Caedus
-
Posts
873 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Caedus
-
-
Silmarils
-
Thx for the rep up
! And it was a pleasure to read that FAQ, as it is well written. -
I've made a screenshot and added it to this post. On the screenshot I selected the logo of this forum. I noticed there is much space left to the right of the logo. That's why I suggested table rescaling.
And I find it hard to believe that Google won't allow you to precisely place the ad were you want it, because that way a lot of webmasters might not choose to use it, as it would ruin their layout.
-
Haha, small ones indeed
.Maybe some Maia or lesser Vala felt the urge to create a merry race in the chaos of Middle-Earth and Eru intervened like he did with Aulë.
And didn't they come from the (north-)west? What could be the reason for that?
-
Online: as much as I want.
FTF: I can do 2 (but I find that really anoying).
-
I'm amazed
! Have you noticed how well the music and the action work together. Beautiful!It's a piece of art and nice to watch too
! -
The Seas
-
What's wrong with the fantasy version of Arthur
? I read the version of Terence H. White (who himself read Le Morte d'Arthur) and I think it's brilliant! What do I care that it didn't happen all 
.And now they go with this setting. Saying that I'm not tempted to view it, would say to little.
Oh and Shane: good review
! -
Winner could automatically join the betatest group of one (or both) the WFG games?
-
One sigaret won't cost you your life. One every hour does.
-
I noticed this on the TLA forum first. But I checked, and this problem also shows itself on thw WFG and 0AD forums:
When I want to read a thread, then usually an advertisement is shown. I don't really mind this (they're shown on a good spot), but the ads are put to much to the right. That means the screen unnecessarily strechtes out. That's not good because:
1. It's not a clean piece of webdesign
2. People could miss interesting ads and that denies you ad income.
So I suggest to rescale the tables (on all three forums).
-
Man I'm really sorry to be such a nitpicker (that's Enarwaen's job ooh which reminds me.. naw that's off topic) but there was no actual year 0 A.D. as most of us know so a game being set around that "famous date" doesn't really make any sense. Just a thought... I aplogize once again for being Capt. Grammar
.(Captain Grammar Awwwaaaay!)
I noticed that too a couple o months ago. Then I found this link:
http://wildfiregames.com/0ad/viewtopic.php?t=164
If you scroll down you'll read this:
* Are you aware that the year 0 A.D. did not technically exist?Indeed. Think of 0 A.D. as a hypothetical time period that never existed. It is a snapshot in time where major players of the classical ages were placed in an observatory. This is your chance to see them 'duke it out'. Your job as the player is to create the hypothetical and recreate the historical.
To bad
. -
I'm sorry but I've only read the posts on the first 12 pages, so please tell me if I missed something in my statements. I will start to say that I'm agnostic. A small comment: as far as I know Catholics are Christian. Being Christian means that you follow the teaching of Jesus. Catholics do this. There are other movements that are also Christian, and to name a few: Protestants, Calvinists, and a lot more. They are Christians, but don't feel that the Catholic Church is right.
Why do I not believe in the Bible? Because it was written in a time that the Catholic Church had supreme power. If a pope had a strong will he could even excommicate emperors (in most cases an emperor would not worry, but sometimes a pope was strong enough to threaten with this). So you see, that the Church had an awful lot of might during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. In the Age of Enlightenment it's might decreased much, but after the Romantics the Church and faith in general regained it's strength.
My point: an institute that has absolute power and abolute control over the media, also has the power to twist the truth. Just look at the history of nations where dictators had control. Hitler made people believe that Jews were lower than humans. People BELIEVED it. If EVERYONE says that 2 + 2 is 5 then wouldn't you believe that? Only a few people would think about it and say that it is 4, but others will laugh at them. It is known that the Catholic Church tried to stop Galileo Galilei talking about the sky and space, because what he said wasn't consistent with the bible. So I think that the chance is big that they have done the same with the bible if there were inconsistent parts.
I'm sure that if the Battle of Poitiers was lost somewhere around the year 750, then that the leading religion of Europe would have been Muslim. Maybe my ancestors would've been Muslim. And I would have been raised as a Muslim.
