Jump to content
alyster

This is a brave new world we're living in

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

Here's a freebie:

"I relish in ruining browser based nation games. I cannot wait to have hegemonic control so that I can slowly squeeze the life out of this game and all those who oppose me."

Is that a quote from “ or you make that up now? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Is that a quote from “ or you make that up now? :P

It can be hard to tell the difference huh 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Smith said:

It can be hard to tell the difference huh 😛

Near the end of CN, can think of many who were leaders of hegemonic alliances with killing the game before they quit as a goal. So wouldn’t surprise me if a quote from someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, CandyShi said:

uh.... no? The USSR would only be the strongest army if we're measuring how many soldiers they had before the war, and not their technology/actual usefulness in combat. 

The USSR's entire strategy was quite literally built around throwing bodies at people until they ran out of ammunition/froze to death.

As much as I'm loathe to defend the USSR, this is untrue and the result of years of post war nazi propaganda playing on the western few versus eastern horde trope that's been present in popular culture forever (hello Tolkien). By 1942 it was the nazis throwing men into hopeless scenarios to freeze to death. 

USSR technology was on par with their neighbours during the war and the USSR wouldn't start to fall behind technologically until much later. The T34 was not as "good" of a tank if you do nothing but read the numbers off of the stat sheet, but it was far easier to produce, repair and maintain due to the streamlined production while serving all of it's combat roles. German tanks were far less reliable due to their complex design, limited production run, and even sabotage by the slave labour used in manufacturing. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, durmij said:

but it was far easier to produce, repair and maintain due to the streamlined production while serving all of it's combat roles. German tanks were far less reliable due to their complex design, limited production run, and even sabotage by the slave labour used in manufacturing. 

The USSR was not the most powerful army in the world though, as the other dude was claiming

 

11 minutes ago, durmij said:

By 1942 it was the nazis throwing men into hopeless scenarios to freeze to death. 

Yes I know hitler was stupid and he blundered a lot, I was talking about much of the early fight with the Nazis/USSR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, CandyShi said:

uh.... no? The USSR would only be the strongest army if we're measuring how many soldiers they had before the war, and not their technology/actual usefulness in combat. 

The USSR's entire strategy was quite literally built around throwing bodies at people until they ran out of ammunition/froze to death.

Lmfao, the t-34 was the best medium tank on the eastern front.The nazi's didn't have any real medium tank counter to it until the panther which they made super complicated and then crewed with dumb teanagers. The gearbox on the panther constantly breaking down limited their effectiveness to static turrets, the inability of the nazis to supply ammo limited their ability to actually fight.

I'd also recommend reading up on the soviet combined arms armies of the mid-late war as opposed to regugitating stale memes and propaganda. I gotta also say I like how you say the soviets were the ones freezing on the eastern front when they were the army that actually provided their troops winter gear lmfao.

wfWIjzr.jpg

 

Edited by Malal
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CandyShi said:

The USSR was not the most powerful army in the world though, as the other dude was claiming

Yes I know hitler was stupid and he blundered a lot, I was talking about much of the early fight with the Nazis/USSR.

They very much were the strongest army in the world, if only for a brief time. The number of deployed men was the highest for several years until the USA hit their peak mobilization. They would have been the strongest in the world for a good chunk of the post war period too.

And the Hitler made bad strategic calls trope is also a gross oversimplification. There were several instances of Hitler overriding his generals and being correct as well. This is normally invoked to preserve the dignity of men like Rommel, but they were also capable of failings all on their own.

The quick expansion and the overrun into Russia was a result of the Red Army undergoing restructuring and the Soviets believing the non-aggression pact would hold for a few more years. Despite these enormous strategic advantages, the Germans failed in their objectives and doomed the war effort in the first push. Everything after that was prolonging the inevitable.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Red Army undergoing restructuring

That is... one way to put it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, durmij said:

They very much were the strongest army in the world, if only for a brief time. The number of deployed men was the highest for several years until the USA hit their peak mobilization. They would have been the strongest in the world for a good chunk of the post war period too.

