Well Andromeda has guns... We won't be marching into battle with swords and bows xD
I'd actually hope our enemies will do that ... I would love to pull a "Zulu" on some backwater-aliens without technology ... say hello to the future, primitive scumbags! And greet your new human imperialist overlords! And get me some shoes, pretty ones!
I'd actually hope our enemies will do that ... I would love to pull a "Zulu" on some backwater-aliens without technology ... say hello to the future, primitive scumbags! And greet your new human imperialist overlords! And get me some shoes, pretty ones!
I'd actually hope our enemies will do that ... I would love to pull a "Zulu" on some backwater-aliens without technology ... say hello to the future, primitive scumbags! And greet your new human imperialist overlords! And get me some shoes, pretty ones!
Like having them try a cavalry charge on a armored division?
You don't say.
Nah, usually most combat these days is pretty damn stationary, you are either occupying a location that will be attacked or the reverse. You are heading to a location to attack, mobility is key in either regard though. Either way, you don't see ten thousand guys hiking along a dirt road anymore, you usually have a few dozen heading down a road in a APC, being covered by air support and or artillery, so by the time boots even hit ground, the enemy is already under attack.
That's modern combat, either sitting around waiting for the shooting to start because you were told to, or driving to where shooting will start because you were told to. A few notable exceptions come to mind, but ultimately modern warfare is urban warfare. You will never have another Kursk or Hastings. You will have Stalingrads or attempts at them anyway, but yeah.
War adapts to the time period.
Like having them try a cavalry charge on a armored division?
Kinda, as long as they don't have some kind of "Eywa" helping them defeat us ... damn those giant blue cats to oblivion ...
Kinda, as long as they don't have some kind of "Eywa" helping them defeat us ... damn those giant blue cats to oblivion ...
Indeed.
I hated that movie.
I must have been the only one in the theater who sat up in disgust half way through at this eco terrorist bs.
Indeed.
I hated that movie.
I must have been the only one in the theater who sat up in disgust half way through at this eco terrorist bs.
I mentally exchanged the blue cats and their pets with Xenomorphs - THAT would have made an excellent battle ^^ Though in the end, in both cases "Nuke them from Orbit, the only way to be sure!" - And Avatar 2 and 3 would suddenly be much more like Fury Road ...
Ah, what was the thread again actually ... ?
Nah, usually most combat these days is pretty damn stationary, you are either occupying a location that will be attacked or the reverse. You are heading to a location to attack, mobility is key in either regard though. Either way, you don't see ten thousand guys hiking along a dirt road anymore, you usually have a few dozen heading down a road in a APC, being covered by air support and or artillery, so by the time boots even hit ground, the enemy is already under attack.
That's modern combat, either sitting around waiting for the shooting to start because you were told to, or driving to where shooting will start because you were told to. A few notable exceptions come to mind, but ultimately modern warfare is urban warfare. You will never have another Kursk or Hastings. You will have Stalingrads or attempts at them anyway, but yeah.
War adapts to the time period.
Simply mention the word "Witcher" is enough to start off a war. It's a trigger word around here.
To be fair, these forums had a lot of Witcher people gushing endless praise about it even before release. It happened in several other RPG forums as well, cripes I even saw some on the Pillars of Eternity boards. At some point it gets tiring hearing the same comparisons and opinions over and over again, especially since they had a tendency of being presented as immutable fact. A lot of that was fueled, I think, by the whole ''16 free DLC!'' marketing move, which ended up not bringing that much more content than the free stuff given by Bioware in Inquisition, and less than what Larian ended up giving to buyers of Divinity Original Sin, yet they trumpeted their free stuff much less than CD Projekt did.
I mean, I liked TW3 a lot, it's a great game overall, but found it had its own laundry list of flaws (the so-so story apart from Act 1 and Kaer Morhen, the poor combat, the fetch quest-y crafting, monster hunts often being samey, the bunch of boring villains save for the witches, the political aspect being woefully underused, among others) that were often swept under the rug.
To be fair, these forums had a lot of Witcher people gushing endless praise about it even before release. It happened in several other RPG forums as well, cripes I even saw some on the Pillars of Eternity boards. At some point it gets tiring hearing the same comparisons and opinions over and over again, especially since they had a tendency of being presented as immutable fact. A lot of that was fueled, I think, by the whole ''16 free DLC!'' marketing move, which ended up not bringing that much more content than the free stuff given by Bioware in Inquisition, and less than what Larian ended up giving to buyers of Divinity Original Sin, yet they trumpeted their free stuff much less than CD Projekt did.
I mean, I liked TW3 a lot, it's a great game overall, but found it had its own laundry list of flaws (the so-so story apart from Act 1 and Kaer Morhen, the poor combat, the fetch quest-y crafting, monster hunts often being samey, the bunch of boring villains save for the witches, the political aspect being woefully underused, among others) that were often swept under the rug.
