新发表

Bump

Everyone will be sent a message privately to make sure they know what time to show up tmr

作者： Domo, 29.11.2024 at 10:29

Good ol' times….

Nice doggo

Good ol' times….

作者： 77TENGRI99, 02.10.2024 at 06:04

the perfect team, it was an honor kangz...

Victory conditions are back to "Capture home country" because people can't resist the urge to abuse the Iron Throne mechanic

作者： Evic, 16.11.2024 at 02:19

Modern easily, casualties are at an all time low, much higher chances of surviving, better medicine and above all at least you get supplied food on a regular basis.
And while death can come from everywhere, im sure its an easier death being blow up by a drone than it is getting hacked to bits by a peasant with an axe.

Casualties are at an all time low for the first world countries that fought against 3rd world shit holes maybe. But peer and near peer conflicts have only just started beginning in the modern era, our only example now is the Russo Ukrainian war and that is not an all time low casualty war, there's estimates running for both sides at a million to nearly two million dead in higher estimates. Trench warfare is back with heavy shelling, soldiers getting trench foot, pneumonia, and suffering sepsis without access to hospitals like the first world war. The massive tank battles and air war of second world war. On top of this with modern military systems like night vision, thermals, and laser guided rockets as well as drones you have to worry about, and you're not guaranteed to be one of the fortunate units that deals with thermal and night vision equipment. So unless you're fighting in one of the worlds premier militaries that either has a small army but good economy and therefore ability and desire to equip well, like Germany or UK, or a huge army with big budget like US, you are fucked. Besides the point DOD is finding out that materiel quantity is a big factor too in wars of attrition so the longer a war goes the less likely you'll have good equipment.

Sascha mom is such a nice lady

WW2, best of both worlds. No having to worry about fighting close quarters with axes and swords, but also no absolute horrors of mankind's military evolution weapons capable of launching 20+ laser guided missiles watching you through a thermal camo that can see you in thick woods of the modern era, no trenches of WW1 and Napoleonic is a bonus too, I don't know what I'd do though. I had family on both sides of the war, my great grandpa on Dad's side was a US Army engineer and on my mom's side there were 11th armata Italian soldiers.

作者： Croat, 26.03.2022 at 15:38

Hi lads,

As most of you know, I am a complete competitive fag. I barely played 10 scenarios in my life. I have tried some, but all those were only time-losing (for me, of course) and I didn't have any kind of excitement while playing them. I couldn't even find any kind of enjoyment in that 'usual' WW1 by Aetius. It was too big, too long and too complicated for me. On the other side, I can understand that it's probably because I'm not that experienced in scenarios and that I am definitely not being someone with credits to give my review on it.

But what I can review is following. Today, completely accidentally, from boredom, I joined this scenario made by Reichsheer:


It is basically WW1, similar to Aetius's one, but fully relieved and simplified. Also, it's number of players is reduced to 7, which is much more easy to follow and to adapt even for scenario noobs like me. As Khauman called it - a pocket WW1. Each country has it major 'task' and couple (possible) smaller tasks which depend on how the game between warring sides develop. First time ever I really enjoyed playing an actual scenario and tryharded while playing it. It was finally a super scenario experience for me, one of the most concerned competitive players.

Definitely a honest recommendation to everyone and I will surely give it another tries whenever I can. Try it

Why can't I find this game anymore?

LOL

Why are we USSR!? We should be The USA

In order to save maps for future matches I give em a star so I can easily find em in My Rating since there's no map favoriting or bookmark system.
Whenever I do that with scenarios though the rating never saves forcing me to have to look for certain maps every time I wanna play em.

The tempest effect

作者： temp, 28.11.2024 at 17:14

From 1269.7 elo to 1116.9 elo...

Nazi Germany and allies: Enigma

Poland: Belligerent
Blue Dragons: France
USSR: Prestige
Paradox: United Kingdom
Greece: Hellenism
Djibouti: Yugoslavia
goth girls haven: Australia
EC and Illyria: America



The empire me and Dominoz built will be remembered...

the disrespect to Belli... but fair enough ig

From 1269.7 elo to 1116.9 elo...

Nazi Germany and allies: Enigma

Poland: Belligerent
Benelux, Norway, and Denmark: Ship of Theseus
France: Blue Dragons
Yugoslavia: Djibouti Legion
Greece: Hellenism
USSR: Prestige
United Kingdom: Paradox
Australia: goth girls haven
America: EC and Illyria



The empire Dominoz and I built will be remembered...

作者： Palmitas, 28.11.2024 at 16:25

@alpenglow

His Burgerskieg one looks very promising for a Civil War game with a couple people and his American Civil War 1v1 looks very good as well. Thank you friend.

@alpenglow

My friends and I wanna have a Civil War match night and I haven't been able to find a decent map. Does anyone have any map recommendations?

Bombers stronger than SM bombers. Lol

My laugh will be delivered in 5-7 business days

作者： temp, 27.11.2024 at 13:26

Bro this is a little cringe but I laughed a bit thanks for the funny post!

作者： Augustus Caesar, 27.11.2024 at 12:49

I'd upvote and laugh if someone else had posted this

It's a you problem I am afraid

♥

Hi Sascha

作者： Dave, 15.10.2024 at 22:40

This is something that has been rolling around in the back of my mind for a while....