Building on this there was a very real fear the the Soviets would not stop and the agreed upon line and keep rolling into the west. This is one of the primary arguments (that I don't prescribe to personally) that the nuclear bombs were dropped not to make Japan surrender, but to intimidate the Soviets. Even if the United States had equal theoretical strength almost all of the USSR's forces were situated in better geographic locations, and with much shorter supply lines. Hence why any military actions against the Soviets was "unthinkable".

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Smith said:

"You guys are still complaining about this? Boo-hoo. Don't start wars you can't finish then."

This is a silly argument. Once those leaks were revealed it was clear our side had two options. Either wait to get dogpiled by you or attack and take the fight to you. We did not start this, we just realized the inevitability of it and made the best of our situation. 

 

Also it is funny that your comic says we are the ones who keep making the same slave comment over and over again. Outside Scarf's thread I mainly see IQ bringing it up in every thread :P

Inevitable or not, you guys did indeed start this. We'll be the ones finishing it though, no worries!

Also, while I would agree that outside of Scarfy's deranged copypasta, it's mostly us using the "BK slaves" line (because it's really quite funny tbh), the sentiment, if not the exact words, behind it is all over your coalition's forums posts. 
Just look at the OP of this thread:
"BK forces all the protectorates into war."
"What are you guys doing there? Suffering under reign of terror?"

How else can that be interpreted besides more of the usual "muh (BK/NPO) vassals that they control in totality and use as meatshields" shit that's been peddled this whole war since Scarfy went ballistic over Discord roles? I don't think it's that hard to see why nonsense like that is only deserving of a good rendition of "BK slaves" 😉

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

Building on this there was a very real fear the the Soviets would not stop and the agreed upon line and keep rolling into the west. This is one of the primary arguments (that I don't prescribe to personally) that the nuclear bombs were dropped not to make Japan surrender, but to intimidate the Soviets. Even if the United States had equal theoretical strength almost all of the USSR's forces were situated in better geographic locations, and with much shorter supply lines. Hence why any military actions against the Soviets was "unthinkable".

Everything about the mainstream telling about the dropping of the bombs is shoddy imo. Especially since Japan was already seeking a surrender before the bombs were dropped. The intimidate the Soviet line was also ascribed to the firebombing of Dresden, which was not nearly the travesty the Nazis portrayed it to be (the town itself conducted a study to prove the the casualty count was much lower than claimed).

Position was indeed very key. A post war Soviet allied conflict would have seen the Soviets roll through pretty hard initially. After that is subject to too much speculation.

Rare photo of temporary truce in the Dial-up War. Both sides coming together to kick around for a bit of sport.

dial-up-truce.png

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Tarroc said:

On a different note, isn't this like.... the 100th forum post that has said the same thing? "BK is bad, NPO helps BK, IQ exists, what is the future of Orbis?"

 

 

Precisely. I don't want to be rude to Alyster here, but I don't see why a new forums post was needed at all for anything stated here. I feel that its just more evidence of how stale and frankly boring the forums have become during this war  - both sides bash each other with the same arguments, and we get nowhere.

As proof of this, this topic has derailed into a conversation about the USSR, which has frankly been more interesting (imo) than most conversations on here during the war.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, TheNG said:

Inevitable or not, you guys did indeed start this. We'll be the ones finishing it though, no worries!

Also, while I would agree that outside of Scarfy's deranged copypasta, it's mostly us using the "BK slaves" line (because it's really quite funny tbh), the sentiment, if not the exact words, behind it is all over your coalition's forums posts. 
Just look at the OP of this thread:
"BK forces all the protectorates into war."
"What are you guys doing there? Suffering under reign of terror?"

How else can that be interpreted besides more of the usual "muh (BK/NPO) vassals that they control in totality and use as meatshields" shit that's been peddled this whole war since Scarfy went ballistic over Discord roles? I don't think it's that hard to see why nonsense like that is only deserving of a good rendition of "BK slaves" 😉

 

That is an interesting way of looking at it. It appears all we did was speed up your timeline and yet you are accusing us of starting it since we did not simply wait for you to attack us. 

