Better than this one for sure.
1 Like
operation unthinkable could have been a better April foolā¦
realtively easy to do as well.
2 Likes
Absolutely!
They are what we know about history, which is certainly not 100% correct because itās impossible without a time machine (and probably even with it).
So as Iāve said, with certain criteria, they are not historical because of above.
Thatās your criteria. And Iād argue no game ever will match them, at least in our lifetime.
Most ppl agree that PS is as historical as a PvP game can get. So it may not fulfill your criteria, but it does many otherās.
Just like a starfish can be a fish with loose enough criteria. And loose criteria are caused by lack of anything better. Basically scaling.
1 Like
well, no.
because youāre describing perception of " muh immersion " type of argument.
historical accuracy due to records, sorches al be it, murky on various reports, itās defined in various details.
just like a starfish definition.
you could make the argument " look, a fish! " just because it lives alongside other fishes. but no.
thatās not actually true.
both terms are distinctive and defined.
I really like that Tokyo arsenal gun idea, consider adding this to your list maybe: Murata Shotgun as a possible event gun for Japan
1 Like
Only because ppl agreed on this.
Thereās literally no reason why starfish couldnāt be classified as a fish, other than a bunch of (presumable smart) biologists said so and made a rules to classify as one or another.
And:
- We donāt have a bunch of ppl who would made a historical criteria for games. So itās as far away from defined as it gets.
- Even if they did, those criteria could be completely different from what youāve described here. Just like a beaver was considered to be closer to a fish than a mammal because of continence.
My point is that semantics / classification comes down to:
āI say this is fish because of xyz. Do you agree?ā
āYesā
well ughā¦
Echinoderms are not fishes though 
.
look it up 
but we do.
whichā¦ yes.
somewhat doesnāt help my case as all type of people come up with all sort of different perceptions and their own ideas.
but as far as game go,
you can make a perfect historical game.
regardless of caving to gameplay diversity, pvp ideas / balance etc.
which itās what most games wonāt do.
nor they have to. otherwise they will not sell.
but those who call themselves ( or their game ) historical accurate, most time than not, they arenāt.
guess weāll have to agree to disagree.
but iām still right.
again, is this really the case?
iām not arguing about perceptions.
pure mere facts backed up with countless sourches of events.
itās like a recipe.
sure, you can decide to alter it or not follow it.
but the results and outcomes will really differ.
which then will be an argument about " is it good or not ".
butā¦ can you really claim about the outcome if the way to get there or the ingredients are nothing like the thing youāre trying to make?
Well I scraped a lot of guns cuz they simply are not so good for the TT :
And there was more I had to recycle a lot of stuff
2 Likes
understood, looks interesting
1 Like
Only because
Other than that, there is no reason why they shouldnāt be fish.
Really? Who? Iām not aware of anybody with enough authority to do such things. I just hope you donāt mean game āāājournalistsāāā 
The closest thing I can think of are Devs/publishers labeling/advertising their game as such.
No you canāt. Because no matter how hard you try, you will always do a mistake. And even if you didnāt, a book you took as a source could have one. And even then the book doesnāt exactly know that happened, it just makes the best it can.
So as Iāve said, criteria (and tolerance).
Except both ingredients and result are not something physical and measurable. They are just something we collectively agreed on and as such we can collectively change.
Fine
No 
NO.
ITāS NOT BECAUSE MY OR YOUR OPINION.
soā¦ according to the same logic, humans are all the same.
and those who arenāt, semantics ?.
well no.
but historians are the ultimate guide ( granted, not all of them. but there are some reputable ones out there. )
thatās point. some people barely tries at all 
but itās not here nor there.
which thereās a very distinctive difference between appealing to pure historical facts, and balances / āfunā things.
which war isnāt fun. but i digress.
still. youāre arguing about criteria. i, am not.
you canāt change the past.
thatās not how it works.
you may change your perception of it.
but will it be collectively agreed upon?
no.
because for example, in the carbonara pasta you donāt use cream there is only one and true way to make it.
or else youāre a criminal. who deserves to be locked up.
now.
you are free to make it however you want it.
but you donāt get to claim that itās that thing, when in reality, itās an altered one.
but i suppose weāre going in circles here 
yes 
Correct. Itās because of opinion of some important somart guys who made criteria that differentiate those things.
