|
Enjoy posted:So pretty soon we will be defeating fascism and going to the moon? Heck yeah You know the Soviets never landed on the moon, right?
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
That's just what they want you to think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Lustful Man Hugs posted:You know the Soviets never landed on the moon, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
There's the argument that beating the Soviet's to the moon was self-defeating in the sense that the Soviet's, suffering as they were from internal bickering, kind of just gave up and did the bare minimum for national prestige. The point that follows is if they had beaten the American's like they had already been consistently doing previously for a considerable amount of time, with America in turn taking it as a challenge to be beaten, it would of turned the space race into a space war with America really putting its mind to it in serious competition with the Soviet's and we could of been on Mars by now. But noooo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Lustful Man Hugs posted:You know the Soviets never landed on the moon, right? Someone never played Battle Zone 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
Lustful Man Hugs posted:You know the Soviets never landed on the moon, right? Actually they were the first to do exactly that  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_9 No one said anything about manned missions.
WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Moon Man is a white supremacist
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Is that why they cancelled Mac Tonight? Is it because of the SJWs?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:
Any sort of moral superiority we had over the Paradox forums is long-lost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:29
|
|
More poking fun of Paradox Plaza wannabe Ubermenschen, less "I cried when I saw a guy playing as Germany in HOI4" wankfest, please.
|
Phlegmish posted:Any sort of moral superiority we had over the Paradox forums is long-lost. Between this and the outrage from the Stellaris thread over collectivism, yea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Yeah the asslicking of Paradox's obvious political bias is pretty much on par with the Pdox forum
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Yeah the asslicking of Paradox's obvious political bias is pretty much on par with the Pdox forum
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
sarmhan posted:Thank you for proving my point? Nope, you'd get banned for saying that there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
The truth is in the middle IMO.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
The crazy things you can do in CK2 make the game so fun. My dynasty succeeded in conquering and forming the independent Duchy of Brittany after starting off as a vassal under the French in the Charlemagne start. Unfortunately, the succession law of the duchy was under agnatic cognative gavelkind elective because I carelessly switched to that instead of the intended elective monarchy under a previous ruler. Naturally I wanted to make the switch as soon as possible to prevent the sons of my duchess from splitting the counties apart. However, this one loving bishop hated me even after gifting him, so I tried my hand at seducing him which failed. Pissed off, I decided to try murdering him but failed once more, making him permanently hate him. My duchess was in her 50s, and this bishop in his 40s, meaning I was probably going to die before him and splitting off the counties. I felt frustrated since if I revoked his position, all the other vassals would hate me and would guarantee that I would not be able to get enough vassals to approve succession changes. Then, I realized that with low centralization I could revoke the positions of ALL my vassals. With no vassals, I didn't need to get any approval for succession changes, and I wouldn't have to deal with any vassals hating me after this since I could bring in new people to fill these positions after the change. So I went through with it, and succeeded. After my duchess died, all counties passed on to my best heir. I can only imagine what the people and historians within this timeline will have to say about the extent this duchess went through to secure the holdings of her duchy to her favorite son.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 05:34
|
|
tables posted:The crazy things you can do in CK2 make the game so fun. That doesn't sound to extreme, you might want to look at actual history to see what actual people did to secure thrones for their children, starting in Imperial Rome. You didn't even successfully murder anyone.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:That doesn't sound to extreme, you might want to look at actual history to see what actual people did to secure thrones for their children, starting in Imperial Rome. You didn't even successfully murder anyone. I guess so, but for some reason ending the livelihoods of so many people at once for this one goal really took me aback. I mean, it's not the same as murder, but I just took out 20+ people out of the careers they worked so hard to attain. Maybe I'm desensitized to all the murder in the game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