Your original criticism was we have no reason to complain about a dogpile since we "started" this and now you aren't even denying that a dogpile was inevitable. So what is your point? Obviously people are going to be upset about the largest sphere in the game planning to start another dogpile. Especially since it was revealed in the Sphinx logs that your CB would be to "contain" a sphere that you already massively outnumber.

By now it should be obvious to everyone why your side only wants to talk about who is going to win this war and not what your victory would mean for the game. It is better to focus on that than how much this war has cost BK/NPO politically and how severely it has damaged the opportunity this community had for a shift from the political status quo. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dio Brando said:

I’m just waiting for @Shiho Nishizumi to chime in. 

I had a much larger response on regards to the technological aspect, which quite frankly it was dumb for him to claim that they were subpar in that regard, when in reality they were more or less even with the other greater powers. But I scrapped it when the bombs aspect came to the table. 

Regardless of the express intent of dropping them (Japanese unconditional surrender vs spooking Stalin), I think it's fair to say that the Americans simply wanted to see what sort of tangible impact they had on an actual target, as morbid as that may sound with the power of hindsight. However, I wouldn't say that it's surprising if that were the case, given the aftermath of Unit 731.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, durmij said:

Everything about the mainstream telling about the dropping of the bombs is shoddy imo. Especially since Japan was already seeking a surrender before the bombs were dropped. The intimidate the Soviet line was also ascribed to the firebombing of Dresden, which was not nearly the travesty the Nazis portrayed it to be (the town itself conducted a study to prove the the casualty count was much lower than claimed).

Position was indeed very key. A post war Soviet allied conflict would have seen the Soviets roll through pretty hard initially. After that is subject to too much speculation.

 

23 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

I had a much larger response on regards to the technological aspect, which quite frankly it was dumb for him to claim that they were subpar in that regard, when in reality they were more or less even with the other greater powers. But I scrapped it when the bombs aspect came to the table. 

Regardless of the express intent of dropping them (Japanese unconditional surrender vs spooking Stalin), I think it's fair to say that the Americans simply wanted to see what sort of tangible impact they had on an actual target, as morbid as that may sound with the power of hindsight. However, I wouldn't say that it's surprising if that were the case, given the aftermath of Unit 731.

I mean the atomic bombs saved far more lives than they cost. Operation Downfall would have killed way more Americans and far more Japanese than either bomb would cost. The Americans were ready to gas every Japanese cave and they Japanese were sharpening bamboo sticks to use as spears. It would have been Iwo Jima x100 and the bombs stopped that from occurring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

 

I mean the atomic bombs saved far more lives than they cost. Operation Downfall would have killed way more Americans and far more Japanese than either bomb would cost. The Americans were ready to gas every Japanese cave and they Japanese were sharpening bamboo sticks to use as spears. It would have been Iwo Jima x100 and the bombs stopped that from occurring.

This isn't accurate because Operation Downfall was unnecessary. Japan was already suing for peace and the USA's naval and air dominance meant that Japan had no recourse. The bombs were not needed in anyway, shape or form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, durmij said:

This isn't accurate because Operation Downfall was unnecessary. Japan was already suing for peace and the USA's naval and air dominance meant that Japan had no recourse. The bombs were not needed in anyway, shape or form.

They were suing for peace but not an unconditional surrender, and that was the sticking point. The bombs were absolutely necessary when you consider factors such as elements of the Japanese military still refusing to surrender and attempting a coup. It is a possibility that America could have held Japan to a perpetual blockade and bomb their country but its likely this would cost far more lives than a capitulation after nuclear bomb use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

I mean the atomic bombs saved far more lives than they cost. Operation Downfall would have killed way more Americans and far more Japanese than either bomb would cost. The Americans were ready to gas every Japanese cave and they Japanese were sharpening bamboo sticks to use as spears. It would have been Iwo Jima x100 and the bombs stopped that from occurring.

If it was just the United States, yes, you're right. The problem is that it wasn't just the United States that would partake on such operation.

