ST21 wrote: Tiera wrote: ST21 wrote:
Haha, wow. That MadMat post didnt age well.
Can't really blame Eugen on ALB, the relevant sources are as a rule in Finnish only.
And yes, Italy would have been nice addition. The voters disagreed.
Because they didnt know any better... harsh but true.
It was a bad idea to let the community decides which nations to add. You can expect this community where chauvinistic feelings are rampant to vote rationally for the most logical and "best" options. And i think too many voters werent well informed enough about all the possible options to make such decisions. Heck, even Eugen i am sure didnt expect those poll results. I recall MadMat saying that he had expected people to vote massively for Italy because it was clearly one of the best options... that didnt happen. Because voters "reasons".
Again, adding more blue nations when they already outnumber red nations 2:1 is hardly the "logical" or "best" option.
ST21 wrote: Tiera wrote:
ST21 wrote:Eugen ignores the rules
There are no rules.
I'm sorry to hear that your suspension of disbelief could deal with a WGerman-Norwegian-Danish-Canadian combined arms force fighting a meeting engagement against a EGerman-Polish-Chinese-Soviet force on Korean soil, but the addition of Finland finally shattered it.
May this picture of Kekkonen ease your pain.https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6OquVKWQAA9YsE.jpg
NATO countries have a history of expeditionary deployments. Several Western European countries and Canada took part in the Korean War and not just in a non-combat role so its not particularly implausible to imagine them taking part in a major war in Asia. Finland, however, is completely out of place in RD.
For numbers at the end summer '51 there were 302 000 americans, 14 000 brits, 6 000 canadians, 5500 turks (!) as well as several medical units (154 from sweden, 105 from norway, 72 from italy and 70 from india) in korea. It's a bit dishonest to say that a complete norwegian mechanized division in active combat in korea with several flights worth of combat aircraft in '82 is realistic because of their history of "expeditionary deployment" in korea in the 50's which relied completely on american logistics, air defence, artillery, air support, food, ammo and intelligence.
Even countries like france, germany and italy despite their fairly sizable army in the late 80's to the end of cold war are extremely implausible at best fighting a cold war gone hot in the busan pocket with their armor divisions unless you want to apply some extremely creative thinking
There are no rules.
Yeah, I don't mind them making exceptions but they end up becoming the rule on more than a few occasions, China has the HJ-9 because it lacks a superheavy, so why does Israel need the Nimrod? We didn't have any long-range AGMs in the game up to that point, otherwise we would have seen the Kh-59, AGM-130 or SLAM. I don't even mind them stretching the timeline if these units were actually necessary, but that really isn't the case.
1) The game is balanced around coalitions
2) China doesn't have a hj9 because it lacks a superheavy, it has the hj9 because it's a cool unit and roughly in the timeframe
3) israel has a nimrod because of #2
4) there are several long range agms in the game already but on top of that there's multiple systems that have a very large range that is not portrayed in the game. a mig-25 recon bomber for example with the peleng bombing system, high altitude and mach 2+ would be able to drop its bombs 40km away from the target