|
 Trin Tragula made some time to talk to me a bit about WWI stuff for this and the next video. Full disclosure: I like to believe that I have some sort of ability to stay on topic and before we started I told him I would be guiding us through a disciplined conversation. That poo poo straight didn't happen and we ended up jumping all around WWI stuff with almost zero order. The two parts I split this into probably should have been a single thing, but I think giving a slight break in the action is for the best here simply because it means you don't need to listen to about an hour of me trying to sound like I know anything. My full knowledge of WWI is the couple weeks of lessons from high school, a book I breezed through that only covered the very high level stuff and the Great War YouTube channel's videos (I'm somewhere in 1915, so less helpful on some of the topics). Trin came in with like, notes and ideas and topics to cover and I was completely outgunned. That is more or less why I want to make talking to people about WWI a more regular part of the LP. I have a couple people lined up who will give us maybe some more unique perspectives from their respective countries, but really, I wasn't going to do better than someone who runs a site about covering the first World War in depth for any of the videos, so he may as well have been the first.
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:29 |
|
|
As an American, the only reason I know about the disaster that was Gallipoli is because as a child I lived in Nigeria for a year. Our British neighbors has a newfangled Betamax player, and Gallipoli was one of maybe three movies they had. I still vividly remember the finale of that movie 35+ years later. Jesus, what a thing to show a six year old.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
I think a lot of blame is put on generals in WW1 unfairly (not that they don't deserve blame, they do) because they are seen as the most visible faces responsible for the slaughters. However, WW1 was a failure of diplomacy and politics as well; the subtleties and secrets thereof make it a lot harder to assign blame to a single person. It's easier to spit curses at the man who says charge those machine gun nests, a lot harder to blame the secretary who files a document as per established beuracratic norms that eventually leads to the conflict in the first place, especially when that person is just one in a whole chain of people responsible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 08:50
|
|
|
"Ferdinand Folk"? Come on!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 11:33
|
|
|
Aside from a few really horrific examples (looks at Italy) WW1 Generals hands were sort of tied too on how things developed and rapidly got out of control. Warfare of the early 20th century with the shiny new toys associatied with it was new. They could really only study and second guess from the results of what their observers had witnessed on land in the Russio-Japanese War of 1905. In 1914 in the early mobile part of the war Mons and the Battle of the Frontiers really do resemble the Battle of Mukden. And British high commanding officers and generals are very strange people caught always in the constant transition of British national and international politics and attitudes of the times. They really are the opposite of the strange cold blooded Blackadder Goes Forth Hague stereotype for sure. Yes they gently caress up but really the 1st World War is a conflict that can be defined as a series of human gently caress up's from the lowest level to the loftiest one. Considering our own recent times my views on the generals and politicians of the era have relaxed for the most part unless directly associated with our modern gently caress up's (THE MIDDLE EAST) and well obviously war crimes/genocide. I also have my old very tattered GCSE History book kicking around (can't throw it away) and bascially what Trin says gets covered in a little more depth but then it fast forwards through the multiple conflicts through the globe to the end and covers the end with a certain treaty before moving onto the next module. In pop culture terms, it seems the Western Front has stolen the show. Barely anything outside Belgium and Northern France is touched. It's all mud, blood, suffering and the bit with the planes and tanks and lots of people died oh dear bad generals sadly. Recent Telly and Movie products themed around the conflict always seem to gravitate towards this era too. I sometimes fear this actually stereotypes the whole conflict into basicaly misery porn full of bad Tommy poetry and nobody actually learns anything.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
This excellent LP is getting excellenter and not just because of the repeated use of the word 'pillock'. When I went through UK secondary school 20 years ago I found the switch from the first 3 years where you went on a whistle stop tour of 1000 years of UK history for 3 years, to 2 years dedicated to the major events of the 20th century a bit of a drag. I had a pretty keen interest in history up till then but that started a decline which hasn't risen much since. My point is I really enjoyed the Historical Context video and I look forward to more. Apparently I now require interesting history to be fed to me over recorded footage of Battlefield 1.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
There is one fella who was pretty all-round a terrible person who individually made things worse for everyone during WW1; I refer, of course, to Conrad von Hötzendorf of Austria. In a world of out-of-touch aristos having influence over subjects they had no right being a hundred miles being, he was pretty terrible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
