Search results for query: *

Apocal said:

It was noticeable right from the start.

Click to expand...

What do you mean? All TW had to do was add features to the game from Warband that players would like! But they can't add things like Ironman mode because the players won't like that. But they have to patch the game! But they can't because mods will break and how could TW do that.

This happens in every single community for a game and I swear to god I'm going to lose my damn mind.

Apocal said:

Maybe new content will bring a few back but TW isn't Paradox, so there is nothing on the horizon, three YEARS after its release.

Click to expand...

Paradox content releases are pretty slow, especially with games like CK3. Even EU4 gets content releases once or twice a year at most.

FireBlazinCandy said:

cuck for TW

Click to expand...

Confirmed, TW actually ****ed my one love.

Ser Jon said:

And dishonesty, really? You can't even be honest with yourself about this. You have been assuming ill-intent this entire time and you want it to be that they just didn't care and whatever else you claimed, so nothing is ever going to convince you of otherwise. So, guess we just have to agree to disagree, don't we?

Click to expand...

When Mad Vader doesn't have any arguments that can change the course of a conversation he tends to try and attack your character.

AoC said:

That's true, but right now i see a lot more far-left in democrats than far-right in republican.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say you're looking correctly. Currently in the US we have a massive issue with the Far-Right in the GOP, specifically with Trump's influence over the party. Far-Right beliefs in the US are a lot more dangerous then Far-Left ones.

NPC99 said:

American far right politics seems devoid of common sense. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/06/us-conservatives-pushing-russian-spin-ukraine-war

Click to expand...

Any 'far' ideology tbh. There's been pushback against sending support from both Far-Right and Far-Left speakers.

five bucks said:

My logic is that people who paid for a good or service should receive it ASAP without avoidable delays. So no.

Click to expand...

So some people shouldn't be allowed to play the game at all?

five bucks said:

Nowhere did I ask for this. However people who paid for a product first should have it delivered in complete condition first.
That way as an added bonus, when the game reaches console players who paid second, it's complete for them.

Click to expand...

Never said that you did. TW said that they were going to make a Console Release so they owed it to Console Players. That is an obligation.

It doesn't matter if you bought the game before Console players, them being actually able to play the game is more important then whatever feature you may want.

five bucks said:

See, that's exactly what I've been saying this whole thread (and for the past 2 years): Taleworlds should not be working on random things nobody asked for and they just added on a whim, as opposed to their existing committments that they are struggling to fulfill.

Click to expand...

No. No it really doesn't. Adding more things onto their roadmap will just clutter it, but that doesn't matter if their roadmap was already set. Those random things that you say nobody wants, which isn't true mind you, are their current goals. Adding in the things you want would be adding onto those commitments or changing them, causing further delay. At this point, it would be best that TW gets done what they have set out to do, things like Sally Out battles, and then they can focus on things like a hypothetical Diplomacy update.

five bucks said:

console port

Click to expand...

TW was speaking about a console port as early as 2020. That is an obligation to a fan base. By your own logic, they should go through with that in order to make sure that fans will actually be able to play a game. PC players don't get a Monopoly on Mount and Blade. TW said they were going to do it, and they did it. Where's the fault?

Mad Vader said:

My claim is "stop saying Steam reviews are good" and I backed it up with stats. If it sucks, it doesn't suck by a lot.

Click to expand...

The Steam reviews aren't also bad. I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment. Bannerlord right now is currently at 87% overall, in the above average category from the study that I found. Recent reviews are 91%, placing them in very safely in above average territory, just on the verge of being in the top percent of games.

Mad Vader said:

The console comment wasn't serious but we all know what those people are like in their peasant garbs and low standards.

Click to expand...

The dung covered peasant convention is that way.

Jokes aside, the only reason I pointed it out is because a lot of people on the forum have an elitist attitude towards Console users which is a bit silly.

Mad Vader said:

The fact is, the game is rated as average and you can't say "but the Steam reviews are good" just because Steam uses nice words and big-looking ratings.

Click to expand...

The steam reviews aren't going to show that the game is perfect, but what it is going to show that most people don't think the game sucks. The entire idea that people hate the game which has been thrown around a lot. And there is a pretty big difference between average and sucks. Obviously, never settle for average when you can be great, but this constant argument that the game sucks and people actually hate it does fall apart when the majority of reviews for the game tends to be positive.