Preparations had been made to bring the Soviets in and have them assist on the invasion of the Home Islands, with the West supplying amphibious landing vessels and the such, alongside Halsey going out of his way to bomb the ragged remains of the IJN in Kure, half of that reason being to prevent any sort of naval presence that could impede a Soviet invasion of Hokkaido.

The entire Japanese take for an eventual invasion of the Home Islands was one of "well if we make them bleed badly enough they will cave in and let us surrender and keep our emprah", which was based off of how usually the American public opinion grew a huge stinker on operations which were particularly bloody. Well, for one they were underestimating how pissed the Americans were that an inferior Asian nation so dared to hit their stuff in the way they did (racism was obviously still a huge thing back then, that's the simple reality of it), and such hatred and disdain had only grown worse when reports of Bataan and other atrocities came in which were made worse by propaganda.

Going back to the Soviets, the Japanese plans didn't exactly account for such entry, which not only would've meant substantially more soldiers to fend off, but also a foe that quite frankly didn't give much of a frick about casualties taken, and that threw their entire contingency plan out of the window. That's not to mention that the Russians were still mad about the Russo-Japanese war, which was evidenced by the Soviet ambassador demanding Mikasa be dismantled because it was a stain on muh Russian prestige, and only going back on such demand when he saw that the hull was nothing more than a sorry hunk of scrap that was serving as a pool and some cheap night bar for the occupying GI's, a fate he deemed to be worse than it being scrapped. So yeah, there was absolutely a bit of Japanese pride on that conflict at stake with a Soviet entry.

That's also part of the reason why it's difficult to dictate whether it was the nukes or the Soviet entry what caused the Japanese to finally fold. Given they both occurred very close to each other (if memory serves me right, the Soviets invaded Manchuria the same day Nagasaki got nuked). I'd say that from a public standpoint, the Japanese preferred to attribute it to the nukes, both for legitimate reasons of how overwhelmingly powerful of a weapon they were, and because it allowed them to save some face on their surrender by both surrendering to the Americans, and to a weapon of overwhelming power, rather than to the Soviets and conventional means. This would sound like an exaggeration, but the Japanese went out of their way not to include the word "surrender" on the speech they gave to the natives.

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
Minor edits.
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

They were suing for peace but not an unconditional surrender, and that was the sticking point. The bombs were absolutely necessary when you consider factors such as elements of the Japanese military still refusing to surrender and attempting a coup. It is a possibility that America could have held Japan to a perpetual blockade and bomb their country but its likely this would cost far more lives than a capitulation after nuclear bomb use.

The only real sticking point was the safety, well-being and proclaimed innocence of the Emperor. Something the allies agreed to anyway. And there would be no need to bomb a couped Japan anymore. No fuel meant even suicide missions were impossible, and the drain of working age men meant that the agricultural sector couldn't support the country anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would've never thought I'd see something more nerdy than debating the supposed failures of coalitions in a browser based nation sim game. I was wrong.

(On a more serious note, please continue. The posts make for interesting reads.)

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

stuff

By the time that operation downfall was planned the Cold War was already in full swing. There wasn't any serious effort to include the Soviets as the Americans knew including them would only induce a North/South Korean East/West Germany situation. Americans never liked blood, but they were certainly willing to shed it, and on the Japanese even more so than the Germans. But to argue that it was Soviet entry vs American nukes seems silly when it is the comparison of losing a colony vs having a home territory being destoryed. It is akin to having the British lose India vs Manchester being nuked. Both are large losses, but only one hits the soul of the British.

7 minutes ago, durmij said:

The only real sticking point was the safety, well-being and proclaimed innocence of the Emperor. Something the allies agreed to anyway. And there would be no need to bomb a couped Japan anymore. No fuel meant even suicide missions were impossible, and the drain of working age men meant that the agricultural sector couldn't support the country anymore. 

The emperor was barely granted clemency, and it was largely due to his usefulness as an American puppet. And no fuel wasn't quite the case, more the desperate lack of it. This is why the Japanese took such desperate measures such as preparing women to charge the beaches with spears. The lack of modern supplies was not a determent to continuation of the war, as they would literally rather have Japan die than submit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*See Redarmy mentioned*

*not about him*

*Sad face*

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.