• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Turrican

  • Rank
    Thumb Citizen

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

3515 profile views
  1. That was a pretty damning incitement as to your own character but thanks for your nonsense and for proving my point about unwillingness to engage. I understand, it's easier. Also, "sowing".
  2. It's odd that you think I believe no-one is going to notice what I've written. I wouldn't have written it otherwise. There is a difference between attacking a person and attacking the ideas they hold and espouse. I think Rob and Danielle are good and nice people - just terribly misguided. You're kind of proving my point anyway. The standard position of regressive liberals is a steadfast unwillingness to engage with debate or facts. As I say, I'm not right wing myself but I will consider all sides and take a view - rather than say "you have a different view to me so go away!" Which is the definition of bigotry.
  3. That's fine. Other opinions are available of course. Although I notice that your post is free of anything that could be described as an argument or a fact. To answer your question though, no, I didn't compare BLM with terrorism. However, it is a divisive and political movement founded on a fallacy masquerading as a civil rights group. I would've thought anyone could see that.
  4. Very amusing episode this week. I have to admit to feeling a small sense of shadenfreude when listening to two teeth-gnashing, palm-wringing, regressive social justice warriors lamenting the "end of the world"; confused, deluded, blissfully unaware that they and their ilk are the creators and biggest enablers of Trump. So so so sad that Hillary wasn't elected. The only woman who has ever been the subject of a criminal investigation whilst First Lady, someone who has funnlled $2bn dollars through her foundation. This is a woman whose biggest financial backers are banks, arms dealers and the most despicable regimes on the planet. But she's great though isn't she? When her husband (you know, the one who is a serial adulterer, launched cruise missiles against a hospital in Sudan to shift the spotlight off an affair, lied to the American people, takes $500m payments for speeches at charity events, etc) was accused by a succession of women of having raped them, Hillary wasn't concerned and didn't divorce him, instead she simply hired investigators to smear the women concerned. As Danielle says, she's a real "feminist"! Just one example of the lazy thinking on offer this week. Over the past 16 years, America's standing in the world has diminished significantly due to your last two choices as President with one being a retard who goes to war with countries because God tells him to and because another country attacked the US, and the other being a man who apparently stands for nothing and will bow and scrape to the leaders of countries who perpetrate attacks against the American public but who will also kill hundreds of innocents each year through a huge increase in drone strikes on foreign soil. Danielle, who I have to say seems a woman for whom no fact is too important to ignore or be ignorant of, actually thinks that Trump could drop a nuke on Syria. If you had any rudimentary knowledge, you would realise that the world is far more likely to be a safer place with Trump as your President than Clinton. Hillary (the civil rights activist who campaigned against gay marriage) has always been very hawkish when it comes to war. Trump on the other hand is quite isolationist, he has already begun making overtures to Putin. Obviously, you guys don't approve of this because Putin is not a big fan of gays but a less myopic commentator may come to the conclusion that a thawing of relations between the two greatest military powerhouses on the planet is actually quite a good thing in terms of survival of the planet. I don't mean to trigger either of you into running to a "safe space" or anything and I regard Trump as a buffoon but really you need to be aware of how this has happened. When you place so much emphasis on the rights of people who would deny you your own rights if they could, non-liberals will recognise this as the self-serving virtue signalling that it is, rather than any genuine desire to tackle and remedy a difficult issue - If in doubt, just mock the straight, white guy. It requires no courage or employment of facts and hey, I'll feel so much more smug about myself. Meanwhile do not ever criticise insidious, divisive and evil entities such as Islamic extremism or Black lives matter. No, we must support them in their right to damage our culture and society! The outlook of the regressive is a perverse masochism which, if left unchecked, will really result in the destruction of the rights and freedoms that were so hard won over centuries of struggle. That can't be allowed to happen and this was a catalyst for Trump. He will probably be a disaster, will certainly be a change (remember how Obama promised change - lol), but the one good thing you can say about his Presidency already is that it will operate as a check against the warped mindset that was on display during this podcast. No offense intended and I do not speak as a right-winger. However, I really hope you both make an effort in the future to gain a more well-rounded and less bigoted view of the world. I think you'd benefit from it. Mod note: you can stop reporting this, he's already banned
  5. Episode 360: Hearts of Iron IV