Mad Vader said:

The recent ones are all from console noobs, they are happy they got the game at all.

Click to expand...

And? They like the game, so what? What makes them any lesser beyond the fact that they use a console?

Weaver said:

According to the Russian state, there is no war and there never was. There was a series of military operations. Crimea was annexed during the previous one. The order of precedence does not make it "more Russian".
You are talking about some "reality" that is different from "on paper" but I don't actually see any reality in your claim.

Click to expand...

If a nation annexes a part of a country and holds onto it, it is going to view that bit of land as more important then the strategic city that they took during a following war. Order of precedence does make it "more Russian". Along with the fact their entire line about oppressed Russians will be really strong in Crimea given the large Russia population there, and oddly fewer Crimean Tartars.

Weaver said:

"more Russian"

Click to expand...

Except they're not. Crimea is too important, its too, well, "Russian". Crimea has been Russian, while every other bit of taken territory started as Ukrainian this war. Russia isn't just going to let Ukraine take Crimea back, it is simply too important.

Weaver said:

And the harder they lose, the less they would be inclined to escalate in my humble opinion.

Click to expand...

No. The harder they lose the more likely they are to want to escalate. The harder they lose the more they'll think that their state is actually at risk. Putin is very much a cornered Rat at this point. Yeah, he could just end the war, but as stated before, he isn't very rational. He isn't going to accept a loss to Ukraine, a nation that he has said is much weaker, and honestly should be weaker. He is running an Authoritarian regime, whose life blood is its perceived strength. He losses that he losses Russia's importance. So, he'd escalate.

Weaver said:

Crimea is Russian territory to the same extent as Kherson as I've said. It is something they have taken by force as a part of a previous "special military operation". In exactly the same way. You don't know if there's any difference "in reality", why should there be?

Click to expand...

The entire difference is that it has been Russian before the war. They didn't just take Crimea in this new conflict, they took it at the very beginning and Russians have all moved there. They are going to view it as more Russian then Kherson.

Weaver said:

Withdrawal is a military decision. Not reacting to it as a crossed red line is a political decision or the lack thereof.

Click to expand...

Bit confused, do you mind elaborating?

Weaver said:

Crimea is Russian land exactly to the extent Kherson is Russian land.
Legally there is no difference. They move in the troops, hold a sham referendum, and amend the constitution to sort of legitimize it. When pushed, they withdraw their troops and don't know how to react further because they don't understand themselves what the Russian state is right now. That's why I think they're in trouble as a state.

Click to expand...

As said before, just because they're the same on paper doesn't make them the same in reality. Crimea has been Russian for a while, it is a sign of victory for the Russian government. They moved countless Russians there. It is Russian territory, not just something that they have taken in war. The Russian Military wouldn't just abandon Crimea like they did Kherson.

Them withdrawing is also probably more military then anything to do with a state. They don't have the men to waste on a costly defense is my best guess.

Apocal said:

I still remember the thread on this forum that was pointing to Valheim's roadmap as an example TW should emulate. They've barely added any new content to that game in like 18 months lmao.

Click to expand...

Don't insult my baby Valheim. Small indie dev, please understand.

AoC said:

Crimea is peninsula, that was Greek (not modern Greece related!), then Tatar and just for last two centuries Russian/Soviet and last 30 years Ukrainian with Russian army presence and autonomy-heavy movement. It's pretty easy to say that it's contested territory, like Karabakh.

Click to expand...

Crimea is something that the Russians consider their own land. Yeah, its contested, but that doesn't mean that the Russians will think that the land is contested.

Lord Grindelvald said:

I don't think Trump will be a viable candidate after the disappointing mid-terms.

Click to expand...

The Primaries for the Republicans are gonna be tough. He is still shockingly popular enough that he might be able to do well during them. Extreme people vote during Primaries, not just your average joe.

Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James said:

If extension of power is imperialism then every state or organisation of any kind is imperialist. My uncle's small business is imperialist. My neighbour's cat is imperialist. Voltaire is cumming in his grave.

Click to expand...

Yes. Almost all governments have been imperialistic at some point. Including your Uncle. We'll be seeing him at the Hague soon.

