|
Dramicus posted:Were you running any mods? nope! only a coloured buttons mod which i can't imagine having any impact also apparently mexico got confirmed on stream as getting a focus tree
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 10:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 03:04 |
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:I think there should be an achievement for accidentally nuking yourself. Not that it happens very often Technically there is, if you're playing Australia. Show those Emus what for!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 10:35
|
|
|
Hearts of Iron Ghouls IV: Man the Ghosts
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 13:09
|
|
|
Davincie posted:also apparently mexico got confirmed on stream as getting a focus tree    
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
You should watch yesterday's stream if you haven't already. They spend almost as much time tiptoeing around unannounced or unfinished features as they do showing off the changes. Nothing really new but will give you insight I to what to expect. The new US focus tree and politics system is really different from what other countries have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 17:41
|
|
|
Psychotic Weasel posted:Nothing really new but will give you insight I to what to expect. The new US focus tree and politics system is really different from what other countries have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 17:48
|
|
|
I've accidentally nuked myself in MP before. The nuke landed on a group of enemy divisions opposite my line, but because I technically had control of the state it ended up crippling my supply and causing all sorts of problems for me. So yeah check that before you drop the big ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:We already got a DD on the US Senate/House and whatever - do you mean something more than that? Seeing it being used is much different than just reading about how it will work. You can't just grab a focus because it's what you want, many of them require a threshold of senators and congressmen to choose and others will result in you either gaining or losing support when you finsh so you have to look at what you want, determine if you are able to actually get it and if not what else can you do to help gain the support you need. And from there, based on the outcome of whatever your first choice was, you have to plan on what you'll be able to do next if you end up potentially losing or gaining a bunch of support which could impact future choices. Thanks to a bunch of random events (which kept loving with Daniel in the stream) your plans may have to further change. Many of them were just random '# senators' choose to defect/side with you but there were also some where if you prioritized some type of development in specific areas you would gain support. But if you said yes and failed you'd lose support instead so you can't just say yes to everyone and shrug your shoulders when they get pissed. I found it neat. And it changed up the "beeline down optimal path and ram tanks into each other" gameplay that you typically see.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
anything to give the us something to do until they can join the war
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 12:09
|
|
|
Personally, I would really be interested in some kind of military industrial complex simulation for the USA that combines with the production system. You could make the 36-40 period all about designing and procuring equipment for the war. Maybe force the player to spend political influence if they want certain equipment early, to simulate stuff like how the US military absolutely hated the Thompson and had no interest in equipping the army with SMGs until they were forced to recognize their worth in the hands of the enemy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mby4hOq-DpI This video is about the post-war period and the m14 vs rejected AR10, FAL and later the m16, but it still applies to how the US military mindset was when it came to adopting new equipment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 19:12
|
|
|
Dramicus posted:how the US military absolutely hated the Thompson and had no interest in equipping the army with SMGs until they were forced to recognize their worth in the hands of the enemy. What was the reason for this? I'm starting to find the behind-the-scenes stuff of WW2 pretty cool. The thread brought up the tank destroyer doctrine of the US and the inter-service rivalry Japan had which hurt their war efforts. I want to know more about home front/chain of command squabbles which affected combat effectiveness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
buglord posted:What was the reason for this? I'm starting to find the behind-the-scenes stuff of WW2 pretty cool. The thread brought up the tank destroyer doctrine of the US and the inter-service rivalry Japan had which hurt their war efforts. I want to know more about home front/chain of command squabbles which affected combat effectiveness. Don't know about the Thompson scuffle but German tank production is a huge one in HOI4 diverting from reality. This lecture goes into how hosed up it was compared to the USA and USSR. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6xLMUifbxQ&t=1576s
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
the only way to simulate germany's industrial setup properly would also make germany utterly unplayable
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
A completely accurate simulation of World War 2 would be a terrible game because the outcome of the war would be a foregone conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