    Interesting, cheers. Once more unto the breach then for me it seems...
  6. Episode 360: Hearts of Iron IV

    Well I feel as though they are. Not sure if others agree but due to the penalties for researching a tech early and the mutually exclusive tech lines and nation focuses means I seem to follow the same paths each time.
  7. Episode 360: Hearts of Iron IV

    As much as I think that devoting the best part of 20 minutes to the fact that there isn't a manual was a complete waste of time (manuals are static objects and out of date the moment they are published), there does see to be a lot going on in the game which is just too unfathomable or covert. I was playing as Bolivia last night, I feel that I progressed my tech in quite an optimal way, I had conscription running, was using improved firearms and my divisions were each trained to level 3 and comprised of 20 infantry battalions and 5 advanced artillery (with engineers and artillery support). I also had air support and radar so that I could examine the Chilean forces at my border. They were a democracy so surely my manpower as a fascist nation would be a telling advantage? Sure enough, I studied their divisions and they generally had around 11 battalions of infantry and 1 of artillery. Ha Ha, weaklings! Confident that I had them outgunned, outnumbered and out-trained I declared war and launched my 13 divisions at the 8 of theirs. The result was that I was utterly demolished. It was an annihilation and halfway through the humiliation, another 12 divisions of theirs appear from the South and join the fray! WTF? I am maxing out my man power conscripting 13 divisions and yet freaking democratic Chile can pump out 20 divisions!!! The effect was that I just have no idea why I lost the battle or why my numbers are so much lower than the army of my weak neighbour. I shall probably give it another shot but the linearity of the tech trees is starting to making each play through feel like groundhog day and I clearly have no idea of how to judge a battle before I enter it. I've enjoyed my time with the game but it's starting to feel like it may be more trouble than its worth.
  8. Hearts of Iron 4

    Yeah I find the research trees a little linear too. It would be nicer to have a big pool to choose from rather than picking an initial path and just progressing down it. I suppose it does commit you to an ideology though. Regarding trade, one thing that irritates me is that I can't seem to sell my surplus resources. For example, It would be nice to be able to trade my extra steel for the oil I need rather than have to give up my factories for it.
  9. Hearts of Iron 4

    Well, I looked at HoI3 when it came out and thought "no thanks" and shut it down never to open it up again. I've also never really played much EU4 or CK2 (despite wishing I had the time and owning all million and one dlcs for them). However, I recently got into Stellaris and loved it and it was that really (along with listening to a BBC podcast about the 75th anniversary of Operation Barbarosa) that caused me to buy HoI4. I have to say, it's got it's claws into me already. It's excellent, easy to understand and wide in scope. I've played around 8 or 9 hours so far as Australia, just to get to grips with the game - it's early 1941 now and we are a fascist state allied with Germany and Japan in fighting mother Britain. It won't end well but I'll be able to try manage a larger power next time around. If you do pick it up (and you should), I recommend going through the inadequate tutorial mission as Italy and then watch the 5 tutorial videos from the Paradox Extra YouTube Channel. You should have no problem managing your war machine and multiple fronts after that.
  10. Hearts of Iron 4

    Nobody playing this? I don't believe that!
  11. Episode 359: Chess in 2016

    Yes, that 4 pronged strategy is basically where I got to with the game and it did improve my play. I just don't think I have any natural aptitude for it though however. I don't seem to be able to make a move without leaving something hanging or forking myself. I'll check John's channel out though for sure. One great thing about chess (unlike a sport or the latest video game) is that you can play, enjoy and compete in it forever. There's aren't too many pursuits like that out there when you think about it.
  12. Episode 359: Chess in 2016

