All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Game still alive? Not appearing on Steam.

    The game is still alive and there is an update to in the near future, but I do not know when. It has to do with characters which is a pain (my words) from the sounds of things. It is still not available through Steam yet. Once it makes it to Early Access, it will be.
  3. Game Video Thread

    You have to play the "Darkest Hour" mod. It s great and every Sunday the new Update is tested on the beta branch
  4. Yesterday
  5. Game still alive? Not appearing on Steam.

    it's never been on Steam's store, it's just available for download if you have the key. game's alive, but no big patches are expected in the nearest future. sit tight, it's coming, just not as fast as one'd expect from a bigger company.
  6. Hey guys. Just wondering if this game is still alive? It's not appearing on Steam.
  7. Game Video Thread

  8. Call of Duty: WWII

    Lets ruin the player experience in MP so they buy extra ######. Or people just stop playing......(You'd hope). Wish you could just buy SP and not this trash.
  9. Overgrowth

    My short summary: Con: - Short campaign(s) - Story is not well structured (no particular arch) - Characters are as rounded as a flat piece of paper - Map quality and size is all over the place - Combat is very exploitable - Controls feel flimsy at times - Objectives are either combat or reach place X, with heavy focus on the first one - Stupid AI Pro: - Some maps are beautiful and nicely designed - Unique and satisfying combat - Good variety in terrain and objects - Cool platforming - Sweet experience as long as it lasts - Challenging difficulty Overall: I´m not disappointed with the game, although it shows its age. Wouldn´t buy it for the full prize. Now hope for mods and a potential third game in the series that keeps the strengths and improves the gameplay overall. The base for a truly great adventure is there. If anyone is into it, I can expand on that short list a bit. Some screens:
  10. Last week
  11. Operation Barbarossa

    Pretty much that. You're right of course. The 3rd Reich existed only slight more than 10 years, some of it war time. The autarchy was in the process and the war for the north African colonies was all about the resources, and that was also an important part of the war in the East. If those areas were successfully taken, than Germany would've been fully autarch and probably un-defeatable. That is why I mentioned that Russia is one of the few countries that can go that way. It didn't fully and didn't abandon globalism, of course, but the economy was heavily nationalized. So it's a step forward. Others have tried and fell. And that is what I use as an argument. Germans were well aware of the resources that the Soviet Union possessed (it was after those afterall) and had an idea about the geography (just weren't prepared enough, because counted on a swift victory before winter), but the ideology took a part in this. Hitler believed that "The Soviet man" would be weak willed and only held together by the iron hand of their dictator and counted on them to scatter in the face of a great force. Even if the Soviet leadership was very harsh and sacrificed bodies without remorse, without the will and courage of the soldiers the Soviet force would've fell apart. This was a miscalculation, because the soldiers didn't fight for communism, they fought for a greater cause than some foreign ideology (which communism was), their home land. The entire 20th century. The communist conquest of east Europe. WW1 and 2 (which are really one single conflict). Western marxism and globalism. Modern media. I'd count in christianity, but that's technically not the 20th century and require explanation. And much much more. The NSDAP had the right idea about how to transform the country to something better, better for her people, but that needs to be achieved without radical ideologies, aggressive instrumentalization of war, etc. Unfortunately Germany could have not made it any other way. Can't win this. All that is the sad story of our time.
  12. Overgrowth

  13. Operation Barbarossa

    Although it is not necessarily, or rather by far, the main reason for the endavour in the first place, it is really important to understand that the guys on the other side, be it germany back then, the soviet union in the cold war, and maybe today the islamic state are by and large actually led by idealogues. In the view of nazism, the most important politcal enemy was communism and thus the soviet union (in parts because, of course, communism was jewish). I challenge you to prove that point, and it took me only a minute on wikipedia to tell that this is just not the case. Germany never achieved any form of autarchy. Maybe in basic food, but that was and is easy for a middle european state. If you study weapons technology, for example, and that would be just one fragment, many german developments (and shortcomings) took place exactly because they were extremely short on certain ressources. Among other rubber, fuel, and minerals to harden steel to desired strength. Of course, and there I am with you, the vast russian land would have solved that, as they have basically everything just by sheer size. So even without Barbarossa, Germany and the soviet union would have been seriously at odds with each other, with tensions all over the place. For many reasons, not just realist views on ressources. There the video I posted explains a lot. Could have Germany reasonably expected to defeat the UK at some time in the 40s? Of course. Everything was going fine and they basically reigned over europe´s most important regions then. Reasonable or not, they feared a soviet attack, or saw the opportunity to just do it in 1941. Hadn´t they attacked then, and the even found a way to get along or even work together with Stalin, the world might look a lot different now. An isolated UK surely would face stiff odds for a Germany that had the time for a proper buildup. But. In my opinion, the assumption that Stalin would surrender was actually not far fetched in 1941. There are just not that much examples in history where unconditional surrender and getting close to Clausewitz´ "Total War" (everything in the competing sides directed to support the war with any means necessary) became reality. The wars that united Germany in the first place all ended at the negotiating table. Germany itself even surrendered largely on the behalf of its army accepting defeat outside of Germany´s borders in WW1. They even destroyed the soviet union´s army multiple times during WW2. It just wasn´t enough, Stalin didn´t accept defeat, got enough ressources (alongside Russia´s incredible strategic depth) and motivated his people and won. Where is the sad part? Apart from the 50-60+ millions dead, of course.
  14. D.U.S.T.