According to the letters to his SO it was all an act and he was a sensitive loving soul trying to keep pace in the macho world of KuK military.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Ooh, speaking of out of touch WWI-era Austrian aristocrats, a fact I learned a few years ago that I still cannot wrap my head around to this day is that Archduke Franz Ferdinand liked to hunt: From http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/8-things-didnt-know-franz-ferdinand/ quote:Franz Ferdinand was trigger-happy. He was 50 years old when he died, so assuming he started hunting as a newborn baby (which is not out of the question based on the info above) that's roughly 15 animals a day, every day of his life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Victorian and Edwardian gentlemen really liked to loving hunt. It's a wonder most species on earth survived the 19th century sometimes.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:Ooh, speaking of out of touch WWI-era Austrian aristocrats, a fact I learned a few years ago that I still cannot wrap my head around to this day is that Archduke Franz Ferdinand liked to hunt: Maybe he just corralled them into a pen and opened up with a Maxim.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Victorian and Edwardian gentlemen really liked to loving hunt. It's a wonder most species on earth survived the 19th century sometimes. I'm still just baffled by the scale of it. I know that aristocrats are men of leisure but even so, how do you have the time to kill that many animals? I could maybe understand it if the "score" was just the number of kills made by his entire hunting party, and he rolled 12 deep every day or something but...I mean drat. That record-breaking day where he killed 2,000 animals, I did the math and that's an animal and a half every minute, assuming he doesn't stop to eat or sleep. How do you even find that many animals? This historical fun fact is breaking down my understanding of reality I'm not even kidding
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Gargamel Gibson posted:"Ferdinand Folk"? Come on! Foch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Maybe he just corralled them into a pen and opened up with a Maxim. I've actually seen that floated as a theory behind his atronomical K/D ratio. It makes a measure of sense considering that driving animals into nets to be killed when trapped is a Stone Age invention and something done by/for royals the world over forever. Why not add a machine gun to the "sport?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Maybe he just corralled them into a pen and opened up with a Maxim. That might not work as well as you'd think. But, yeah, that is a freakish amount of hunting to do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
The only thing that makes sense to me is that he's lying, and there's no way any one person could hunt that hard. The tricky part is the 100,000 trophies that he apparently had in his estate...maybe he just bought some of them to show off? To bring this back on topic to BF1, I hope they release a franz Ferdinand hunting dlc somewhere down the line.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
There's also the ol' native American trick of driving a herd of wild animals out over a cliff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 22:16
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:The only thing that makes sense to me is that he's lying, and there's no way any one person could hunt that hard. The tricky part is the 100,000 trophies that he apparently had in his estate...maybe he just bought some of them to show off? Nope, he aint' lying. You can see a shitload of his hunting kills still in his former residence in Austria which is still around. And gently caress that idea, I want my Jutland DLC fight me.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:I'm still just baffled by the scale of it. I know that aristocrats are men of leisure but even so, how do you have the time to kill that many animals? I could maybe understand it if the "score" was just the number of kills made by his entire hunting party, and he rolled 12 deep every day or something but...I mean drat. I do know that they used to have people load the guns for them during hunts, and have several guns at once, so there wasn't any stopping between firing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:That might not work as well as you'd think. But, yeah, that is a freakish amount of hunting to do. I saw there was a link and immediately thought it was the Emu War, which is one of those weird moments in history. I tend to think that the reason you can't rule out that the Archduke and others used machine guns to massacre animals by the thousands just because of this is that the tactics were a bit different than what you would normally see on a imperial hunt. Like I mentioned before, the old technique is to drive animals into a set trap, nets and ditches or over a cliff or something. Once the first wave of them hit the trap it causes confusion and so hunters can take down animals with relative ease. The Emu War was more or less some Australians with machine guns shooting at stuff that came their way. Without a net or fence or anything to stop the emu or any other bounding area to keep them in one spot it was pretty easy for them to spread out or run right past the guns. In a way the parallels to machine gun use in WWI and the proposed Archduke Hunting Technique are strikingly similar. Attacking soldiers had to cut or wend their way through barbed wire, which slowed them down and made them easy targets for the guns. I guess I just like the symmetry of the guy whose death started WWI having used techniques that would be widespread in the same war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
White Coke posted:Foch. Exactly!
