Gaizokubanou

Well no negative, it's just +1 for either or 0 for both. If there were such thing as a negative vote that would be interesting.

This tweet and the logic behind it makes me want to punch bunch of walls that I can punch through. https://twitter.com/hankgreen/status/757709096757833729

I would only vote to have an actual effect on the outcome and that's what matters most so likelihood of a candidate winning is absolutely critical or I would vote for myself every election. But I also hate this weird logic that not voting for Hillary is somehow a half of a vote for Trump... not voting for Hillary is exactly that, not voting for Hillary. It does make her weaker which in 2 party race makes the opposition relatively stronger yes, but it is absolutely no way a half vote for Trump. I have lot of dislikes towards what Hillary's platform represent but I would ask any of my fellow Sanders supporters during the primary to vote for her out of practical concerns. Key is ask tho, this shaming I see so frequently online is doing no favor in earning her those votes IMO. Edit: pretty much what jennegatron says, at least I think my views are pretty similar. Edit2: also in ways I think this year's primaries actually emulated some good of what other nation's multi party politics with their variable coalitions do so perhaps the two party system of USA is not completely lost either. Like on negative side we got an ass like Trump but on the other end we also got Sanders on national platform albeit briefly but still it was something. If this trend (minus Trump-likes I hope) continues then primaries could legit serve as that open ground for more fine tuned vote and accumulating bargaining power. But in the end government is all about compromises so we have to answer exactly who are we compromising with?

Just wanted to say, what a fun podcast. I don't know what it was but the podcast was also extra fun to listen to. Maybe it's all that getting old talk from Rob, idk but it was really special.

I second illitarist's 2nd main point for games with bigger scope. Smaller scope games can deal with contingencies via authored alternatives but for bigger ones the game system should be setup to recognize, highlight and react to some of bigger events to give stronger sense of history. lol reminds me of HoI3 surrenders with major nations.

Tdoggs thanks for that, it's very insightful. Now the whole living off the land concept is stuck in my head, with imagination of 4x games where units must pillage the terrain in order to recuperate movement points~ ah so fascinating possibilities that are probably way too frustration for most gaming but still, the concept is just so fascinating. I suppose all the Koei games handle this to an extent and... yeah they are actually quite a blast to play with. Also heard something similar from Hegemony games I should really look into them~ Perhaps a game of snake with supply chain that has to be cut off... could be very gamified too mmmmm

As long as sentience is not achieved these are just advanced tools but... that line seems closer and closer cause these are indeed tools that make fast snap decisions for us, no??? Also now sci fi with normal human pilots feel even more dated.

That's an oddly specific year Griddlelol, and it immediately reminded me of UT2004... that game was truly an oddball in many good ways but just oddly put together (sorry for the tangent). I like weapon progression but yes it does get watered down with redundancies I suppose. Wouldn't mind carbon copy of UT weapon set and expand it from there.

Super fascinating interpretation of wtf is going on right now from one of the comments here from user named Teebs, I'll quote the comment http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jun/25/brexit-live-emergency-meetings-eu-uk-leave-vote#comment-77205935

Having only cursory knowledge of EU, despite it's recent problems with Greece and such, it just seemed so right, a strong organized force against nationalism of first half of 20th century. This is just very sad

Ooo fascinating talk on what makes for strategic game, role of carriers and what to do with China~ Learned a useful term-'telescoping'-to describe a game that shifts focus from strategic to tactical Also surprisingly easy conversation to follow despite me not having any board wargaming experience.

kekkekeke eh hmm Indeed. I choose over warranty more than anything. One exception is my latest card, Zotac's 970 because it is physically like 2~3 inches shorter than the rest. That slight difference prevents so much headache when it comes to managing the inside of my PC.

Artillery has width now? The whole point of them in 3 was that they had no width and was IC/supply heavy way of getting more firepower into limited front line... argh

Wait tech is linear? Cause in HoI3 my favorite thing to do is go hard on one tech (my favorite plays are USSR with everything into nothing but industry/manpower/conscript so I would have militia units that are like 8 years ahead)... so I can't pull off those weird optimization builds anymore??? D:

So most members of Idle probably don't remember but I've been mentioning game I'm working on and here is really short and really early footage of it, WIP and all. This is truly the earliest of alpha. There are hardly any UI. Almost all the assets you see are placeholders. But I figure it has to be shown at some point so I guess its current broken stage would do fine. It's super short video due to using freebie fraps. Any thoughts (so long as they are not super mean) are welcome. Please just don't kill me.