    Wow, I guess I shouldn't be surprised given how ambitious the project really was. Do you think they ran into performance issues with the calculation of bullet drop, wind, temperature, etc? Lukasoss seemed to think they would based on his experience with Arma. Can modern CPU's really handle the workload? If they can, would they still be able to with A.I in it as well?
  15. D.U.S.T.

    why take it down, though... I wanted to buy it just to fool around in it from time to time, the price just never seemed right. now I'll never play it
  16. 12 strong

    crap, running out of time, I really should read the book before the movie comes out
  17. D.U.S.T.

    Source
  18. Operation Barbarossa

    With the fall of the Soviet Union, historians have access to previously unavailable archives in what was East Germany as well as the former USSR. Books by David Stahel such as the one I mentioned above (Kiev 1941 as well as 2 others about the war on the Eastern Front) and Deathride Hitler vs. Stalin: The Eastern Front, 1941-1945 by John Mosier can now be written with better facts and not just what the winners want stated. We know that Stalin did not listen to others when told that Germany was going to attack. He didn't want to know and kicked out diplomats from the countries who tried to warn him and even then, once Barbarossa started, he didn't want to believe it.
  19. Steam install problem (about authority)

    Thank you again White knight and Jsonedecker! Turns out (as Jason told me) it was a directx problem. Updated it and am now able to play! Who needs sleep?!
  20. Steam install problem (about authority)

    Thank you White Knight and Jsonedecker! I will PM you. Appreciate the help. VERY much looking forward to playing!
  21. 12 strong

    have to see this
  22. Operation Barbarossa

    I know about "Lebensraum" and there is no contradiction. He had to take the Soviet Union out one way or another, despite the agreements with Stalin, which were all temporary. Of course there were vast plans for the post east war time, mainly to recoup the expenses and take advantage of the geography that also gave Russia its strength. A Germany like this would become un-defeatable and it had to be, because as I said, he feared the western forces the most. Without the concentration camp slave workers war industry production would've been slower also. The expanses overstretched the available resources and possibilities by a lot, because the plan was to recoup it with a victory in the East. So there was definitely an economic side (guess what, there always is...), but the concept of a preemptive strike still holds validity. Germany needed much more time to become strong enough for the war, time it didn't have. Hitler counted on German technology, superior tactics, smart leadership and courageous soldiers, which he believed Germany had (let's admit, it did), but with this also came arrogance, boastfulness and underestimation of the foe. It's the classical example of genius and madness in one. It was a gamble, one that was lost. It's when you know you're good, but don't have a clear mind. In other word, I didn't mean to dispute your argument, just add another piece of the puzzle. Operation Barbarossa had strategic failures, because of all that. Massive pressure and fear combined with arrogance and irrational believes. As for Poles, or Slavs in general. He viewed their "impurity", by the amount of "impure" people that inhabited these countries (Russia/Ukraine and Poland had the largest European Jewish communities, but also Roma, etc), but also their history. I don't believe in the idea he wanted to wipe all Poles out, he wanted to "cleanse" them. That probably meant to keep only those worthy. As said, he had his set of believes. I have little doubt that he would've incorporated a caste system to East Germania. It's also important to remember that, as we all know, Victors write history and not everything regarding the events prior and during WWII that we teach our children (and have been taught ourselves) is the "sincere and honest objective truth".
  23. Call of Duty: WWII

    So apparently, the sleazebags at Activision just took microtransactions to another level of s**t. This video will help people make a truly informed decision on buying anymore Activision games.
  24. Operation Barbarossa

    This article even refers to the war in the east as an economic war. HITLER'S RUSSIAN BLUNDER Germany had few resources outside of coal and that was woefully inadequate to meet its own needs plus the needs of the countries it had already invaded by cold or hot means. Crude oil was something that they always imported, but Romanian oil was just not enough hence the synthetic oil plants, but even then, they could not meet demand. Food was another thing that was lacking and made worse after the start of Barbarossa, hence why the Ukraine was a target. Hitler wanted that to grow food for Germans and Ukrainians be damned and Hitler had shown Germany to worry about it self instead of subjugated peoples such as the French, Belgians and the Dutch. Forget about the poles, he wanted to wipe them from the face of the Earth and starving them was one good way to do so.
  25. Operation Barbarossa

    I'm not too sure about that version. Stalin had the Soviet Union undergo a rapid industrialization, which normally leads to military power. Hitler saw Communism as a threat for Europe, thus I think the war in the East was not economic, but a preemptive strike. Kill the Soviet Union before it is strong enough to become an irreversible danger. They say Stalin was surprised about Hitlers move and that the Soviet Union was vastly unprepared, but I believe production and build-up was already in process. Whether for an attack on Germany or not, Hitler might have known that and anticipated an attack sooner or later. Why attack Germany? Hitler removed globalism in Germany, made the country 100% self sufficient (removing extreme poverty, etc). A country that is economically fully independent (independent from the international bank), but also as industrious as Germany, is seen as a great danger in some circles. A country in such condition usually has an "expiration date". Putin did something somewhat similar and you can see his popularity status in the West, but Russia is one of the very few countries that can afford going that route and persist. I believe that Hitlers main problem was his faith in the concept of race as it was popular in that time. That could have affected certain decisions, such as seeing the Britisch (as Nordic people) stronger than they probably were, and the Russians inferior by blood thus weaker than they turned out to be. That superstition probably cost him everything. Hitler saw the Soviet Union as a greater threat, but a lesser opponent. He probably knew Germany wasn't ready for it, but believed that the Wehrmacht could be powerful and fast enough to conquer the Russian mainland, so that he could then focus on dealing with a potential threat that he truly feared, the Atlantic coalition. Sad story really.
  26. ArmA3 announced...

  27. Red Dead Redemption 2

    Buying virtual money with real money.
  1. Load more activity