Jokes aside, Imperialism isn't just conventional land-grabs. It is expanding your own Sphere of Influence to make sure that nations go with your own. It can be invasions, sponsored coups, and countless other things.

Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James said:

When people nowadays call America Imperialist they're not looking at formal territory they've annexed (almost none over the last 100 years) or wars of national security (a billion clandestine "special military operations" in South/Central America and the Caribbean). They're talking about the economic threats they use to control half the world. These often don't involve militaries at all.

Click to expand...

I know we're basically splitting hairs at this point, and boy the amount of times that has gotten me in trouble is immense, but on this point the first two reasons that you've given are reasons why the United States is called Imperialist. Its that, and also things like our control over the Philippines and Puerto Rico, along with Cuba. And all that is before Iraq. America was a proper Empire at one point, when that point ended is an entire other discussion.

Also I say this being a 100% Freeaboo. Democracy is non-negotiable.

Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James said:

I think calling it Imperialism is misleading, and paints Putin like some kind of warlord, which he isn't. He's not invading countries for their resources or to loot them, or even to recreate a past state. He wants geopolitical security against the West. If he could magically turn central asia and eastern europe into an impassible wasteland, he would probably do it. Which is probably why he's not too bothered that Ukraine is gradually turning into a forever war.

Click to expand...

I mean, that still is pretty imperialistic. It is fundamentally extending Russia's power, which is the baseline definition of Imperialism.

Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James said:

Putin actually dislikes the Soviet Union, probably a lot more than your average Russian. The only thing he "misses" about it was its geopolitical security in central Asia and eastern Europe, giving it a lot more leverage against the West. If you listen to his talks on the subject, he badmouths Lenin and Stalin a lot for effectively sowing the seeds of the 1989 collapse by being too nice to the different emergent nation-states within the USSR.

Click to expand...

You're right, Soviet was the wrong word for it. His dreams are about making the Russian Empire again. I should have just lead with Imperial beliefs.

Weaver said:

Russian nuclear doctrine, like many others, allows nuke usage if the very existence of the state is threatened. That is why Ukraine is pressed by the international community to stay away from Russia proper.
If, on the other hand, a nuclear country starts using nukes when it can't win a "proxy conflict", that would mean the entire system of post-WW2 global security can be thrown into the trash. Which actually makes the next WW an imminent reality. So I believe that to be a red line for the powers that be (and not just NATO). Russia likely will not want to "prod" them either.

I really can't see how 8 years make a decisive difference here.

Click to expand...

Crimea is Russian land. If Russia, namely Putin, fears that Russian land is being threatened that is the state being threatened.

Arvenski said:

I'll admit I don't know very much about modern armored vehicles, but I'd imagine that, like other 21st century military technology, they've become quite high-tech. That means it's not as simple as sending Ukraine a trainload of Abrams tanks: the US/NATO would also have to train the Ukrainian tank crews to operate them, train the maintenance crews to fix them, and provide all the ammunition, spare parts, special tools, and whatever else is needed to keep them going.

Click to expand...

You're right, training would be an issue but its also the technology part that is a worry. Ukraine wouldn't get the F-35, nor would they get our Abrams. That technology is way too important for the United States. That's why people can say that an Abrams has never really been destroyed in combat despite so many pictures of Abrams burning, its because those are export versions. So they aren't going to be getting our best stuff. We also have sent tanks, but there is a reason why I didn't say we have. They are old Czech T-72s that we are upgrading, not the Western MBTs that the Ukrainians want. Those tanks also fit more into the logistics. So you're more right with the tanks.

Planes are almost entirely political. Seeing American planes over Ukraine would be a massive escalation for the war.

NPC99 said:

If it had been a fait accompli, what would the West have done? What did we do in Georgia? What did we do in Crimea?

Click to expand...

It isn't the hardest to see the difference between those in more pragmatic terms. Ukraine is a far larger nation, one that is a lot closer. Crimea was non-violent, mostly, but this one was a straight up war. And there were months and months of threats from the West that this would be a step too far.

NPC99 said:

(given his imperial soviet beliefs)

Click to expand...

That's the irrational part. Him having Imperial Soviet beliefs, wanting to declare this war. It would cut him off from the West.