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
 Trin and I discuss WWI things in more detail. We talk a bit about Britain's role in the war again, but also cover his favorite myth of WWI and other fun (in a depressing way) stuff from the War. Incidentally, Trin is running a Goon War Table Top game and it's super worth getting into it now in the early days. For those who need a bit more encouragement: Trin is running three threads; the Observer thread I've linked, the German thread and the Entente thread. In the latter two threads goons have claimed different levels of command and are maneuvering towards objectives Trin's laid out on a map he created. The thread explains it in far more detail. It's shaping up to be really neat and you should check it out now. And bonus video time. Today I played a round of BF1 where I only used the Medic Class' syringe. It was initially supposed to be a pacifist run, but I eventually got the perfect opportunity to syringe an enemy and it had to be taken.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
I'm really impressed with BF1's color palette, it accurately captures how colorful real life is supposed to be despite of hellish conditions, instead of GRIMDARK brown, more brown and maybe beige. (*cough* Fallout:NV *cough*)
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
Palladium posted:I'm really impressed with BF1's color palette, it accurately captures how colorful real life is supposed to be despite of hellish conditions, instead of GRIMDARK brown, more brown and maybe beige. (*cough* Fallout:NV *cough*) I know the game takes place late war, but I'm hoping they eventually find a way to squeeze the early French uniforms in anyway 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
I can't think of a better "PLEASE SHOOT ME" painted on infantry, short of mounting christmas LED lights.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
As a matter of interest, not just to Trin but to the whole thread, what media set during WW1 and the run-up to, both fiction and non-fiction, would you say is good/interesting? I mean, I have read and enjoyed All Quiet on the Western Front, but I've been reading old British invasion literature pre-WW1 on Wikisource which, while they are very rarely 'good', are revealing in their ways (and also lead me to appreciate Wodehouse a lot more).
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 08:36
|
|
|
"Le pantalon rouge? C'est la France!" *officers wear white gloves*
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
Samovar posted:As a matter of interest, not just to Trin but to the whole thread, what media set during WW1 and the run-up to, both fiction and non-fiction, would you say is good/interesting? I mean, I have read and enjoyed All Quiet on the Western Front, but I've been reading old British invasion literature pre-WW1 on Wikisource which, while they are very rarely 'good', are revealing in their ways (and also lead me to appreciate Wodehouse a lot more). The second half begins by invading Poland, Norway and France. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 15:33
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:I know the game takes place late war, but I'm hoping they eventually find a way to squeeze the early French uniforms in anyway We've got no Battlefield game until 2019 (Battlefront 2 doesn't count) so I imagine eventually they will cave and find a way to cosmetics in one form or another. Considering your characters model changes when you slip into a specialist kit doesn't seem it would be impossible to do. I'd accept the middle of the road toned down 1915 version of these uniforms.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:We've got no Battlefield game until 2019 (Battlefront 2 doesn't count) so I imagine eventually they will cave and find a way to cosmetics in one form or another. Considering your characters model changes when you slip into a specialist kit doesn't seem it would be impossible to do. I'm hopeful "They Shall Not Pass" will have both crazy French equipment and uniforms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 18:17
|
|
Lazyfire posted:I'm hopeful "They Shall Not Pass" will have both crazy French equipment and uniforms. I'm going to speculate and predict they are going to use an artistic licence combination of the 1915 and 1916 modern uniform for the classes. The Kepi should hopefully show up for one class, the Scout will be getting a more traditional european style beret as he'd be a Chasseur. Also, I agree it is great the game went for a more lifelike colourful graphical style because gently caress shades of mud filters in war games.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