    Don't agree with that assessment. There are less options, predictability or complexity in strategy games so you will usually only have a handful of real options at any time. Chess features thousands of tangible calculations because of the predictable nature of the move sets of the pieces - that means a good player could spend hours thinking through various scenarios before every single move. That's just not viable or fun, so of course a time limit is necessary. The reason I have never been able to really get into chess is because it feels to me like a memory game (learning lines and correct play) rather than an artistic pursuit. I'm probably wrong about that but the fact that a computer is the best player on Earth does lend some credence to my theory.
  13. Episode 359: Chess in 2016

    This was an awesome show. Stop hiding Michael, he's one of the more articulate members of the crew. He should be on more often!
  14. I didn't really hear any conversation about that tbh. I did hear one around whether pandering to nerd culture had made people feel self-entitled. The first questioner seemed to be asking (prompted bizarrely by outrage regarding some low Stellaris scores) whether an increase in nerd culture was leading to power fantasies where the consumer of the media is the centre of the world. Danielle said that nerds are being catered to by being sold power fantasies and it is making people act in a shitty entitled way. Rob opined that the space 4x genre was somehow different to other strategy games in that it feeds a power fantasy and so there is a lot of "aggro" surrounding this type of game and the player is all-powerful and aggrandised and if the player becomes super-invested in this in an uncritical way then they open a door to poison. This is why conversation around game reviews has become so nasty. I thought both hosts were way off the mark. Nerds are not the first people in society to be catered to. Think about housewives or sports fans for example. It's simply another huge market that is being tapped into and fed (via comics, games, movies, etc) and to make generalisations about such a huge demographic makes about as much sense as creating stereotypes based upon race. As I understand the conversation regarding Stellaris, the outcry from some quarters was due to the fact that the game (although not perfect) was clearly an ambitious, deep and strident entry into the strategy game market, yet some respected and experienced reviewers appeared to rate it as one of the worst strategy games made in recent memory. So, how exactly are the people who objected to this acting in a shitty or entitled way? Surely, this would only be the case if the playerbase refused to accept any criticism of their beloved Stellaris and demanded it be awarded a 10/10. But this was not the case, they were simply asking for some more even-handed judgment to be exercised so that the game would not be misrepresented to the wider public. Rob's comments in particular were hard to comprehend; a 4x space game apparently fosters a sense of aggrandisement and power fantasy, but other strategy games, you know, like the ones where you single-handedly win a world war or take over the entire globe, do not! The second question followed on from the first in asking whether the backlash around Rowan's review was due to expectations of the site he was writing for. Here the hosts contradict their answers to the first question and admit that the backlash, rather than being due to shitty, self-entitled, power fantasists, was mainly due to the discrepancy between Rowan's score and IGN's previous scoring history. I have to admit, that I was horrified by Rowan's score myself when I saw it and thought he should have been more aware of the other games reviewed on the site but after glancing at the scoring criteria that IGN employs it became clear that whereas Rowan's score was in keeping with his opinion of the game, practically all other scores awarded by IGN reviewers were completely skewed with fairly average games being regularly awarded 8s or 9s. This surely speaks to IGN's overeagerness to keep in the good graces of developers whose cooperation the site relies upon for its exclusives and much of its content. I think Rob eluded to this when he admitted that the major releases were often handled by permanent staff rather than roguish freelancers. However, I have to disagree with Rob when he says that it is not practicable for a large site to employ some quality control and consistency when it comes to its scoring. The bigger the site, the more resources it has. I don't believe that each review is not copychecked by an editor before it goes to print. These editors must act as custodians of the scoring system on the site and ensure that scores at least reflect what the review actually says. I think the truth is probably that the inflated scores are granted with the consent of the powers that be at IGN for the reasons given above.
  15. Thanks. I have to say, some of my favourite shows are those where the guys revisit a game (such as CK2, CoH2, EU4, etc)