Gaizokubanou

You are right, but I still can't quite shake off that sense of funny-irony like staring at a price tag on Communist Manifesto.

Anyone have any thoughts on CoH2 Ardennes Assault? It's 75% off and last CoH I played was the first one so I was wondering.

It probably had lot to do with day 1 DLC too... back then it was a lot touchy subject, so two combined probably gave lot of haters ammunition. About the MP, can it be enjoyed alone? Kinda weird question perhaps but I would love to scratch my horde mode itch (KF2's monster designs allude me a little bit still).

You know what, I kinda take lot of what I said back, I think the game's focus is fine as is. Almost all the major complaints feel like people were expecting too much EU4 clone, UI issues, and that test games were done with 20 ppl multiplayer. Out of those 3, only the UI needs fixing IMO. That basically means... you are replacing countries with bigger ones? How would that help 'problem' of playing a minor if the solution is to just remove the minor nations? And on side note, Romania play is totally viable in HoI3, just not for the reasons most of us want Kinda. Obviously say, 1v1 game and one player picks Germany while other picks Brazil... yeah that's going to bomb, but minor nations in multiplayer sorta works in larger games where top tier players take the majors and are for the most part, evenly matched. That let smaller nations to contribute as a tipping point. Keep in mind that noone in HoI3 community really expected HoI3 to work as 'gather random 20 ppl and just play and have fun' kind of multiplayer game... if there were multiplayer sessions, it had to be planned out, you left major powers to the best so the game doesn't tank (nothing like newbie major power sinking their faction), etc. It was a fickle thing, but with a game this complicated, I think it was a fair trade off.

'Victory Condition' (the one that nobody cares about in Paradox games ) actually doesn't require Allies to completely crush Axis. In fact, in 1936 starting condition, if no major war happens in the game, Allies 'win' by default cause they already hold most of the victory point location. Problem is also largely thematic I think. It's pitched as WWII war-game. People playing it then should and do want a WWII. But it's also a Paradox game post EU4/CK2. It's just this really awkward starting date (for European powers that is) that contrasts with its pitch. On one hand is clear war-game pitch. On another because its Paradox game post EU4/CK2, people also expect this grand long term game that transcends a single war in scope. Then combine that with this weird starting date for major western powers. 1936 actually works out well for Japan, but for USA/UK, it's this weird mobilization game where your hands are tied behind your back. Germany/Italy/USSR at least get to have a full swing at mobilizing their armies in that period. That's why I think they should just increase the time frame and pitch the game as modern-grand-combined-arms-strategy game... but might be too late to change such core identity (confusing one to new comers no doubt) so ehhh IDK You know what, my mistake, there is actually something close to it called national unity... but it rarely matters (if you can inflict say, 40 national unity hit, reaching 100 won't be that far off) so I kinda forgot about it ever existing lol I mean it kinda matters for USSR because they gain about 30 through events from 1936 ~ 1939 but even then, it's possible to win with USSR with like no NU hit so it still hardly matters as long as it's not abysmally low, which it never is.

Maybe this is super obvious but just to be clear, this is to be considered along with other forms of privileges and how strongly they are presented in a given situation? On more broader topical note, Japan seems like such a fascinating example because of its non-white-yet-imperial history... like lot of this stuff that I'm reading, now I recall hearing similar sentiment in Korea in 1990s, except replace white with Japanese. I was way too young to realize what I was listening to of course.

So the true crime (outside of extreme edge cases where culture is being desecrated upon (I guess that's cultural mis-appropriation?)) is that it's ignoring people (to their detriment) for the surface factor. Because otherwise the would be appropriator would both inherit/absorb the foreign culture they like while also giving credit/benefit to the actual people that carried the culture on. So hmm yeah it sounds very close to the notion of IP mixed with power disparity, which is making lot more sense. Question though, how do you go on about power disparity problem if there is a mismatch between societal scale and individual scale? Say a very powerful individual belonging to marginalized group takes in ton of surface level historical material of dominant culture? Also the difference in culture among classes? I suppose these are meant to be difficult cases that should require careful consideration to the specifics at hand?

Really good points tberton, good stuff~

Cultural mis-appropriation that leads to desecration of something sacred or mis-appropriation leading to mis-representation are such an obvious far off example but yeah beyond those I too am having difficult time seeing the problem when it comes to more mundane stuff, like everyday fashion, etc. Saw something 'similar'... this youtube cover singer I follow got some hate (being called racist, etc.) for changing lyrics of Japanese anime songs originally written in English cause some of them had lot of engrish in the lyrics. For example, that song "Before My Body Is Dry" from "Kill La Kill". Kinda sad to see her getting trolled when she is one of most anime loving person I follow. Double sad to see her being called out for supposed racism by randos because she's black (not that marginalized groups are incapable of racism, I don't see it here so that's why it enhances the irony). Or when this American artist I follow on twitter got called out for using Chinese character on her name because that was deemed offensive to Chinese people. These are kinda very trollish stuff though (second one isn't even cultural appropriation... but I mentioned because it was accused as such when ethnicity of the accused wasn't clear to the accuser) so I'm wondering what are some more in-between stuff.

Basically we have Patton as head of government for all Ally faction Supremely well put~ Good thing is 1939 scenario kinda puts this issue aside but great majority of Paradox fans (including meee) love the earliest start...

