Turrican

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    111

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Turrican

  1. Posted

    1 minute ago, Twig said:

    I'm very familiar with the style of writing at play here. This is what I used to do on like a daily basis when I was younger. Maybe not under the flag of "won't admit it's right-wing", but certainly just as toxic in many contexts. This isn't a person interested in discussing and learning, only sewing chaos. Act polite while saying heinous shit so you have fuel when people react unkindly. God, it's like looking in a ten year old mirror.

     

    I hope you grow past this eventually, Turrican. It's hard to have hope these days, but hey I gotta or I can't go on.

     

    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. Posted

    10 minutes ago, Apple Cider said:

    The idea you can just slide this post in here looking polite but throwing out "I don't want to trigger you into running a safe space" and "virtue signalling" like no one's going to notice is foolhardy at best. Maybe this isn't the forum for you, even if you've been here a long time. 

     

    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. Posted

    30 minutes ago, Twig said:

    I'm honestly at a loss for words after reading... that. But I think this about sums up what I think.

     

    :wtf:

     

    EDIT: No wait did you just fucking compare the BLM movement to terrorism? I bet I can guess what your threshold for "terrorism" is, too. Well I can't speak for anyone else, but, to be frank: what the fuck?

     

    I've seen you post some seriously rank junk before, but it's usually about dumb video games, and everyone got they own dumb hangups about video games. But this is far outside the scope of what's acceptable. You've grossed me out on this chilly Monday morning. Eugh.

     

    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. Posted

    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. Posted

    This is where that (way too hidden) width mechanic comes in.  I estimate each of your super-divisions would have a width of 55 (infantry =2 width, artillery =3).  When you attack from just one province, you get 80 width to work with.  Each additional province gives you another 40.  On defense, you only ever get 80 width.  So you could only ever defend with one division at a time, and probably were never able to attack with more than 2.  Your enemy, on the other had, employed divisions with width of 24.  Still not optimal, but they could always bring at least 3 to every fight.  

     

    I read on the forums that you should try to keep your divisions at either 10 width or 20 width to maximize their effectiveness.  I've found that to be a VERY useful guideline.  Most of my French infantry weighs in at 19 width, which has been close enough.  

     

    Interesting, cheers.  Once more unto the breach then for me it seems...

  7. Posted

    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. Posted

    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. Posted

    HoI3 was the most confusing Paradox game I ever played. Is this one any more user friendly?

     

    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. 

  11. Posted

    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. Posted

    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.

  14. Posted

    Really enjoyed the conversation about the impact of cultural messages and themes and how entertainment can impact views. For a study on this (albeit one on the extreme end of messages and effects which might make people who don't want to think about this stuff and be introspective balk), here's a video and article on Nazi propaganda

     

    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.  

  17. Posted

    I think Age of Wonders 3 is much closer comparison, especially now that TW went fantasy.

    Only there you can play small limited scenarios if you wish so. TW games scare me off the minute it becomes obvious I have to micromanage the hell out of dozens of provinces, which becomes more tiresome with each iteration. Probably not with this one though. Previously they had short campaign mode that didn't break by the midgame, but it's absent since at least Rome 2. But yeah, no beautiful battles - and in TW Warhammer you can at last look at battle without cringe cause it no longer pretends it's historical.

    Hmm maybe. Either way, I'd say AoW and EL are both far better games. I'll persist with WH for a little longer though and see if it gets interesting.

  18. Posted

    So I picked this up yesterday in the end, not because I particularly wanted to play it but curiosity got the better of me. I sank about 8 hours into it I think, playing as Empire.

    It's ok. I understand why people say it's like a streamlined TW game. It's cleaner somehow, all the information is very clearly and neatly laid out and easily accessible. I also really liked the new tactical battle map where a scroll of the mouse wheel allows the player to direct the battle from a bird's eye view. What I liked less is the short distance of the battlefield camera (I'd like to pull back a little more) and the fact that the unit models look so similar and have the same face.

    I like the hero / Lord system and levelling up these characters to use new abilities on the battlefield. However, as I played I kept thinking about Endless Lefend and how I'd rather be playing that. I did think the diplomacy was quite good actually (I was playing on very hard) and the empire management was not too sparse. However, due to the prohibitive cost of armies, my campaign seems to have devolved into a repetitive cycle of back and forth as forces stretched thin run from pillar to post artacking and defending the same settlements over and over. The actual battles themselves are the same old TW fare really and I find myself auto resolving a lot already.

    Essentially, I found the game quite enjoyable so far if a little boring. I'd rather be playing Endless Legend, Stellaris or Thea I think but will push on further and see if I get more into it. It's a pretty solid release, no noticeable bugs so far. It's ok.

  19. Posted

    Yeah, okay, sometimes, y'know, a game can be good despite GW, and I was hoping for that. I'm not here to shit and run, I can explain what I like and dislike. Not every thread needs to be a hug-fest and I can certainly see how people like it. It's in my genre preferences, it's not just totally out of left field- I can judge its mechanics and see whether I like it or not.

    Yeah sure. I wasn't saying you were wrong to have criticisms of the game, just asking whether you were ever likely to think much of it due to your gaming preferences.

    Personally, I love the GW universe and I own every WH game, however, I haven't tried Total Warhammer yet or watched a let's play, nevermind bought the game. I think I've just lost patience with and faith in CA.

    What's weird to me is that most reviews (such as the 3MA cast) have been very complimentary about the game whereas a lot of what's been said has actually put me off (eg certain factions forced to collide, simplified city management, the usual dodgy AI, each campaign involving fighting Chaos etc). Essentially, whereas I'm not surprised someone like you doesn't much like the game, I'm quite surprised by my own lack of interest. Maybe it's just that when TW first came out it was a revelation but it hasn't moved on much since and nowadays there are so many other brilliant games out there to play.

  22. Posted

    Turrican, please don't give people shit for having negative opinions of stuff in this thread, too. Panzeh is clearly familiar with Creative Assembly's games and implicitly compliments Shogun 2, which is the last Total War game that landed for me as well. He's not some troll doing a drive-by.

     

    I haven't given anyone shit on any thread and I wasn't here.  I was making a serious point.  If Panzeh hasn't liked a TW game since Shogun 2 and doesn't like GW in general he's probably just not going to like the game.  It would be like me following and commenting on Overwatch - it may be amazing but I am just never going to appreciate a game like that because it's not my thing.  

  23. Posted

    The design choices in this game tend to be really bad IMO. The unit balance is still at that kind of linear progression of three, maybe four roles of unit with zany wizards and dragons now. The strategic mechanics are very one-note and limiting for each faction- you don't really make too many terribly interesting decisions there.

    It's polished, but there really isn't anything there. It's still not got the kind of craft Shogun 2 had. I guess GW IPs make people overlook or even want bizarre and weak game design. It's the same for their actual games- they're made without even having considered that other people were making better games- they just do their own thing like it's still 1990.

    Since Warhammer doesn't do it for me, this game doesn't do it for me.

    Since you don't like Warhammer or Total War I'm surprised you're even following and commenting on Total War: Warhammer. What did you expect?