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.
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.
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.
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
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
hahaha they may return me back to the gulag hope they really make all this machetes and other useless stuff not usable in normal game or they better return me to the gulag
donāt worry im not going back to the gulag for now I need to expand the Japanese tech tree there is more things I didnt posted mainly planes but there is some interesting small arms and vehicles like Ta-Ha:
As I said, the regular Hotchkiss rigid belts cannot be combined into one. However, when I was writing a big article for my blog about Japanese heavy machine guns, I asked myself a question. Can a gun using the standard Hotchkiss rigid belts use three-link belts?
Unfortunately, I couldnāt find any sources back then. I decided to turn to Killerwolf1024, who suggested that the Type 3 tank version used a similar machine gun belt.
After some time, I managed to find one Russian source that claims that Japanese heavy machine guns can use 250-round belts. However, it says that the Japanese also use a 25-round belt (although, as we all know, it is designed for 30 rounds), and 250 is not divisible by 3 (and, as we remember, the disintegrating belt from the Hotchkiss machine gun consists of 3-round belts).
However, structurally, from the point of view of cartridge feeding and automation, these belts should be identical, and in theory, for example, a belt for 99 rounds could be used on some experimental Japanese machine guns fed from rigid belts. Besides, there really was a small production of them in Japan.
but itās not here nor there.
) , 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.