Dang I've been really bad on updating here, a big update is coming soon though and I'm pretty excited about just showing it off the game actually being played but for now I have to fix some crashes 8*) UPDATES: Here is raw footage of this janky ass game... I mean it's janky but at the same time, it works and I'm pretty stoked about it. WARNING: During the AI turn the camera will zip around the map so if you are sensitive to flickering imagery, please be advised or just watch from 4:03 ( ) which captures the meat of the game in minimum time. For others here is the raw 4:39 of the game being played. Yes, ships now turn and move and shoot whole lot of stuff, cities are bunch of tubes now (when cities grow they even have this pretty neat parallax scrolling effect). Still stuck on most basic mechs but more high tech stuff are coming. About the production... previously I messed around with whole lot of ways but right now I'm pretty set on this idea of bulk production where you choose to produce a 'batch' of units. I'm planning the batch to be fixed in tech/tier and size but actual content be random within those two parameters. Also kinda important detail is that it is faction wide, like you don't build things on cities or specific locations. Instead all cities pool their production together which give you production slots (which should go on the right side where the white box currently is). I really like how this streamlines ton of stuff and removes all mid game slog but I am itching for some sort of busywork :/ Also about the map... that map you see is completely random and I'm not very happy with it. Unless I learn how to code some good random map generator, I'll probably switch to authored map :/ Here is the big question I have for everyone... is this game too fucking weird, like would it offend both strategy/action gamers cause it contains both? UPDATE 2: Someone off forum mentioned that perhaps game needs more player involvement during battle like say tactical control while paused or something and I totally get that worry especially when battle starts to scale up cause player involvement is designed around 1ship v 1ship and I really want a way to scale up player influence somehow... One thought I had in mind was to give ships big old guns and let player dictate their fire support patters while paused or something, it's highly scalable and not micro nightmare-ish (imagine trying to micro the mechs lol) so I'm very keen on this possible solution. UPDATE 3: hmm noo it should be an active ability-like thing that has to be timed. Setting it up once early in the battle still leaves player kinda empty handed in the thick of it.

Does that 'except Germany' include major nations??? 8*) Ahhh good old 'there is no stalemate in China'. Maybe it took too much of the episode but with a game complex as Paradox ones, if there is no RTFM option available because there is no manual, it seems completely natural? Like that major bug about defensive stats not working in HoI3 for multiple versions shows (for the all that time, community (perhaps even PDX?) just assumed that defensive stats were just poorly balanced), hard to judge a game when it's hard to tell exactly how you are interacting with it (some of which I take as personal positive cause I enjoy figuring that kind of stuff out) and so it seems completely natural that it would be a topic that eats up lot of the talk... like if they don't understand certain aspects of the system and there is no documentation for it except for community 'guesses'... what more could be said? :/

I hope the absence of good documentation doesn't end up repeating this goofy but MAJOR bug that persisted in HoI3 for like 2 expansions. Basically the bug was that none of the defensive stats worked... and it wasn't even known by anyone for like 2 expansions or so. I'm definitely going to buy this game soon ish but from sound of it it is so much better than what I had to deal with HoI3 gladly hehehehe I also think HoI3 initially had this supply simulation that was inherited from HoI2, where all supplies flew out of the capital so early on you can do some goofy thing like logistics bomb the capital and entire ground force would fall apart (or am I recalling HoI2 and mixing it up here?). There was also this bug where Allies would get stuck on channel island with like all 100+ divisions, which messed up Axis AI into putting their entire army next to it. I think documenting and providing a savefile for this bug got me into Their Finest Hour beta. At least I like to think that's what happened. Also there was this weird controversial tactics where if you build nothing but paratroopers, you could "ENCIRCLE" the enemy by dropping and covering the entire line behind their army which got the forum pretty heated. I'm so sorry for this old man "back in my days" rant (especially ironic since I'm probably the youngest regular member here???) and this isn't like pooping on HoI3 either, like all those bugs and odd features, no matter how weird or game breaking they were, I have such a fond memory of the bugs themselves and the game. Such a diamond in the rough, glad to hear that HoI4 is basically more refined version.

yeah something is F-ed with that Bethesda logo loading, I had to disable it.

I live in northern NJ so I hear you guys on the relatively higher cost of living issue, and that's part of why I'm eager for whatever scrap of improvement that can be had while pushing for more.

I was hoping and voted for Sanders but eh, Hillary is good I guess. Like the minimum wage debate feels like it encapsulates the difference quite well? Some gave her massive shit about $12 vs $15 but from the existing $7.25, fuck it it's still really much better ya know? Still kinda mysterious on why ppl that seem to stand on far more left than I do didn't go for Sanders but eh I guess everyone's got their reasons and He would have raised taxes.

Autoresolve is, minus the single/few unit problem that Cordeos talks about, considered by the community and myself to be borderline exploitative on higher difficulty. I think combat is better for the most part. Lot of average unit micros (like shield wall or diamond formation for cavalry) are gone but those have been moved to heroes as spell. There is also bit of item collecting going on to boost generals' stats. City management is... definitely not as 'impressive' as it was in Medieval 2. It functions well as a game but nothing like transforming a small castle into 3 layers of ultra fort with bustling town inside of it. But then again, you only got that sense of improvement from battlefield and actual fighting is just really good here IMO. Overall strategy layer is streamlined but that's comparing it to the mess that was Rome 2. Compare to say, Shogun 2, I think there is way more to do management wise (diplomacy is still whacked out on harder difficulties). Then again, Shogun 2's management aspect was super streamlined for me because I read up on someone's math that it was actually the best to never improve your castles so that they consume less rice for better overall growth.

Ok so that sounds like there is a soft timer since losing planets is inevitable... thank you~

How is the campaign structured btw? Is it a free form campaign or list of missions or something in between?

What kind of crash are you experiencing? Does the game just close without any error message? If so, I would try two things, 1. deleting Nvidia experience if you are Nvidia user and has that and 2. turn off cloud sync for Doom.