I hope we get a Cauchauct.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 19:43
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:I hope we get a Cauchauct. It's been confirmed multiple times in promo images and recently on the DLC's website with the other French weapons coming. Sadly, no three round Berthier.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
I had enough fun with the Syringe Only game that I decided to try other equipment-only ideas out in a couple other matches. Sadly, Limpet Only isn't quite as viable as I'd like and Pistols Only is probably left to someone with the ability to aim. I'll post the videos anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
are you saying they don't have any unlocks like all the different camo patterns in BF3 and BF4? Missed opportunity, outside of the French uniforms you can have a pretty big range of interesting uniforms that were regiment specific, such as basically any Scottish regiments or Canada's Royal Highland Regiment (also known as the Black Watch) that wore kilts at all times. I mean come on you had the option of wearing winter camo in woodland settings in BF3 and BF4 don't tell me people wouldn't rock a kilt or a cuirass if they had the option (I know I would if I owned this game)
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
Aces High posted:are you saying they don't have any unlocks like all the different camo patterns in BF3 and BF4? Missed opportunity, outside of the French uniforms you can have a pretty big range of interesting uniforms that were regiment specific, such as basically any Scottish regiments or Canada's Royal Highland Regiment (also known as the Black Watch) that wore kilts at all times. From what I remember, Battlefield 1 currently has no unlocks as you progress beyond giving you the ability to purchase new items with the currency you earn by completing matches. There's plenty of gun skins (including a lot of Bioshock-esque ones with engravings and swirling gold accents), but no skin changes yet. This also means that you can only get new guns with new accessory setups by purchasing them, rather than unlocking them over time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
you buy things? Isn't that how it worked in Hardline as well?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
Aces High posted:you buy things? Isn't that how it worked in Hardline as well? It is, but you can't mix and match attachments. You need to buy another copy of the weapon with a few specific attachments that can't be changed. It's meant to balance it out so you can't own everyone with the WW1 equivalent of a thermal scope and muzzle brake or whatever, but it does heavily decrease the customization options.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
For the moment they are quite tight lipped about anything customisation wise outside guns and vehicle skins with the usual arguments about RAM and console patching schedules. It'd be nice now if you could change your hat and upper body gear at some point. Also, I think it is an utter shame the Commonwealth Forces in the maps based on the Ottoman campaigns aren't decked out in what they wore in real life. Why should the Ottomans only wear sand white?!
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:29 |
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:It is, but you can't mix and match attachments. You need to buy another copy of the weapon with a few specific attachments that can't be changed. It's meant to balance it out so you can't own everyone with the WW1 equivalent of a thermal scope and muzzle brake or whatever, but it does heavily decrease the customization options. I mentioned this in the first multiplayer video, but I'll mention it again: I am super OK with the stripped down customization. In BC and other FPS games you can slap on attachments and change the nature and balance of weapons with few drawbacks. Because the attributes on some weapons are just a few points off what they are on other weapons, you can more or less reliably remove the sticks that are supposed to make you question using one gun (say bad recoil) by attaching something like a grip or laser sight. In BF11 the attachments are pre assigned and so the developers have direct control over balance. It makes it easier to reduce or increase a value without having to worry about how a particular set of attachments may subversion their intentions, or having to rebalance attachments themselves. They tried that with the Dart gun in BF3 and broke it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 17:59
|
|