• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Gaizokubanou

  1. Out of curiousity, is there any actual dispute here that either Trump or Hillary is going to win the presidential election?

    Assuming not, isn't each vote effectively +1, -1, or 0?

    I mean I get that there's a bit more significance to a vote as sending a signal, but, like... pragmatically, aren't these the actual realistic potential outcomes of the election?

    So... what? Why is this an infuriating stance? No one needs to support her beyond this one thing, but if this is effectively a two person race, I at least feel pretty confident about which president I would rather have.

    Your vote is, as always, yours to spend, but it's a vote not a wish.


    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.

  2. 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?

  3. 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.



    This also remind me about a old mod for EU II that was very focused "realistic historical approach" that often it clashed hard with the open nature of the game - per example, playing as England, you as a player, can win the Hundred Years War, but the game was so "history driven" that start in fact to punish me (like a angry Dungeon Master), throwing random event that just screwed me because I "dared" to no do what they expect, at one moment, things got so surreal, that a event just start deleting my armies (and my gold too). I then start another game as France, and pretty much didn´t nothing, just expecting event to kick in and give me stuff (I don´t remember exactly how it worked, but I remember that annex vassals and stuff was way easier). It kind became the question - you give the player two door to choose from, but the instant the player go to the other door you punish him so hard, that you make him wonder, why do you give him this option to begin with?


    lol reminds me of HoI3 surrenders with major nations.



  4. 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

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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



    If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

    Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

    With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.


    Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

    And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

    The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

    The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

    Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

    Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

    If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

    The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

    When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

    All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

  8. 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 :(

  9. Even with all the lasers and frozrs, like 99% of the Nvidia cards on the market are just reproducing and branding the Nvidia reference spec card.


    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.

  10. 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:

  11. 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*)




    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.

  12. There's some of that kind of stuff in hoi4 already.  A guy on reddit dug into the ai scripts and discovered that most nations (except Germany) refuse to build armor in decent numbers and wont research aircraft beyond the 1936 models for any reason whatsoever.  Combine this with the way armor vs piercing works (high armor cuts the number of attacks a division takes in half) and its pretty easy to design divisions which are nearly invulnerable to enemy attacks just by adding a single battalion of heavy tanks.


    Does that 'except Germany' include major nations??? 8*)


    Ahhh good old 'there is no stalemate in China'.


    I think the topic of "How Do We Learn Games?" would be an interesting one.  Manuals vs. wiki vs. tooltips vs. "Let's Play" videos on youtube, etc.  I'd just rather the topic didn't take up so much of this particular episode.  Essentially, the first half hour of this episode was a complaint about how Paradox expects gamers to learn their games, followed by complaints about game systems that boiled down to  "I don't know how this works."  I make this criticism as a big fan of you guys.  You have a much better HoI4 episode in you.  I hope you come back to it in the future.  


    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? :/

  13. 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.

  14. Cordeos can speak on this more than I can, as this is one of the main goals of his party in Minneapolis/St. Paul/Minnesota in general. $12 is closer to a liveable wage, but still isn't really, especially in urban cities where cost of living is high(er). There are groups angling to go for $10 or $12 explicitly to undercut the push/enthusiasm for $15 under the guise of 'compromise.' They're trying to slow down the push for $15 by giving people a worse version of it and saying you should be happy with what you got.


    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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. Every campaign turn you get to undertake two missions. If there's a story mission available you have to do that one first. Otherwise you get to see the map of the sector, and any planet with a mission will be flagged with the faction you'll oppose. That could be any of the four, since Imperial sedition is something you have to deal with. Fail the mission or don't take it and you lose the planet. For each planet you lose you take a small penalty, depending on what sort of world it it, meaning your task becomes harder as the sector starts to slip away from you.


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

  18. Is this game crashing a lot for anyone else on PC?  I'm finding it to be fairly inconsistent but on average about once a level the game will just suddenly close.  It's particularly annoying when I've spent time combing the level for the collectables only to lose them in an instant.


    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.