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.
- 111
- 7
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
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I honestly don't think they have a choice. Especially due to the AI. A lot of the immersion-breaking simplifications are justified on the grounds that the AI being too dumb to not have cheats and railroads.
Now, could Paradox theoretically just fix that with more focus and elbow grease? I guess. I think this is an actual hard problem. As you point out: they're in a niche. Maybe it's for a reason.
And, tbh, even other Triple-A strategy games - despite being less complex - have serious problems with the AI. Total War has good enough tactical AI but I've always heard complaints about their strategy, for example.
The problems with Total War's strategic AI are real, and always have been a problem. As a player the main issue I would run into (not as bad in more recent games) is that the more powerful I got, the more likely people would declare war on me. Which made no sense: tiny kingdoms on my borders, instead of looking at offers of trade deals and non-aggression pacts with their superpower neighbor with relieved enthusiasm would instead spit in my face and boldly declare that they would crush me beneath their boots! After I inevitably rolled them up into my empire, the tiny kingdoms that neighbored my now expanded borders would do the same. It made no sense, but it did keep you in a constant state of warfare through the late game. Since the focus of the game is on battles, I could see why it stayed broken in that particular way for so long.
In more recent Total War games they've improved it a good bit, but more importantly they revamped the diplomacy system to make it transparent: you can not only see how much another power likes you, but also see exactly why they feel the way they do: disliking Great Powers is -X, you fighting their enemies is +Y, etc. The transparency means that you have less moments of saying "What in the world is wrong with these people? Why are they acting this way?!" Now you know exactly why, which means you can make more interesting diplomatic decisions.
More options
Context Copy link
This argument has never really held water with me, those other games have a lot of other things to sink their budgets into, paradox games do not, the AI and how it handles strategy is the game.
Paradox are just cheap and know they've cornered a niche market and are content to put in the minimum amount of effort they need to continue milking the whales that buy their dlc.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link