|
You are part of that BeltFedWombat, as Omega_Warrior tried to help you on point number one and two, but you were extremely rude to him.
Besides that, your post makes very little sense as loving something intensively is something we cannot help you with. If you don't like the game enough to continue to play it, then quit and move on. We cannot force you to like it enough. Patches can. This is why Omega_Warrior's post was quite helpful for you. |
|
Yes! I am waiting for this game to come out. Although, I read it will be Free-to-play, not entirely sure what this indicates for the game. |
Hello.
I like CoH2.
And there's lots I love about CoH2.
What IS the point of the post? You need other people to give you arguments to love/like CoH2 even more? You need other people to tell you you are a noob? |
The average casualty rate per worldwide capita has never been lower, though.
Again: I am adjusting for war participants, thereby not comparing it to total world population, which grows exponentially, making it a quite unfair comparison. |
The world population is far larger now than in the past, making daily average casualty rate a poor measure. You need to look at the proportion of populations that die as a result of violence. By this measure, the world is a far less dangerous place than it was thousands of years ago.
The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is a good read by Steven Pinker that addresses this exact issue.
My original point is that humanity has no learning curve when it comes to wars, not violence as a whole. A large part of violence in earlier times cannot be classified as "war". Daily average casualty rate measures the average death toll per day per war, thus making it easier to compare wars over time.
The problem, however, is that estimates of casualty rates of recent wars are far more precise, when compared to earlier wars. This holds for the total world population as well.
Additionally, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined approaches the subject from an overall psychological point of view, whereas I have an event-based approach, adjusting for war participants only.
|
The_Riddler:
My analysis of the European Union was a general one, not an in-depth one. There's a lot to it that I don't understand, for sure, but in layman's terms it explains more or less how Europe is suffering some of these woes. There are cultural, religious, political and very specific economical aspects involved in the Political Integrations of Europe, and some critics could even say, in its failure (this last part is very debatable).
As far as war goes: yes it is a learning curve. Just because human beings keep engaging in wars, doesn'tt mean they haven't learned positive things form them. Let me give you some examples to strengthen my point:
-Human Rights. They were, in large part, based around atrocities in wars, amongst other situations. Sure, there's still violations left and right, but trust me: the world is far safer today, than it was in the feudal ages, or even the renaissance.
-Less casualties. Even if were to exaggerate the casualties in today's conflicts, modern warfare causes much reduced casualties. They are still too high, and there are still atrocities, but they are much, much more isolated than before. In feudal Japan, the very fabric of society was based around constant warfare. During Attila the Hun's time, waves upon waves of soldiers simply died. The reason for this, is that our weaponry now provides much better force multiplication (a single soldier can wield a light machine gun which in past eras would've required several armed men to just match the same firepower).
Both World Wars were a BIG eye opener in the way we fight wars. Not only was chivalry sent out the window, but a semi-mandatory body of law was set to regulate them. Yes, countries still break these laws (such as illegal weaponry), but International Scrutiny plays a much bigger role today, than it did before. This is the reason why military superpowers remain "friendly to the world" even as they wage war: they can't fight them all.
Unless a country shoots itself into a Total War policy, wars today are much more limited. Look at NATO conflicts, for example: The U.S. (and other miltiary superpowers) could obliterate an average opposing force very, very fast if it held nothing back, but international pressure would ensue. It's now a game of cloak and dagger.
That evolution, is all the result of lessons learned through warfare. Human beings have only truly been around for a very small amount, and while sometimes we repeat the same mistakes, for the most part we do learn.
The human race as a whole has no learning curve as it involves different people over time, that make the same mistakes repeatedly. As for your examples:
-Human Rights is an artificial legal term. In reality, humans behave like humans always have. International laws do not prevent or change this behaviour.
-The DAILY AVERAGE casualty rate increases with time as weapons become more efficient, conflicts are larger on a geographical scale and wars are mostly fought on a nationstate basis.
-The largest military superpower, the U.S., is currently involved in numerous wars and has fought in the top 3 nationstate based wars, by death toll, in the past 100 years.
The world has not seen a single second/minute/hour/day without war in the last few thousand years. Some of the largest wars, measured by daily average casualty rate, were in the past 100 years. With current weapons of mass destruction and the knowledge that humanity uses everything in its ability, the long term trend is very clear. An analysis of the bigger picture unambiguously predicts more wars to come.
|
|
@Nullist
The long term trend does not change due to institutions such as the European Union and the United Nations. They did not prevent civil war in Libya, nor in any other African/Middle Eastern country.
Both India and Brazil are not part of the security council, which makes their political position irrelevant to that particular conflict.
Finally, I would not classify the Holocaust as a "social construct" and I dont think the average person is "socially immunised" from it. |
I disagree entirely. But social moral conscience is only achieved when the responsible nation accepts repsponsibility, culpability for its actions and takes steps to deliberately remedy and reconcile its past actions with the victims, alongside promising to itself that it will never again allow itself to conduct itself as it did.
Human history, filled with wars, did not improve humanity's morals. World War 2 is a prime example, as it is the bloodiest of wars, yet started only roughly 75 years ago. Individuals might learn, but the human nature does not change. The likelihood for any sovereignty to go to war, either "forced" or voluntarily, is quite high, even with institutions such as the European Union and the United Nations. |
Don't exaggerate his statements, man. He didn't say everyone else was lazy.
The Greeks has some serious holes in their social policies (especially for retirement) which the rest of the EU suffered for, as well. It was a bad economic decision, you can blame the government, but not the Greek people. Other countries, such as Spain, had economic holes in their countries as well, and are suffering the consequences. They were mistakes, for the most part, not laziness (Spain had the largets tourist industry before, remember?).
It is a fact that Germany carries the Euro on their shoulders, but NOT the European Union. The European Union is much more than just the coin. Germany has a lot of money for several reasons: they have always had a strong industrial infrastructure, and they are very, very organized as a culture (Germanic cultures in general, come from a tradition of being very organized. Sometimes too much).
This has nothing to do with Nazism, or the Third Reich in general. It has to do with merits the Germans, and a lot of European countries, have earned through hard work and dedication (Both World War's provided some hard lessons in that respect).
I am not very knowledgeable about Russia, or Eastern European countries as a whole, but I have met people form those countries. None of them strike me as "heartless". I can honestly say they had colder demeanor to them (I live near the Caribbean, everyone is all friendly and joyful here in comparison  ), but they were very professional and hard working.
The point of the CoH2 story was not to portray the Soviets are bad. In fact, one of the many quotes in the game is "We did what was necessary". That is arguably true, to the extent that without all those deaths and sacrifices, the war could have lasted A LOT longer, and perhaps not in the way we expect it to.
The point of CoH2's story, is to portray that even if that sacrifice was necessary to achieve victory, there is a price to it. All sides in the war paid that price to some extent.
Apart from the incorrect "analysis" on the European sovereign debt crisis, strong industrialization, government structure and identity are precisely some of the important factors that amplify national socialism. Furthermore, World War 2, or any other war, is not part of a learning curve, as humanity does not gain a moral conscience from it. |
Every day when I look at the forum I see someone saying that Relic has done something wrong.
And I suppose you do have a right to, as everyone has their opinions. But, as days go by, I can't help but see that almost every post is negative; saying something's been done wrong. Very rarely do I see someone say that Relic's done a good job.
So I wanted to add some positivity. I really enjoy this game - 3 weeks in and I've nearly got 100 hours of playtime, and with my busy schedule that's no small feat.
So please, post here and tell Relic some great and fun times you've had playing this game and say that you like it. I know I do.
Here you go: http://www.relic.com/work-at-relic/ |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