tables posted:I guess so, but for some reason ending the livelihoods of so many people at once for this one goal really took me aback. I mean, it's not the same as murder, but I just took out 20+ people out of the careers they worked so hard to attain. Maybe I'm desensitized to all the murder in the game. Remember - this is feudalism. You didn't just ruin their "careers," you gimped them out of their ancestral homes and social status, AND you screwed over their children's livelihoods, homes, social status etc, and their children's children as well, with little hope of ever recovering anything like what they used to have even generations later because social mobility sucks. You turned entire families into homeless beggars. You monster.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
Since some of you here actually have a clue about history, is Christopher Clark rated as a good author/source for history books? Looking at Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600-1947 because it seems to be one of the best rated books about Prussia. History books are hard, you need a different author for every topic or you'll suddenly be reading about God Emperor Chiang Kai-Shek and his achievements during his prosperous rule.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:Since some of you here actually have a clue about history, is Christopher Clark rated as a good author/source for history books? Looking at Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600-1947 because it seems to be one of the best rated books about Prussia. It's a well-regarded book, and Chris Clark is a well-regarded historian (and one of the best current scholars of modern Germany in general) who is innovative without being outright contrarian. He's one of the major voices against the old Sonderweg hypothesis of German history (that Nazi Germany was the inevitable culmination of hundreds of years of German history leading up to it) and generally provides a much more modern and objective view of German history compared to some of the other major 20th century scholars of German history like A.J.P. Taylor, etc. Drone fucked around with this message at 10:12 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
Another option is going for The Teaching Company's The Great Courses through Audible. Andy Fix does the Renaissance and was my prof in a bunch of classes at Lafayette and rules. But there are lots of great history courses available. Keep in mind it's kind of survey level but it can very nicely scratch a paradox inspired scratch. They also come with pdf course books.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:Since some of you here actually have a clue about history, is Christopher Clark rated as a good author/source for history books? Looking at Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600-1947 because it seems to be one of the best rated books about Prussia. Yes, Christopher Clark is a good and well-regarded academic historian. I haven't read Iron Kingdom myself but I've heard good things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
I quite liked Iron Kingdom.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Clark's Sleepwalkers is also a fantastic read. For more history books, check out this thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Drone posted:It's a well-regarded book, and Chris Clark is a well-regarded historian (and one of the best current scholars of modern Germany in general) who is innovative without being outright contrarian. He's one of the major voices against the old Sonderweg hypothesis of German history (that Nazi Germany was the inevitable culmination of hundreds of years of German history leading up to it) and generally provides a much more modern and objective view of German history compared to some of the other major 20th century scholars of German history like A.J.P. Taylor, etc. Sonderweg is such an astonishingly preposterous idea that I have no idea how it has survived so long. There are so many potential turning points in German history that could have resulted in completely different outcomes. For instance, if newly formed Germany had been allowed to develop their own colonial empire they would almost certainly not brought about ww1, or if Austria had given up trying to dominate the Serbs the archduke wouldn't have been killed. He'll if the archduke's driver hadn't gotten lost and driven right by the assassins a second time world war 1 wouldn't have happened, at least when it did. And if it took longer you might have had another Bismark who could have kept poo poo from falling apart. If the archduke had gotten the throne he would almost certainly have eased tensions with the Serbs defusing that ticking time bomb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Sonderweg is such an astonishingly preposterous idea that I have no idea how it has survived so long. There are so many potential turning points in German history that could have resulted in completely different outcomes. I don't think focusing on the actual trigger point for WW1 really says much - it's not like the world-spanning chain of alliances somehow goes away if Franz lives. A German colonial empire definitely might have changed things though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Doesn't help that Kaiser Wilhelm II was kinda... not the kind of person you wanted to be in charge of Europe's premiere rising economy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
