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.
- 124
- 4
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 -
Yes. I said that it was a very subjective review, and written from a perspective of one who last played Shogun 2, didn't I?
Fair, I guess that's possible.
I stand by that. Yeah, magic sucks. It doesn't fit into the gameplay at all. It's completely bolted-on. Sure you can get gameplay advantages out of it, but there are no tactical interactions with it for both sides. The mage just snaps his fingers and a buff happens somewhere on the field, or damage is dealt. It's not like generals who need to balance risk and reward to inspire wavering troops, or artillery that needs to be carefully positioned and protected. It's one very tough unit that gets to apply buffs or AOE damage at extreme distances without needing to take any risks or requiring precise positioning. IMO you can tell how poorly it interfaces with the game at large by how strictly limited magic use is in applications per battle.
I admit, it was hyperbole. Yes terrain matters - but much less so than in earlier TW games, is my impression.
Since you're a fan of Shogun 2, would you agree that naval artillery bombardment, which I believe was in FOTS, has the same "drawbacks" as magic?
It's click a button and magic rocks fall, everyone dies.
It's still not true for magic in TWW3, because:
Most spellcasters are squishy, they can easily get themselves killed by enemy single entity lords, heroes or monsters. Or if you miscast too many times.
Magic offers a great deal of contextual utility. Let's say you're on the offensive against an enemy that doesn't want to budge. Send a mage up, dodging fire, and then launch a bombardment. That gets the AI to move and approach your own favorable position. Or during a siege, helping blast the defenders on walls before you attack. Or using a summoned disposable unit to stuff up an enemy advance, fortify your backlines, or simply tie down their high value units.
I can see many valid critiques of the way magic is handled, but it being of limited utility or not interacting with other systems is a head-scratcher for sure. The reason it's limited, especially by the mana pool, is because it's incredibly powerful if used sensibly.
At any rate, if you really want to get a pike-and-shot experience out of the game, get the Southern Realms mod, which adds something quasi-similar to the Italian city states in the late 1600s. If you restrict your opponents to other similar factions, the Empire or Bretonnia, you don't have to suspend your disbelief too much.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link