Is the flash sale counter broken and set to 30+ hours? Edit: NVM, it kinda fixed itself soon after I posted this

Hey can you resize that comic lol it's freaking huge~

HoI2 and 3 did not. IIRC only victory points (major provinces had this thing called victory points that simulated the operational value of the land) is the only thing that mattered when it comes to surrender. It's actually not that uncommon to see many major powers completely deplete on manpower and continue to fight the war with under-reinforced armies. Also unlike EU4, it's also not uncommon for industry heavy nations like Germany to actually be able to convert all of their manpower to fighting force (no army size penalty here so more you build (and can supply), more you field so no point in having reserve manpower pool) But still, that's a surrender condition. Still doesn't quite explain why Allies were material wise capable but unwilling to fight the war. If they just implemented national morale hit from casualties and Allies were highly susceptible to it, all that would do is make Axis/Commitern victory easier. Allies would still want to get in the war ASAP to maximize their industry (democratic nations have national laws that lock away most of their industry in peace time so that Axis doesn't get roflstomped) before Axis gains power. Actually now that I mention it that is interesting... due to the way national laws are setup, it is Axis and Commitern that wants to delay the war for a while so they can maximize their peacetime advantage. Commitern it makes sense since USSR was historically looking to buy time more than anything... But as for Germany, the fact that their peace time military buildup cannot be challenged by the Allies always pushed Allies for wanting to declare war ASAP. It's just this really weird problem coming out of the fact that Paradox locked away best national laws for war time. Kinda makes sense that in a war game, convincing your nation to be more warlike when at war seems logical but because it's a wargame (big war is inevitable), that makes everyone eager for war to maximize their potentials.

Other than Unicorn, what were the 2 series you tried to watch? On Unicorn, mixed feelings from me.

Might pick up Wolfenstein cause I could use some FPS in my life right now... I know i'll get the EU4 expansions so it's just a question of what else do I pick up?

Yes pleaseee~ Gundam franchise also went through some serious variation in tone and style so it might have to be narrowed down a bit... like there is a huge gulf between 0080 and G-Gundam for example (and both being rather drastic departure from other Gundams that have this strong theme of trans-humanism). I recommend 0080 War in the Pocket to everyone.

DARPA? More like DERPA kekekekekeke I'm so sorry for that obvious and cheesy pun...

Dang, well now they gray it out so it's really easy to tell if you have it in your library. I feel pretty proud about my 'backlog', in that only things in there are stuff from bundles. Everything else I gave it at least a good 15 ~ 30 minutes shot.

@Twig, I'm sorry to report that my search for cinnamon added tea is not going well. Asked my family members and they all gave me this bewildered look. Still looking though.

And I don't know like 90% All I have for my anime cred is FLCL, Eva, Gundams, etc... I can go deep in that Gundam hole though.

This is indeed an odd design challenge in a game that's this specifically about war. Like, this is far easier to envision reasons to want a peace in more comprehensive games like Civ or EU series. But HoI series is about THE war, a single war. This war is going to happen and winning this war is all that matters... there is nothing else in HoI universe, so why would any participants be reluctant to engage in it when they already are? Maybe they will implement it so that you can't pick the best national laws even when you are in a war as democratic power, and in order to get your country ready for war you need time, but it's doubtful that will be fun at all. I'm fine with HoI game being in this awkward thing it is, but I also wouldn't mind them just throwing out the rigid "World War II" theme out and just embracing more broader "Modern-Motorized-Combined-Arms-Grand-Strategy" as well. All I want are the grand battles simulated, afterall. Don't care much that it's WWII or some bananas war cooked up by devious players and crazy RNG. Because it just sounds like everyone at the event wanted something to do with diplomacy ala EU4, while HoI series was never ever ever about some diplomatic maneuvering. EU was about how you start wars, while HoI's theme made it so that was an answered question, and instead tackled how you fought it. I doubt Paradox wants to restrict the scope of HoI4 into more narrow wargame, so then they might as well as expand it.

I'll ask my mom (thanks Kamiya (lol site trying to correct this into kamikaze)) about cinnamon based Korean drinks and get a list of plausible candinates.

When you drank it did it have any sweetness to it?

Bori-cha? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roasted_barley_tea That is the most common tea in South Korea (some of us replace drinking water with it almost completely) so I'm just taking a stab at it.

All the pre war stuff pretty much boils down to building up your army and customizing it that way. You can try weird stuff with diplomacy but the game is just not built to withstand going too ahistorical (for example, Hungary's aggression never ticks off any major powers in the world, which allows it to gobble up everything one by one in very silly manner). About the micromanagement, there is... a way to get around that via corps, army, army group and theater HQ assignment but setting that up itself is so tedious that yes, the game is indeed pretty fucking horrendous when it came to UI, even when it was for stuff the game is suppose to be best at (large land warfare). And as for the the game guiding you into the meat of the game (large land warfare)... yep, you are right it doesn't do that well at all. There are too many distractions and ultimately pointless features that keeps teasing the players of something other than a grand war game with heavy focus on land. All I've been saying is, that's what the game is amazing at and the game is really good IF players can be guided into that experience. Like you won't get any arguments from me regarding to game's near-impenetrable feel, even to lot of Paradox fans. Or that it has ton of questionable designs. Just saying that there is something amazing in there that is indeed not focused very well by rest of the game at all.