But Germany had a colonial empire. Things would have been better if they'd stuck with von Bismarck and not gone down that route- that and the Dreadnought race scared Britain into the Entente and laid the groundwork for WWI.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Sonderweg is such an astonishingly preposterous idea that I have no idea how it has survived so long. There are so many potential turning points in German history that could have resulted in completely different outcomes. Some historians think the Archduke was the voice of peace in Austria-Hungary that had been countering the influence of the jingos, like Conrad von Hoetzendorf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmHxq28440c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE8-_GAc7g4
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
New to Paradox games here, specifically CK2. Is difficulty inversely correlated with micromanagement? Many of the tutorials I'm watching advocate playing the larger empires since they have lower difficulties. However, as a new player, starting off with that level of micromanagement is cumbersome. It seems like it would be easier to learn the mechanics by playing a smaller empire or being one of the lesser royals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
That's why a lot of beginner's guides recommend starting in Ireland in the high Middle Ages start. The main thing that makes lower tier starts "difficult" is that it's very easy to get taken over by a more powerful neighbour with very little ability to defend yourself if you don't know what you're doing. Ireland meanwhile is relatively isolated from major powers and also small enough that you don't need to worry about juggling a dozen vassals like with the HRE or Byzantines.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Ireland also helpfully provides the players with an important but still modest and achievable goal-- forming the Kingdom of Ireland.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Drone posted:Doesn't help that Kaiser Wilhelm II was kinda... not the kind of person you wanted to be in charge of Europe's premiere rising economy. Except by the time WW1 came about Germany was not Europe's premiere rising econonomy. Russia was. Starting early in the 20th century Russia was rapidly on the road towards modernization, fuelled by the population growth on the countryside and foreign (mostly French) capital. Nitrousoxide posted:Sonderweg is such an astonishingly preposterous idea that I have no idea how it has survived so long. There are so many potential turning points in German history that could have resulted in completely different outcomes. It might be harder for Franz Ferdinand doing this than just deciding to do it. The emperor's power was not absolute and he was dependent on the acquiescence of local elites and political institutions, easing relations with Serbia and dampening nationalist tensions in the Empire would likely have meant extending political power and representation to Slavs. This would have meant getting on a collision course with Hungarian interests in the Empire who were determined not to extend political representation otuside the Hungarian ruling class with the kingdom of Hungary. Franz Ferdinand might well have done something in Bosnia for Serbs and Croats like had already been done for Czechs within Austria, but trying to go any further with it would seriously endanger the unity of the empire by antagonizing the Hungarians who controlled most of it. Concerning Germany and WWI something that is apparent is an overwhelming sense of fatalism coming on in the 20th century, with the German leadership being very worried by Russia's economic growth and military buildup, the Franco-Russian alliance and the British treaties with each of those two seeming to box in Germany and giving her no room to expand, the Agadir Crisis confirming (in their eyes) that Britain would stand with France in an emergency. To Germany's military leadership there was the impression that time was running out and that in 5 to 10 years time they would have no chance against Russia and France, if there was to be a war better to have it soon rather than later. This whole atmosphere contributed greatly to the actions Germany would take that encouraged Austria-Hungary to move against Serbia despite Russian guarantees, also for Germany was the problem of the political system where these fatalistic military leaders were not answerable to any political or diplomatic officials, but only to the Kaiser himself (who was a bit of an unstable and unsuitable monarch to say the least). Kavak posted:But Germany had a colonial empire. Things would have been better if they'd stuck with von Bismarck and not gone down that route- that and the Dreadnought race scared Britain into the Entente and laid the groundwork for WWI. Yeah the most essential part of Bismarck's diplomacy was really to be friends with Russia, or failing that atleast keep neutral relations. That went out the window almost as soon as he went away. It might have been difficult to do at length though, as the very nature of Germany as a rising power meant that both France and Russia felt threatened and were drifting together. Also in all cases of alliances and treaties being formed prior to WW1, Germany could always offer so much less than any other power, to Russia France had the capacity to issue lots of loan to fuel economic growth, for Britain staying on France and Russia's good side (their biggest competitors in Africa and Asia respectively) was of vastly greater value than whatever they would have hoped to have gained from