This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Why think about a whole country like a gambler, though? This reminds me of Trump telling Zelensky “you’re gambling with lives and you don’t have the cards”. If your country is at stake, then such extreme caution is required that worst case outcomes do disprove strategy. There is a poster here (forgot who, apologies) that uses the metaphor of XCOM frequently. In XCOM, if you die your run is permanently over. So unlike gambling, in XCOM you only want to take odds that ensure victory, or nearly ensure so. You would never consider a “90% chance of winning the engagement” dice roll, because over eleven engagements you’re going to lose permanently. Now Ukraine can be considered one singular engagement. Should they consider something that has a 10% chance of permanent loss? If someone robbed you and said, “give me 30% of your earnings or I will throw you off a plane with a parachute that has a 10% chance of malfunctioning”, I think the former option is always better because of the value of what is safeguarded. That’s important for Ukrainians (obviously), but it’s also important to the West if Russia continues inflicting casualties such that Ukraine has no more viable manpower. Because then they get the whole country.
I have no idea what the actual chance is of Russia taking the whole country — that information is only understood by JD Vance and Trump, who are privy to the absurdly expansive American intelligence network on Russia plus all that Ukraine knows, plus more knowledge of the global economy, plus knowledge about the potential of unrest in the Middle East and over Taiwan! Plus knowledge about both American and Russian technology, plus greater knowledge of nuclear armagaeddon threats. Has the CIA come out against Trump this time on the Ukraine question?
Put another way, any amount of getting pulled over when driving drunk disproves the strategy of driving drunk. Because you shouldn’t drive drunk, because the consequences are so extreme. Perhaps America believes that Ukraine is currently in geopolitical “drunk driving” mode, which is dangerous to the bus filled with naive Europeans who share the road with him.
Remember that whether Ukrainians live under oligarchic control in corrupt Ukraine, or oligarchic control in Russia, hardly affects their lives. Farmers will farm, miners will mine, CounterStrike players will бляt. From the standpoint of a prole like me, I can see the Slavic Christian happy in either region of control, having their basic needs quite met, hopefully reproducing. When war is over, the smart ones will continue to move to the West. It makes Russia more powerful if it takes Ukraine — which isn’t ideal — but I’m not a permaelite like Robert Swan Mueller III, I haven’t invested my reputation into whether America controls the fate of Eastern Europe. And I’m someone whose first American ancestor fought the war of independence! This is not a “life or death” war to me and it shouldn’t be for the average Ukrainian, who has been made to believe that it is much they like were made to believe in Bolshevism a century ago.
I agree, and I think most Ukraine supporters and also Ukrainians are deluding themselves about this. However, they're deluding themselves because of their nationalistic, patriotic instincts - instincts driven by the correct understanding that you fight back when attacked, even though fighting back sucks, because giving in incentivizes attacks. The US and every other nation has an interesting in sacrificing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives for the simple purpose of demonstrating that if you start an offensive war, it will be a bad decision.
Also they have the data point that the pro-Russian breakaway regions of Luhansk and Donetsk ended up being AFAICT horribly, cartoonishly bad places to live vs. usual post-Soviet oligarchy. If they threw in the towel, sure, they might end up a Belarus, much better off in hedonic terms than being current Ukraine in war. But they might also end up a DPR/LPR, a way worse place to be. A principle of being cautious and not gambling with bad outcomes doesn’t really point at capitulation then.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Uh, that's not how X-Com works, and AFAICT it's mostly not how its bastard remake works either. Actually, one of the reasons the original X-Com winds up on so many "best of all time" lists is precisely that it does allow you to continue from losing battles, and thus has a more realistic war feel because you are not (artificially forced to be) some magic plot-armoured force that wins literally every battle.
Eh, there's definitely points in the campaign of both the original and remake where a squad wipe is game over. If you can't get a B-team up, armed, and (in og) psi-resist tested before you wipe, you'll end up trying to fight ethereals with a truck full of laser rifle rookies who get mind-controlled into killing each other every turn.
The remake made it even worse with the 4 soldier limit. Very easy to not get any backup team trained, because how are you gonna take a dead weight rookie as 1/4th of your squad? Long War raising that to 6-10 and adding a fatigue system to make you rotate troops was a huge improvement.
About the only truly-irrecoverable squad wipe in the original (besides Cydonia, of course) is if your main base gets raided early on. This is how I lost my first attempt at TFTD's Superhuman difficulty: a 1 January FBA proc wiped my base while my Triton and main squad were out (because I might be good, but I'm not good enough to beat an Aquatoid Dreadnought crew with three guys), and while I didn't lose immediately from last-base-killed (because I'd placed another at game start) there wasn't enough time to get my second base operational before I lost from poor score.
While you do need substantial amounts of equipment/training to fight Ethereals, by the time they show up you should have a worldwide interception grid, which means that if you're stuck without an Ethereal-ready squad, you can just stop fighting Ethereal missions until you have one (with perhaps an exception for an Ethereal Small/Medium Scout, if you haven't gotten a psionic capture yet; they aren't too bad). You won't lose from poor score, because shootdowns themselves give bucketloads of points and if you're shooting down incoming UFOs the aliens won't score from succeeding at their missions (in particular, because you're shooting down the Terror Ships, they won't be able to create Terror Sites, which means no massive penalty for ignoring/fleeing from them). Quite recoverable, if tedious.
I haven't actually played the remake, to be clear, and that "mostly" was doing some work because I did know about soldiers being less expendable and there being more hardcoded-game-over missions.