I mean, you can say all humans are the same and ignore the details or you can say that every human is unique because of said details. Depends if you take into account those details => criteria.
I guess? Though itās mostly their individual opinion rather than a widely accepted consensus.
Iām quite sure you are. Without criteria your argument devaluates to āitās this way because I said soā and that holds little to no value.
Why? What physical law forbids me from calling this thing carbonara? I canāt call it that way only because some ppl agreed what it is and what it isnāt.
Yes. But Iām in a train and Iām bored so I wanted to kill some time on pointless discussions. My station is close so Iām affraid itās the last one for now.
No 
you seeā¦
now youāre doing the opposite.
yes. you could make the case that a lamp and a fire hydrand are both objects.
but thatās a broader way to look things.
and iām not really doing what you think iām doing.
except distinctions arenāt inherently broad criterias.
are to set clear terms. for example, the lamp and the fire hydrant.
yes. both could be made out of metal. but are two different things for two separate uses DESPITE the similarities in materials or where said āthingsā can be found.
the same goes for HLL, S44 etc.
yes, they claim to be historically accurate, and yes, they do share some similarities with the real life.
but is that really the case?
no.
hence why those are not actually historical accurate, but historically based.
two separated things.
despite sharing the historical word 
common sense.
and decensy.
because just like lenguage, itās spoke in a certain manner so that people can understand each other.
yes, there are some loopholes and many different lenguages. but foundamentally the same concept applies.
does it not?
speaking of trains, we may have derailed a little too much 
yes 
dude, remember soviets have a cold war weaponā¦xD
Obligatory let the Axis have the french stuff
You know the Canadians are half French 
1 Like
The poor saps
1 Like
I agree with adding all of the stuff you suggested, but I think some of the BRs and armaments could use some tweaking from what you suggested (although itās just my opinion, I could easily be wrong 
) , and Iād be happy to discuss your reasoning for some of these things if you choose to. Iāll put a few here for the sake of it, in no real order. Glad youāre back, good work on the post.
-
The VL Myrsky should have double 100kg instead of 50kg bombs, since the Yak-1 can use the same armament
-
The So-Ki isnāt BR3 material, only one more gun for much more exposed crew compared to the Ta-Se, this could probably go to 1 or 2
-
the M50 reising 30 rounds should be BR2, itās basically getting rid of the one downside compared to the M3 and would probably be very power creeping, and the M3A1 is on BR2 anyways
-
the D4Y1 could probably go to 2, since it would be an equivalent to the dauntless, a bit more maneuverable for worse guns and slightly less armament, but 3 might work
-
the A36 with dual 500 pound bombs is probably too much for BR2 competitors, and can be reduced to 250 pound bombs to better balance it
-
If the SB-2m gets lowered to BR1, the bombs should probably be 50kgs, since 6x 100kg bombs is likely too much for BR1
-
the Jungle carbine should be BR2 since itās just a shortened SMLE basically, no bolt action deserves T3
-
the Tokyo arsenal should stay at 4, only 50 bullets and way excessive rate of fire compared to other SMGs with more or equal ammo, take the PPD 34/38 at BR4 that has 75 rounds and is much easier to control and more ammo efficient.
-
the Turan tanks should both be 1 BR lower, the I is closer to a panzer 3J with the weak 40mm gun being useless at BR2, and the III having similar armour and guns to the panzer 4 longs.
-
the Steyr S-18-100 would be useless at BR2, and since the type 97 is BR1 and it is planned for the PTRS to be lowered to 1, it would make sense for this to be BR1 as well
4 Likes