seeking closer relations with Germany and angering both of those which would put her vulnerable empire at risk (something the British had been even more acutely aware of since the Boer War). Randarkman fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Godmachine posted:New to Paradox games here, specifically CK2. Is difficulty inversely correlated with micromanagement? Many of the tutorials I'm watching advocate playing the larger empires since they have lower difficulties. However, as a new player, starting off with that level of micromanagement is cumbersome. It seems like it would be easier to learn the mechanics by playing a smaller empire or being one of the lesser royals. But not all starts are built equal that way so its hard to recommend on feudal level alone. The most important thing for beginner games is to start as an independent, because you need a deft finger on the pulse of feudal politics to turn a subservient count or duke into someone worth talking about. I always reboot my own CK2 knowledge with some 1066 games as either an Irish count in the Ireland thunderdome, or as William the Conqueror for some internal politic wheeling and dealings with the saxons to get back on the level with internal politic wrangling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:Except by the time WW1 came about Germany was not Europe's premiere rising econonomy. Russia was. Starting early in the 20th century Russia was rapidly on the road towards modernization, fuelled by the population growth on the countryside and foreign (mostly French) capital. Russia was statistically similar in 1900 to China in 2000 in terms of growth. Too many of the right people were killed and too many of the wrong people moved up into major leadership positions for anything amazing to happen, even without WWI.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:Russia was statistically similar in 1900 to China in 2000 in terms of growth. Too many of the right people were killed and too many of the wrong people moved up into major leadership positions for anything amazing to happen, even without WWI. Russia was still the fastest growing economy in the world at the time and it had the German military making GBS threads their pants because they chanelled this growth into a military buildup, especially aimed at speeding up their military mobilization and enhancing strategic mobility. Whether or not it was sustainable or would have led anywhere amazing does not matter as much as the fact that it scared the Germans since it seriously messed with their war plans for fighting France and Russia (well, really war plan since they really only had one and that was another of Germany's long list of problems leading up to WW1). Randarkman fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:also for Germany was the problem of the political system where these fatalistic military leaders were not answerable to any political or diplomatic officials, but only to the Kaiser himself (who was a bit of an unstable and unsuitable monarch to say the least). Yeah the whole Austrian's delaying and then doublethinking themselves and having the only option being talking to the German military because the Kaiser was on vacation really screwed things up. Also the hilarity when he returned, read the Serbian response to the demands and thought war had been averted. Oh WW1, ye olde clusterfuck. But a good example of how you can sleepwalk into a global conflict.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:It might be harder for Franz Ferdinand doing this than just deciding to do it. The emperor's power was not absolute and he was dependent on the acquiescence of local elites and political institutions, easing relations with Serbia and dampening nationalist tensions in the Empire would likely have meant extending political power and representation to Slavs. This would have meant getting on a collision course with Hungarian interests in the Empire who were determined not to extend political representation otuside the Hungarian ruling class with the kingdom of Hungary. Franz Ferdinand might well have done something in Bosnia for Serbs and Croats like had already been done for Czechs within Austria, but trying to go any further with it would seriously endanger the unity of the empire by antagonizing the Hungarians who controlled most of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Isn't that something that Franz Ferdinand almost actually wanted? The dude hated the power of the Hungarian nobility and how it kept fouling up the works of the imperial machinery. His proposals for federalization and improving the status of the empire's Slavs was mostly due to him latching onto anything that would upset the Magyars more. Sure it's what he wanted. But would he be able to carry it out effectively without risking the Hungarians telling him to gently caress off and possibly plunge the Empire into civil war (which would not have done wonders for European stability)? The Hungarians and the compromise with them was essential in keeping the Empire together since 1867. Even though Hungarian intransigence also was a major part in blocking any further attempts at compromise to keep running somewhat smoothly. e: Misread your post somewhat, I failed to see that you were mostly saying that Franz Ferdinand was motivated by defying the Hungarian leadership and ignored the political realities of doing so. Randarkman fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 19:07
|
|