site banner
PaperclipPerfector  27d ago (text post)   2308 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for August 23, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Haven't touched video games much these last few years but Civilization has had a special place in my heart since my parents got me Civ IV for my 8th birthday. Now the first looks at Civilization VII are out, and I'm sort of disappointed. The graphics are the best in the series so far (as you'd hope) but there are lots of baffling game design decisions being made here. The biggest change by far is that you no longer play with one civilization, the game is divided into thirds and each involves you playing as a different civ. Your cities (well, 'settlements', of which cities are only one type) and units carry over but other than that all the civs are reset to roughly the same development level and you choose a different civilization lead by the same leader. This is strange and immersion-breaking, especially when you can choose to transition from Egypt under Hatshepsut to Mongolia if you have enough horses. I actually think this model has some potential but they'd need a LOT of civs to make it work while also changing the player's leader and they'd have to limit you to civs that have actually controlled the same area through the ages. If they pull this off it could address the snowball effect that's plagued the late games of the previous entries. Also, the current UI is terrible and looks like a cheap mobile game. There's time for them to make adjustments and it could be a good game after an expansion pack or two but this might be the first time I don't preorder an entry.

But now I'm in the mood for some historical strategy and role-playing. How does Crusader Kings III work? Last time I tried it I'd get 10 years into a game and build up my economy at a snail's pace and then someone who had a claim on my land would invade me with an army twice the size of mine and I'd be dead.

Egypt was ruled by horse warriors from the Eurasian steppe during the Middle Ages, so saying “They are Mongols now” isn’t too egregious to me.

david attenborough should have performed the narration. i think that would be amazing. the cadence of the woman they have narrating in the video reminds me of attenborough.

How does Crusader Kings III work?

You need a web of alliances to protect yourself. But I don't like CK3. In many ways, it's a step back from CK2. In the old game, they had lots of custom rules that made playing as different religions and government types different. In CK3 they tried to make one system to rule them all, and it made everything play the same. I don't know if the DLCs made it any better.

EU4 is the most gamey Paradox game at the moment. The current meta is kinda ahistorical, with modifier stacking being the most rewarding type of gameplay, and mission trees being completely overpowered, but it's good mindless fun if you aren't achievement hunting.

I like CK3. Probably my biggest issue is that while mechanically it's worse than CK2, the UI is so much improved (and much more legible at high resolutions) I simply can't go back to CK2.

My recommendation is to start as a viking at the earliest start date (I'll usually go with a custom ruler in Norway); raiding is a fun and easy way to make lots of money and give you some breathing room to experiment with the game's systems. And since you're tribal, you get automatic casus bellis on your neighbors, so expanding is quick. Once you've consolidated some territory, you may want to swear allegiance to Sweden before they decide to conquer you: this will let you experiment with vassal gameplay and internal politics. Usually it's not too hard to usurp the kingdom yourself if you'd like, or you can stay as a vassal, expand through Scandinavia, hand out your new territorial gains to your family members, and build up your power base. Eventually you'll be tech gated on upgrades and rich enough that there's nothing left to spend your money on: around this time, you can launch an independence war (if you haven't already usurped the kingdom) and from there invade Britain or France (if you take Normandy, you can form Norman culture, which will boost your tech considerably).

Notably, the next major patch for CK3 will be introducing interesting new mechanics, like playing as an unlanded adventurer, so if you lose your last territory it's not 'game over', you get an opportunity to travel the world, take on contracts, possibly convince some ruler to help press your claim and retake your rightful land, etc, as well as the ability to choose different characters on succession, so if you ever grow too powerful, you can choose to play as a second or third son to keep things interesting. CK3 is really quite easy once you have a handle on it so I'm looking forward to that last addition.

I don’t know why, I just find the graphics unappealing. I know Civilization isn’t supposed to be Crysis, but it easily looks like something that could have come out 15 years ago. And the art style isn’t great either. Like do the chunky five polygon tanks really have to be the same size as a skyscraper?

The eras system reminds me of the Rhys and Fall mod for Civ IV. I was ambivalent about it then not sure how I feel about it now. I guess I'll wait and see what how it winds up playing. One rule of thumb about Civilization that I've followed since III: don't buy the game until the complete version is released. So I've got a year or so.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats