Mixing Crusader Kings and Victoria = Real life game?

[ThatJamesguy01]

Whoever said the Abrams was a great modern tank. Please check your facts it's actually the worst of the modern main battle tanks. The Challenger 2 (Superior armour to the Leopard 2 and the Abrams, and longer range than the Abrams) and the Leopard 2 (Much faster, longer operation range, and a better gun) are both FAR superior and the Russians T-90 is superior in some ways. So please check your facts.


Slightly more detailed comparison.


Abrams is incredibly thirsty for fuel, is a maintenance nightmare, and is quite an easy target to hit.

Leopard 2 is faster, more accurate and has a further operational range and is more reliable than the Abrams.

Challenger 2 is the other way around slower than the Abrams, but more accurate, and over a far longer range (Rifled barrel over smoothebore), also with more advanced armour.

T-90 has it's advantage in it's hull shape, cheapness, and ability to be mass produced if needed. It's also able to shoot Anti-Tank Missiles in the same way it fires tank shells, i'm not sure if the Abrams can do that although I may be wrong.



So saying that the American tanks are just -better- is very wrong.

 

[I_AM_King_Midas]

I think the overall point though is that the game would feel substantially different and maybe to the point of loosing some fun. It would also be controversial.

1) Despite to what level of military strength you think the American military can reach, I beleive all who are being objective would say that its quite powerful and far reaching. In terms of war, you would almost need America's permission if you were going to go conquering a lot. And if America ever did say "stop conquering" then you really would need to very strongly consider stopping. More so than with any other great power in any of the other paradox games.

2) I think the controversy is obvious but just to expound. People really don't like hearing others say how they are weaker than someone else. Even if we take America out of the equation and compare other countries. They may not like how they are sized up to another.

 

[111axa1]

Obama, powerless head of the United States, was forced to accept Autonomous Vassals by a coalition of southern Republicans who then started a de jure war over Florida.

Fricken genius

 

[grisamentum]

Whoever said the Abrams was a great modern tank. Please check your facts it's actually the worst of the modern main battle tanks. The Challenger 2 (Superior armour to the Leopard 2 and the Abrams, and longer range than the Abrams) and the Leopard 2 (Much faster, longer operation range, and a better gun) are both FAR superior and the Russians T-90 is superior in some ways. So please check your facts.


Slightly more detailed comparison.


Abrams is incredibly thirsty for fuel, is a maintenance nightmare, and is quite an easy target to hit.

Leopard 2 is faster, more accurate and has a further operational range and is more reliable than the Abrams.

Challenger 2 is the other way around slower than the Abrams, but more accurate, and over a far longer range (Rifled barrel over smoothebore), also with more advanced armour.

T-90 has it's advantage in it's hull shape, cheapness, and ability to be mass produced if needed. It's also able to shoot Anti-Tank Missiles in the same way it fires tank shells, i'm not sure if the Abrams can do that although I may be wrong.



So saying that the American tanks are just -better- is very wrong.

Even if you were right, the numbers are still too far out of skew. America has like 8,000-9,000 Abrams. Germany has only a couple hundred Leopard 2s. Even Russia has less than 2000 T-90s.

Have a somewhat better MBT isn't going to help if you're still outnumbered 4:1 or 30:1.

 

[111axa1]

Even if you were right, the numbers are still too far out of skew. America has like 8,000-9,000 Abrams. Germany has only a couple hundred Leopard 2s. Even Russia has less than 2000 T-90s.

Have a somewhat better MBT isn't going to help if you're still outnumbered 4:1 or 30:1.

Having a greater quantity of tanks can give a higher chance of victory, but it doesn't make the quality of the tank's design lesser (not sure if his facts correct or not, but that logic makes no sense =/)

 

[Mudcrab]

... In terms of war, you would almost need America's permission if you were going to go conquering a lot. And if America ever did say "stop conquering" then you really would need to very strongly consider stopping.

Slightly OT; Assuming the unified political will (including leadership) exists for that message to be successfully transmitted and to be heeded. See current events for more info.