Stationary? The way I see it modern combat is about cutting off supplies and surrounding enemies war has always been like that. The tactics used in combat differs from terain and or the situation. If you got a large open field like the ones I saw in Ukraine you will have battles like in Kursk because I just saw footage of Ukrainian and Russian backed tanks engaging each other in an open field. War has changed very little except for technology, the Germans in WW II was responsible for mixing Blitzkrieg modern combat with WWI trench warfare or as you call it "sit and wait". Modern war is never urban only... As things unfold in Syria I guarantee you... You will see the real face of warfare... Land, Sea, Air, and Space.
You saw ten thousand tanks roughly engaging each other?
.-. I doubt it.
No, the era of large grand battles has ended, you have skirmishes, bombings, insurrection, terrorist reaction, a few invasions here or there but the era of war you seem to describe of when you think of 'battle' has been dead since Vietnam. There is rarely a war between two industrialized nations with access to the high military spectrum. That said I do think it was sort of cute that you said: "You will see the true face of warfare" You made me smile with that one, I will admit. I like smiling, I rarely do it but I enjoy it.
You want to know what my experience with war is? Iraq-Baghdad, it was urban warfare supported by armor and aircraft. It was engagements with regular army units in entrenched positions, their best units in entrenched positions, and their armor and artillery in entrenched positions. Angola was in align with what you said but that wasn't even a war, it was aid protection. You want to think that starving militia charging aid drops you were assigned to protect and ensure distribution of as battle? I didn't personally, but I guess you could call it that. No the era of war being described as anything but anti terrorist reaction is over, unless if another regional skirmish breaks out like in Ukraine but even there it's just a giant fighting a gnat. Its being done this way because of international attention, nothing more.
No, there is no reason to fight in fields or the ocean anymore, there is no invasion of a enemy power to warrant it. There is no real antagonist in this chapter of human history save those who do not have a nation, its hard to invade terrorists. They are simply people with a ideology, Iraq was a nation, it was a place on a map you can send forces to. But that's the exception to the rule of modernity.
You want to think that era of massive battles will come back? You are welcome to, I don't see it. Not in the current political climate, not at present.
Probably 10 - 20 tanks or so. The war in Ukraine is not yet a full blown WORLD WAR. If it was the Battle will be bigger than Kursk... The closest we can get is during the Korean war when thousands of Russian, Korean, Chinese troops met the Allies. Be thankful you only experienced urban warfare not a ****** whole division of tanks. No need to tell me your experience... I experienced a shitty urban warfare in my country as well.You saw ten thousand tanks roughly engaging each other?
.-. I doubt it.
No, the era of large grand battles has ended, you have skirmishes, bombings, insurrection, terrorist reaction, a few invasions here or there but the era of war you seem to describe of when you think of 'battle' has been dead since Vietnam. There is rarely a war between two industrialized nations with access to the high military spectrum. That said I do think it was sort of cute that you said: "You will see the true face of warfare" You made me smile with that one, I will admit. I like smiling, I rarely do it but I enjoy it.
You want to know what my experience with war is? Iraq-Baghdad, it was urban warfare supported by armor and aircraft. It was engagements with regular army units in entrenched positions, their best units in entrenched positions, and their armor and artillery in entrenched positions. Angola was in align with what you said but that wasn't even a war, it was aid protection. You want to think that starving militia charging aid drops you were assigned to protect and ensure distribution of as battle? I didn't personally, but I guess you could call it that. No the era of war being described as anything but anti terrorist reaction is over, unless if another regional skirmish breaks out like in Ukraine but even there it's just a giant fighting a gnat. Its being done this way because of international attention, nothing more.
No, there is no reason to fight in fields or the ocean anymore, there is no invasion of a enemy power to warrant it. There is no real antagonist in this chapter of human history save those who do not have a nation, its hard to invade terrorists. They are simply people with a ideology, Iraq was a nation, it was a place on a map you can send forces to. But that's the exception to the rule of modernity.
You want to think that era of massive battles will come back? You are welcome to, I don't see it. Not in the current political climate, not at present.
Probably 10 - 20 tanks or so. The war in Ukraine is not yet a full blown WORLD WAR. If it was the Battle will be bigger than Kursk... The closest we can get is during the Korean war when thousands of Russian, Korean, Chinese troops met the Allies. Be thankful you only experienced urban warfare not a ****** whole division of tanks. No need to tell me your experience... I experienced a shitty urban warfare in my country as well.
Most of Saddam's tanks were smoking coffins before I even stepped off the plane, we bombed that city for a week.
That said, there were a few left but...well lets just say they didn't age well compared to the Abrams and leave it at that.
The infantry was more pressing, dug in, well armed and had us outnumbered ten to one by estimates but that's a long story. And ill suited to be spoken about while sober.
Of course Iraq won't stand a chance they are not a super power at all. Also it seems you are out of date with current events https://youtu.be/vPu_RL7Ncao now, if your country were to invade Syria directly unlike the proxy war your government is doing, you would risk direct confrontation with the soviets... Don't you think that would translate to huge battles? Ever heard of the word "History repeating itself"? If you only experienced minor battles then you're not experienced enough yetMost of Saddam's tanks were smoking coffins before I even stepped off the plane, we bombed that city for a week.
That said, there were a few left but...well lets just say they didn't age well compared to the Abrams and leave it at that.