buglord posted:What was the reason for this? I'm starting to find the behind-the-scenes stuff of WW2 pretty cool. The thread brought up the tank destroyer doctrine of the US and the inter-service rivalry Japan had which hurt their war efforts. I want to know more about home front/chain of command squabbles which affected combat effectiveness. There were several reasons for this, such as the old guard insisting that men should be trained for 1 shot 1 kill instead of spraying ammunition at the enemy, but the biggest reason was that the Thompson was developed by a private entity. The US Ordinance board was immensely resistant to using non-government developed weapons and actively sabotaged any prospective equipment from the private sector. This continued until the Vietnam war when the m16 was adopted and an investigation found that there was a conspiracy to get the m14 readopted at any expense, including soldier's lives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
Acute Grill posted:A completely accurate simulation of World War 2 would be a terrible game because the outcome of the war would be a foregone conclusion. I'd say it'd be a good start. You can then use their existing "strengthen country X" sliders if you want to buff up the Axis to make it a 50/50 shot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
Dramicus posted:There were several reasons for this, such as the old guard insisting that men should be trained for 1 shot 1 kill instead of spraying ammunition at the enemy, but the biggest reason was that the Thompson was developed by a private entity. The US Ordinance board was immensely resistant to using non-government developed weapons and actively sabotaged any prospective equipment from the private sector. This continued until the Vietnam war when the m16 was adopted and an investigation found that there was a conspiracy to get the m14 readopted at any expense, including soldier's lives. the US BuOrd was a bit of a clusterfuck
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
Thanks for the responses everyone. I'm gonna watch the vid and look into the M16 fiasco. Christ, sucks to die using an old gun because someone would get their feelings hurt if you used a new model.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
In fairness when the m16 was first deployed to Vietnam you'd also have died because it jammed 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
VostokProgram posted:In fairness when the m16 was first deployed to Vietnam you'd also have died because it jammed It jammed because the US Bureau of Ordnance refused to issue cleaning kits because they wanted it to jam so they could switch back to the m14 which was produced by government arsenals. Also, they issued the wrong ammunition (higher powered than the ammunition tested in the Armalite factory), for the same reason. This is what the investigation found and ever since then, the weapons have been produced by the private sector. Dramicus fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Oct 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
The MY Carbine was a better weapon of war than the Thompson anyhow. Edit: I meant M1, dang it. Zorak of Michigan fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Oct 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 02:00
|
|
|
buglord posted:What was the reason for this? I'm starting to find the behind-the-scenes stuff of WW2 pretty cool. The thread brought up the tank destroyer doctrine of the US and the inter-service rivalry Japan had which hurt their war efforts. I want to know more about home front/chain of command squabbles which affected combat effectiveness. The big deal with .45 smgs from thompson etc wasn't that they were less than what the troops wanted but rather the price, and that troops could have a shitload of grease guns vs. thompsons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 02:13
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:The MY Carbine was a better weapon of war than the Thompson anyhow. Most veterans will readily admit that that Thompson was great to have in a firefight, but that no one wanted to carry the bitch around in the meanwhile.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
The one time I fired a Thompson at a shooting range, there was an old WW2 vet who started going on about how the sound of a Thompson would scare the crap out of all the Germans and made them more likely to surrender without a fight. I could see it, really, it sounds intimidating as gently caress. They're really not very heavy, I think an M249 weighs twice as much and those really aren't too bad once you get used to them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 05:44
|
|
|
I would assume it's more of an ammo thing
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 06:41
|
|
|
Also it's in comparison to other weapons at the time, the Thompson weighs more than an m1 garand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 07:11
|
|
|
That's why I love the M1 Carbine so much. It delivered a much more powerful round than the Thompson but weighed half as much. It's not fully automatic, but full auto isn't always a blessing. Consider the Army's flirtation with three round burst on the M16 and M4...
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
SMGs are sick. Just look at the PPSh. metal
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2018 10:28
|
|
|
Dramicus posted:It jammed because the US Bureau of Ordnance refused to issue cleaning kits because they wanted it to jam so they could switch back to the m14 which was produced by government arsenals. Also, they issued the wrong ammunition (higher powered than the ammunition tested in the Armalite factory), for the same reason. This is what the investigation found and ever since then, the weapons have been produced by the private sector. I have approximately zero knowledge of the history of US small arms procurement, but this sounds hella  , got any sources for this stuff?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
Loezi posted:I have approximately zero knowledge of the history of US small arms procurement, but this sounds hella It seems fairly plausible to me. Military contracts are all politically driven. The idea that they would deliberately sabotage a contract that didn't go the way they wanted even at the cost of soldier's lives isn't particularly far-fetched. It's not about the M16, but the movie "The Pentagon Wars" covers this kind of thing. There's a well known clip from it about the development of the Bradley and the clusterfuck it became - dramatized, but still basically representing the process of "build what the brass wants, not what the troops want".
