'd actually never heard of a non-CO in the NCC. There are definitely loads of naturalised Germans, but they're usually men who registered a conscientious objection on the grounds that they would not potentially be made to kill family members fighting on the other side. But then again we don't know much about the NCC, and a lot of what we do know is fairly recent research, military historians tend not to want to look at battalion histories of awkward COs. Edit: and CO histories tend to ignore the awkward men in uniform lenoon fucked around with this message at 21:10 on May 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Oh, don't worry, in a few months' time the War Office will have had time to think about what they do with naturalised Germans (or men with suspiciously German names) who wanted to fight, and they'll be off out of the NCC again. Apparently when someone first told Hew Strachan what had been done with them in the late 90s, he flat-out refused to believe it... Incidentally, I wonder whether this makes Mugge the only volunteer to have been on the strength of the NCC...
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago I'm going to be thinking about Edouard Durand all day, probably. 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Incidentally, I wonder whether this makes Mugge the only volunteer to have been on the strength of the NCC... That's where the NCC gets odd, there's a month or two of confusion between the Derby scheme and conscription that has patriotic students studying for the ministry around the country volunteering en masse on the condition that they wouldn't have to fight. Because they enlist in groups - there's a massive one of a couple of hundred in Wales that go to te NCC and the RAMC as the "Welsh ministers company" - the army accepts them and then wonders what the gently caress to do with them, so they hang around doing drill and being exempted from weapons training because the official word is "new unit for that sort is in the works chaps", then they end up in the NCC from March/Feb in Scotland onwards. So there's a few, but it has to be an extremely specific se of circumstances for it to happen.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:100 Years Ago There. THAT. Haig makes a choice that goes against everything else he's been writing about, committing too much too early. Why did he change his mind instead of going small and bigger later?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Jesus christ. I'm also a big fan of the guy a couple pics up who's rolling with two swords and four guns and kind of clutching them all comically to his person
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Comstar posted:There. THAT. Haig makes a choice that goes against everything else he's been writing about, committing too much too early. Why did he change his mind instead of going small and bigger later? Probably political pressure played a fairly large part in it. It's two years (ish) into the war by this point and the Brits still haven't won (or even really fought) an offensive battle in France. Also considering the beating the French had been taking at Verdun and all the scorn being poured on the Brits for not pulling their weight probably meant Haig wanted a big success to prove their worth. This combined with all of those generals harping in his ear about how they needed BIG OBJECTIVES to achieve a GRAND VICTORY, maybe he just hit a tipping point. It's also entirely possible of course that he just believed that the British could pull off this amazing victory. All the evidence (as far as they were concerned anyway) to that point in the war suggested a bigger bombardment = a bigger victory. So surely if you have the biggest bombardment ever, you'll have the biggest victory ever right?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:this is really cool to know a-hem. there is no reason for me to feel pissy about this but I do. Help, I'm turning into an academic! Or possibly a 30yw mercenary. Grand Prize Winner fucked around with this message at 04:54 on May 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
swamp waste posted:Jesus christ.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
This came up in my CYOA - what is the worst/funniest thing you know of to happen from miscommunication between nominal allies?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
LowellDND posted:This came up in my CYOA - what is the worst/funniest thing you know of to happen from miscommunication between nominal allies? Zimmermann Telegram, maybe? Granted, it wasn't miscommunication in the "BEADS?!!?" sense but it certainly was a fuckup.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Wheellock guns, yeah. The pistols were held totally sideways or at a 45 degree angle to better ensure that the priming powder was laying against the vent leading to the barrel. Echoing, but neat info. I gotta read up on them.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
LowellDND posted:This came up in my CYOA - what is the worst/funniest thing you know of to happen from miscommunication between nominal allies? The Battle of Barnet is hilarous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Barnet#Fighting_in_the_mist