The infantry was more pressing, dug in, well armed and had us outnumbered ten to one by estimates but that's a long story. And ill suited to be spoken about while sober.
Who wouldn't hope for a great ME game? It's pure self interest. 
Don't you think that would translate to huge battles?
No.
Same problem as there was half a century ago, both sides have enough nukes to make this world a glowing rock for the next half million years.
War between the United States and Russian Federation is...unlikely, open war anyway-and that would result in the same thing that happened in the cold war, proxy engagements.
Anyway I am done talking about this.
Exactly. Nuclear war is a "HUGE WAR" not urban war which is why the US and the Soviets aims to avoid at all cost because it would mean a HUGE WAR. I am sure if it does break out Nukes are one thing but whole divisions would be deployed as well translating to a HUGE WAR. Anyway nice talking to youNo.
Same problem as there was half a century ago, both sides have enough nukes to make this world a glowing rock for the next half million years.
War between the United States and Russian Federation is...unlikely, open war anyway-and that would result in the same thing that happened in the cold war, proxy engagements.
Anyway I am done talking about this.
Yeah, the suicide mission is the best.
Spoiler
God this made almost tear up, easily best ME game.
To be fair, these forums had a lot of Witcher people gushing endless praise about it even before release. It happened in several other RPG forums as well, cripes I even saw some on the Pillars of Eternity boards. At some point it gets tiring hearing the same comparisons and opinions over and over again, especially since they had a tendency of being presented as immutable fact. A lot of that was fueled, I think, by the whole ''16 free DLC!'' marketing move, which ended up not bringing that much more content than the free stuff given by Bioware in Inquisition, and less than what Larian ended up giving to buyers of Divinity Original Sin, yet they trumpeted their free stuff much less than CD Projekt did.
I mean, I liked TW3 a lot, it's a great game overall, but found it had its own laundry list of flaws (the so-so story apart from Act 1 and Kaer Morhen, the poor combat, the fetch quest-y crafting, monster hunts often being samey, the bunch of boring villains save for the witches, the political aspect being woefully underused, among others) that were often swept under the rug.
i like said in many other post and forums, Witcher 3 is a excellent game have some issue like not really good exploration on maps or the bad combat. But overall is a good game with a excellent story, but what turn me off that game so much this day is the Toxic community the game generate.
And RPG game that come out is get compare to it and fan will trash talk any game. On the Pillar forums i remember a post saying how much Pillar remind to a old pen and paper RPG and Witcher fans just trash it saying Witcher is better RPG, when seriusly the closest u can get to pen and paper this day is Pillar or Undertale.
For me, what turn me off Witcher was the crap maps, not bc ugly but they are empty, there isnt any real thing to explore, only Monster nest or Chest guards by monsters. But yeah catching up with Ciri for my teste was to long, and i dont know why but the story on DA I was for me better that the story on Wticher.
But u know everyone have opinions.
The funny part is that when ME A release ppl will compare it with Witcher, or worst to Cyberpunk.
I have been playing the Witcher 3 for like 150 hours now... and I got to the last part of the game. The Battle of Kaer Morhen... this part of the game made me cry alot because the phasing reminded me alot about suicide mission in Mass Effect 2.
Even a juggernaut game like Witcher 3 had some influence I see... even though ME3 left a bad taste in my mouth I hope that Andromeda pulls off. I really do... maybe I can forgive them if it gets good reviews from everyone especially the gamers themselves.
Well, yeah. Witcher ruined everything for me too. It made me understand how crappy DAI really was and that bioware at some point turned in the wrong direction.
The point when positions get changes and people leave the company and are replaced.
Bioware now is not "Bioware" then.
I'd actually hope our enemies will do that ... I would love to pull a "Zulu" on some backwater-aliens without technology ... say hello to the future, primitive scumbags! And greet your new human imperialist overlords! And get me some shoes, pretty ones!
Because that will go well. People will get offended and butthurt comparing it to Columbus and genocide and what not. Threads I can do well without on these boards.
ME trilogy wouldn't have been ME without Shepard. I wouldn't have had it any other way. I don't have anything against character import from game to game, if the concept's well built, of course.
The Kaer Morhen battle was actually kinda underwhelming for me simply because it was just the Suicide Mission in the Witcher. It wasn't new and I knew exactly how it had been designed so I didn't feel a lot of tension. The obligatory drama in it when it ends is still a great moment though, but really, all I cared about for that part of W3 was all the dialogue you had with friends inside the keep. ****, the moment where all 3 witchers can get drunk together and do stupid things is the best moment in the entire game for me.
Anyway, I didn't think unlike some people here that W3 proved how crap DAI was. I didn't need that game to show me that. All I had to do was play Dragon Age Origins or Mass Effect 1 to say "that's not a very good Bioware game".
But yeah, Witcher 3 definitely made it clear as day how much cheaper DAI feels. That said, I did prefer a few things in DA:I like the core movement controls. It looks goofy but it doesn't feel as slippery as Witcher 3 and I liked the crafting and I love making my own character as opposed to playing a pre-made one where I only get to decide his choices but not the personality.
Retour en haut