There seem to be two competing schools of thought on this. One is that "people are basically good", but sometimes resort to doing bad things because of their conditions/environment/failings of society/etc. ...

The other school of thought is that people are basically bad, but can choose to do good. ...

My personal take on it is that people are inherently... selfish. ...

All that being said -- if people are generally selfish (or on the spectrum of being "bad", if you will), why isn't the world an even more horrible place than it already is?

So there we have 2 competing forces -- one the desire to get whatever we want regardless of who's expense at which it comes, but at the same time the desire to be liked or thought well of by others, which restrains us a bit.

Am I on the right track here, or am I missing something?

TLDR:
The vast majority of us are mostly bad... but we're trying to get better.

More detailed response:

I think about these things often as well. Bottom line is, people will have their own views based on their experiences, so what makes sense to one person might be counter intuitive to someone else.

My ideas have changed over the years, so presently, my experience is this:

People are at different stages of growth. We all come into this world with different levels of 'virtue/goodness' (service to others) and 'badness' (service to self - i.e. selfishness) and the majority of us are 'Rank 1s and 2s' but there are a handful of Rank 15's (your Ghandi or Martin Luther King).

The 'goal' is to evolve... to move from selfishness to virtue, but there are so many variables at play, it's difficult to know what might make one person evolve, while another one devolves.

For instance, you could come into this world with a high level of virtue, but you may experience some things early on, like death of a parent, abuse by an aunt or uncle, poverty or what have you. It could crush you, and at some point, your survival instincts might kick in, and you become more self-focused, and 'level down'. However, those experiences might be overcome, and you come out stronger and more compassionate in the end, leading a life of helping others who experience similar tragedy (perhaps a counselor or therapist), leading to a 'level up'.

Alternatively, you could come in with low level of virtue, and those same experiences could turn you into a serial killer (the vast majority of documented serial killers had serious neglect or abuse from one of their parents). This would be a level down. But perhaps you have an insight, and vow never to do the same things your abusive parents did to you, and you keep your promise to yourself and never abuse your own children. This would be a level up, from Rank 1 to Rank 2.

Your choices are what lead to the leveling up or leveling down. Choice is free will being exercised, and it is the vehicle by which you evolve or devolve.

Some of us can look back at who we were 10 years ago, and clearly see that evolution in our virtue has evolved (or devolved.)

And some of us can look back and see we're much the same person. (I observe this a lot more with people who were 'cool' or 'popular' in high school.)

So yes, environment plays a role, but we all know people who have experienced similar environments, yet the choices they make (and choosing one's attitude is also a choice) lead to tremendous differences in outcomes. So it's not simply 'environment' or 'genetics'.

Just my 2 cents... adjusted for inflations that's like an eighth of a cent.

♥

1

This is something that has been rolling around in the back of my mind for a while.... I thought it would be interesting to see what you all have to say about the topic.

There seem to be two competing schools of thought on this. One is that "people are basically good", but sometimes resort to doing bad things because of their conditions/environment/failings of society/etc. This kind of thinking seems prevalent mostly on the politically left-leaning side of the spectrum. (I would call it "wishful thinking".)

The other school of thought is that people are basically bad, but can choose to do good. I think this idea tends to align with Christian philosophy, i.e. that man is "fallen" and therefore lives in a state of sin, but by faith/choices/good works can become good. I think this also aligns with conservative ideology / politically right-leaning people who tend to be more rational / logic-based in their view of the world (whereas the left are more emotional-based), because any rational person looking around at the condition of the world would have to acknowledge there are a lot of bad people out there.

My personal take on it is that people are inherently... selfish. I view selfishness as a bad quality in general (although there are always limits/exceptions), so if there is a spectrum from good to bad, most people are somewhere on the bad side.

Certainly humans are capable of great evil, i.e. your Hitlers, Stalins, etc., but that's the extreme. Most people are not murderers -- but I do think most people are predictably too self-centered in their decision making. I'm talking about people who care about their own desires more than (or at the expense of) the needs of others, if they even think of others at all, and who take advantage whenever they feel they can get away with it. People who naturally lie, cheat, or steal for personal gain (no matter how small). In my experience the majority % of people fall into this category.

(And yes it should be stated here that "good" people do exist, i.e. people who genuinely care about others above themselves, who often make sacrifices at great personal cost for the needs of others, or for the objective moral "right thing to do". But based on my "lived experience" I would say this is a minority % of the population to be sure. When you find genuinely good people, you should cherish them!)

All that being said -- if people are generally selfish (or on the spectrum of being "bad", if you will), why isn't the world an even more horrible place than it already is?

It occurs to me that there is at least one other force going in the other direction -- people's inherent need to be "liked" by other people. Certainly the importance of this influences different people to varying degrees -- some people are extremely sensitive to what others think of them, some very little so. But it seems to me that this a fairly universal phenomenon.

So there we have 2 competing forces -- one the desire to get whatever we want regardless of who's expense at which it comes, but at the same time the desire to be liked or thought well of by others, which restrains us a bit.

Am I on the right track here, or am I missing something?