EDIT: "Craft is lost" is painful enough that it's usually not worth risking one, but there are cases where I think optimum play is to take substantial chances of one. The most notable is the first Sectoid terror site in UFO, which will be an absolute ball-buster of a mission (this is the only mission in most games of UFO that approaches Cydonia in relative difficulty; early base defences can be worse but are rare) but which is your first chance to get a Sectoid Leader capture. It's worth taking a substantial chance of failure, including craft loss, to get that capture; you don't know when you'll get another chance and you really want psi to at least be in the works when the Ethereals show up in July. In TFTD there aren't many cases where it's both an incredibly hard mission and a chance to get something rare. The first Terror Site is quite hard, and is technically the only guaranteed appearance of Deep Ones, but there's an 80% chance to get Deep Ones in both the February and March Terror Sites so it's probably not worth risking a wipeout; the first Aquatoid land mission (and thus Calcinite corpse chance) isn't quite the horror show of the first Sectoid terror site in UFO (due to Calcinites being a hell of a lot weaker than Cyberdiscs, and due to a lack of need for rank identification/live capture) so while I think it's probably worth risking a craft loss if you have to (to get drills for cracking open Lobster Men), and I have thus risked it, you usually aren't in dire enough straits that it's necessary (at least, not if you're as good at the game as I am, and if you're not playing some kind of challenge run). There are, of course, plenty of hard missions in TFTD, but most of them can be aborted without missing out on anything irreplaceable.
I guess you're a lot better at the actual "UFO defense" part of UFO defense than I ever was lol. I always struggled with the air war, and couldn't have pulled off dominance like that with interceptors.
Basically, just drop bases in Germany, North Dakota, Beijing, South Africa, Argentina and Tasmania, and give them all Hyper-Wave Decoders (I beeline HWDs immediately after the no-brainer Laser Rifle; I usually deploy the first three bases with Large Radars but wait until HWDs for the last three). This is cash-hungry, but because it lets you recover more UFOs it pays off very fast. Normally I only keep three Interceptors and wait until Avengers to have interception everywhere (because I don't do much interception, preferring ground assaults when possible, and because you need advanced craft to shoot down Battleships anyway), but if I were on the back foot like that and I didn't have Avengers I would spam them (they arrive in four days and Plasma Beams build fast). And yeah, there's a bit of micro with sending Interceptors to where the UFO is going rather than directly at the UFO to avoid long tail chases.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The remake has an ironman mode that only allows auto-saving, no manual.
The original X-Com was also rather infamous for it's odd, weighted chances of ally fire missing all 99% shots, while aliens were able to snipe characters from across the map. In the original, you could replay missions, but said missions could also be rather lengthy, and could be difficult to tell where your potential screwup was, meaning you needed to play very conservatively and tactically in the early and mid-game, while you game up your economy and tech-level.
And this still didn't stop aliens from sniping your guys as they came down the ramp, as sheer random chance could still fuck you over hard.
So his comparison is a little loose, but I get the overall gist of his argument.
I wasn't talking about loading saves; my point was that you can continue from a lost battle without having to just load a save.
Have you actually played it? This meme is just from people whining about missing, not a real thing. (Actually, the remake has a worse case of "you missed an alien standing right next to you"; the original makes rolled misses fire randomly within a cone, which will probably still hit if the alien's close enough, whereas the remake forces rolled misses to actually miss.)
That's not random chance; that's you not knowing how to negate it. Smoke grenades give you concealment and thus block reaction fire. In TFTD dye grenades don't work, but in TFTD there's much less of a problem with this anyway (because the Triton has a door and is flush with the seafloor, and because you can open doors without stepping through them in TFTD).
Certainly. This doesn't stop bad luck from potentially slaughtering your front-runner team, however.
X-com: UFO defense was one of the first games where I was introduced to the concept of 'pirating' and 'cheats' by someone in charge of the computer lab at a school I was helping out at. And while I don't have it installed right now, it's currently sitting nice and neat in my steam library.
Yes, I've played it. I've played it alot, thank you. You trying to brush off it as 'just a meme' makes me wonder if you've played it.
Yes. And that's part of the difficulty curve - negating random change as much as possible. The original X-com has a surprising amount of tactical depth that can make even normally terrifying circumstances(such as night missions or breaching buildings/landed space ships) trivial, but even experienced gamers likely aren't going to get that out of the box and will experience a learning curve.
I've beaten it on Superhuman without active psi and with Cydonia on June 1, and I literally wrote a non-negligible chunk of the wiki.
The hit chances are accurate, at least for "hit" rolls vs. "miss" rolls (rolled misses can still hit at close range, and I think it's possible for rolled hits to miss at extreme range or where there's cover involved, both of these symmetrical between X-Com and aliens). Aliens hit a lot on higher difficulties because their accuracy stats are pretty high. If you think there's "weighting" going on that makes X-Com rolls systematically worse and alien rolls systematically better than the normal formula, you're seeing a pattern that's not actually there, presumably due to negativity bias letting you recall "bad" results better than "good" ones. I guess you're one of the (many) sources of that meme.
There are three ways that the AI "cheats"; it can perform Auto mode reaction shots (you can only use Snap), it "remembers" the position of your units after they leave LoS (most notably allowing psi-attacks on them), and it gets omniscience after turn 20. This isn't one of them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I expect that if "give in to the people threatening you to extract 30% of your income" becomes the normal response, the behavior of threatening people to extract their money becomes more common.
In that example, sure, but re: Ukraine, we have like two or three decades of American foreign policy experts talking about how Ukraine is a special red line for Russia. There’s no indication that the slippery slope is anything but fallacious here.
Hm, I was under the impression that Russia has had expansionist adventures in other places too, not just Ukraine. Is that incorrect?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Thank you for making this explicit. This is the principle ideological question at issue. Reasonable people can disagree here, of course, but all parties to the debate do need to make their position on this question clear, and anything else is just obfuscation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link