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:

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.