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2018 16:31
|
|
|
Loezi posted:I have approximately zero knowledge of the history of US small arms procurement, but this sounds hella https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mby4hOq-DpI This guy does a good job of explaining how it went down. None of it is , the federal investigation into why the m16s were failing and the findings are all public. Ever since then, all small arms have been produced by the private sector to avoid similar conflicts of interest where the ones choosing the weapons are also the ones producing some.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2018 18:12
|
|
|
Loezi posted:I have approximately zero knowledge of the history of US small arms procurement, but this sounds hella A Congressional investigation was called at one point, and the actual report they produced is publicly available now. A bit of reading suggests it's a mix of truth and exaggeration - the problems described were real, but only some of them were due to malice and bias by the procurers. While there was certainly a lot of bias toward the M14 on the part of the people overseeing the decisions, there were also problems stemming from the design of the gun itself, as well as problems in dealing with the private companies that sold the M16 to the Army, and problems stemming from the confused and poorly planned way in which the US blundered its way into Vietnam in the first place. And there's plenty of incompetence to go around on all sides. The report actually goes out of its way to note that, due to turnover and bureaucratic shuffling in the Ordnance Corps at the time, the M16 was actually shielded from the "traditional bias against any item which was not Ordnance developed", and that the gun would have been far worse if the Chief of Ordnance position had been filled. On the other hand, the program was badly mismanaged on all levels, with little actual oversight or direction, which was found to be primarily responsible for most of the issues. For example, the change in ammunition wasn't a matter of sabotage. It seems that the manufacturer of the original ammo type suddenly decided they couldn't keep up with Army purchasing demands, forcing the Army to look for alternative ammo. The alternative ammo proved to be problematic, but poor test protocols meant that took a while to emerge, and in any case the military couldn't find anyone willing to make better ammo for quite a while. There were also other issues, such as the fact that administrative confusion and a focus on getting men and guns to the frontlines meant that a lot of people ended up not actually getting trained on the M16. For example, at the beginning of 1968: quote:Although men generally preferred to carry this weapon in combat, some misgivings were entertained about its reliability. Introduction of the chromed chamber appeared to reduce the number of failures to extract, but this improvement had not been fielded long enough to permic adequate evaluation. Additional data collected indicated that: As for the lack of cleaning kits for the gun, it seems that the Army had originally not placed much importance on that since they didn't expect to be using the M16 as their primary weapon, so when the sudden demands of the Vietnam War had forced the gun into full service, the Army was left woefully unprepared. For example, the gun didn't originally come with chamber brushes, and the Army didn't sign a contract to buy them until 1966. Between that and the training problems, many M16s were very badly maintained, but the report doesn't ascribe that to malicious intent on anyone's part. quote:3. "That shortages of cleaning equipment, lack of proper training and instructions contributed to the excessive malfunction rate of the -M16 rifle in Vietnam."
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
Dramicus posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mby4hOq-DpI I'm sure that never happens anymore lol.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:I'm sure that never happens anymore lol. Well we did have that nonsense with the Bradley... and XM8 rifle... and the littoral... and the F35....
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
Dramicus posted:Well we did have that nonsense with the Bradley... and XM8 rifle... and the littoral... and the F35.... whatever did happen to the XM8
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
Cling-Wrap Condom posted:whatever did happen to the XM8 military decided that it didnt really give that many benefits for the cost. Like yeah its nice but its not really a quantum leap over regular rear end M4s
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 00:25
|
|
|
Cling-Wrap Condom posted:whatever did happen to the XM8 I think it was a similar issue to the SCAR where the big selling point of a "modular combat rifle" that can be configured to fit multiple roles as needed turned out to not really be worth the trouble and that just having specialized equipment is fine. Incidentally this is also the problem with the F35 but Lockheed has more lobbying money than H&K did I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:military decided that it didnt really give that many benefits for the cost. Like yeah its nice but its not really a quantum leap over regular rear end M4s They ended up going for the HK416, which is basically just a German refresh of the M4 design. Right now it's just the Marines and special forces using it though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
I don’t even know anything about planes, but if you told me you wanted one chassis to cover everything from interception, escort, cas, bombing, carrier operation, vtol etc. I’d laugh my rear end off. gently caress the F35. You need specialized tools for good results under war conditions, not some flying Swiss Army knife with 30 different blades on it. E: don’t use a steak knife when you need a stiletto
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 06:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 03:04 |
|
|
Why worry about manufacturing good guns when 50% of the people firing them don't want to hit the enemy anyway?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2018 06:25
|
|