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:a-hem. I'll have none of this. Either sue me or send me your seconds or take that back.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 12:00
|
|
|
LowellDND posted:This came up in my CYOA - what is the worst/funniest thing you know of to happen from miscommunication between nominal allies? I remember reading from some milhist book that Brits and Americans were close to having big problems with an operation in Pacific when one high ranking officer told his liaison officer to table the plans. quote:table (v.) in parliamentary sense, 1718, originally "to lay on the (speaker's) table for discussion," from table (n.). But in U.S. political jargon it has the sense of "to postpone indefinitely" (1866). Related: Tabled; tabling. But unfortunately I don't remember more about it.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 12:04
|
|
|
LowellDND posted:This came up in my CYOA - what is the worst/funniest thing you know of to happen from miscommunication between nominal allies? "The world wonders" is a pretty good example of how an innocuous mistake in communication can nearly gently caress up a battle totally. (between the same side, not between allies though). Edit: Just remembered this one from the Korean War: quote:On Tuesday afternoon, an American, Maj-Gen Robert H Soule, asked the British brigadier, Thomas Brodie: "How are the Glosters doing?" The brigadier, schooled in British understatement, replied: "A bit sticky, things are pretty sticky down there." To American ears, this did not sound too desperate. This was the  way of saying that 650 guys were under attack from an entire Chinese division.
MikeCrotch fucked around with this message at 12:55 on May 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
LowellDND posted:This came up in my CYOA - what is the worst/funniest thing you know of to happen from miscommunication between nominal allies? Charge of the Light Brigade?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
Comstar posted:There. THAT. Haig makes a choice that goes against everything else he's been writing about, committing too much too early. Why did he change his mind instead of going small and bigger later? I am still trying to work this out. It's not something that he appears ever to have written about himself, or if he did nobody else has ever published it. I'd love to know what the Official History thinks, but unlike most other countries, the IWM is still sitting on the volumes as a cash cow (if anyone's got access to it via a history department, let me know), and Bean's Australian history only tells us what Haig's orders were and doesn't attempt to go into his reasoning. Absent that, the most likely explanation is just another "so near, and yet so far" hangover after Loos. At Loos they broke the first line, then advanced right into the teeth of a second line between Hulluch and Lens and broke down. Rawlinson's takeaway (like the French) from all this has been "we must go step-by-step in order to achieve anything"; Haig's appears to have been "if we can bring enough force to bear on both lines at the same time, we can solve the problem that stopped us at Loos and achieve more than just a wearing-out battle!"
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 13:40
|
|
LowellDND posted:This came up in my CYOA - what is the worst/funniest thing you know of to happen from miscommunication between nominal allies? Everything Marshal Grouchy did during The Hundred Days campaign.
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
LowellDND posted:This came up in my CYOA - what is the worst/funniest thing you know of to happen from miscommunication between nominal allies? The Crusades were pretty rife with this; supposedly local Christian communities would send groups of soldiers over and they would be attacked because, whelp, they're armed locals, they must be hostile. Raymond ignoring the truce and plundering merchant caravans might be another example. And of course, everytime someone told the French knights "not to charge in unsupported like a bunch of goddamn idiots", and they went ahead and charged in like a bunch of goddamn idiots might count as well.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
LowellDND posted:This came up in my CYOA - what is the worst/funniest thing you know of to happen from miscommunication between nominal allies? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kar%C3%A1nsebes It wasn't even between allies - it was two parts of the same army fighting each other. Not surprisingly, a lot of alcohol was involved.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:I remember reading from some milhist book that Brits and Americans were close to having big problems with an operation in Pacific when one high ranking officer told his liaison officer to table the plans.  i have never heard the word "table" used to mean "discuss," only "do not discuss," that's "flammable/inflammable" levels of confusing
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
HEY GAL posted:
Yeah, Brits and Americans use "table" in completely opposite ways. Americans mean it as the bill is returned to the table without further discussion, while in Britain it means to take the bill off the table for discussion.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 17:37
|
|