I would highly recommend this book to anyone:http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merc...gory_Code=Books
It's a very good read, and very thought-provoking. It also addresses some of the possible inconsistencies in the Bible and how they are not really inconsistencies at all.
The site stated this after describing a lot of suffering in the world:
The fact is, there are only three alternatives to explain all this suffering:1. There is no God, as evidenced by the chaos.
2. God is totally incompetent and can't control His creation (or won't, which makes Him a tyrant).
3. Another explanation exists, one which the Bible gives for the state of the world.
I can explain that suffering in more ways:
4. There are 2 or more gods and they are fighting each other and sickening each others' believers.
5. God doesn't care about that suffering.
6. God has created the world like a clock (so that is runs itself) and has gone away.
etc.
Why does suffering mean that the Bible is correct OR that something is wrong? I think suffering is natural. I really don't want to read his book, if he uses that kind of logic.
I view homosexuality as 'unnatural' and has no other purpose than sexual gratification. To me it is no different to me than sex before marriage, adultery, voyeurism, incest, bestiality, pedophilia , or pornography.Then what is 'normal' sex? Is it just like cycling? To get somewhere? To lust for sex is a natural feeling. Every creature that can do it, does it. It's a way of survival. I'm really grateful that sex is triggered by lust (not by marriage), because a lot of us wouldn't be here otherwise
. 'Normal sex isn't something enlightened, it is just because a male has the natural feeling of mating with a female.Don't post your opinion here if you're not in the mood to argue for it!BTW, if you're wondering about the existance of God strictly based on logic, see some of St. Thomas Aquinas's works. I think there's a lot about the existance of God and logic in "The Summa Theologica".
Lol, you think that Thomas of Aquino is reasoning logically? Almost every modern phylospher rejects the logic of Thomas. That's because it isn't that logically at all. He is reasoning with the Bible laying in front of him.
[EDIT]
Inconsistencies: what about Genesis and dinosaurs?
-
Yiuel, I agree that warring for revenge only creates more hatred, but if you stop at the borders of your own country, then maybe to enemies army has a chance to regroup and strike again. That should be avoided.
I think war needs to be ended, not with destroying the others' army, but by creating an understanding between both people.
Ultimately, it would be good, in my opinion to create a worldwide nation, so the only possible war would be civil war.Eek, you sound like Orwell a bit now...
In 1984, the three "nations" at war are basically three parts of a greater whole, a greater system of control. The wars waged within this conglomerate of three nations are simply processes within a system.
Of course, civil wars in your case can result in new nations anyways.
And is there really a large difference between a nation recognized as indendent and a nation not officiall recognized as independent, but that takes independent action?
I mean before America was independent, Americans thought of themselves as an individual people, before the South seceeded from the union, they thought of themselves as a different people, the basques in Spain think of themselves as independent, as do the Kurds in Iraq and the Chechnyans in Russia - None of these were at first "politically" independent (some still are not) but they are all recognized as completely independent cultures.
So even in your "unified" world country, the independent thought still remains, and human nature will come through as it always does and create smaller regional factional groups. I guess it's kind of a cycle - small groups come together, big group stays in power, big group falls to small groups, small groups stay in power, and so on. Doesn't that seem to be the trend in history?
1984, great book
!But I don't think that the situation in that book has any chance to happen in the near future, because of the different media we have. It's very difficult to impose a censorship nowadays (China tries it, but that's because they were trying it, before the Internet really grew big).
And of course, lots of humans want to be recognised as an individual kind of people, but does that mean there can't be one worldwide nation? If you let people freely choose to join that nation (not choose as smaller nations, but let each individual choose) and allow those smaller nations to live as they want, then eventually those smaller nations would die out. It might not be possible for a couple of hundred years, but I think that even now people are growing to it.
And you don't need wars to keep people busy: what about exploring space? Of course we would need a new kind of power to be able to travel through it at a reasonable speed, but it would serve several purposes:
1. It's a challenge to young people as well as to humankind as a whole
2. Colonizing another planet (such as Mars, or maybe the Moon) creates a goal that can replace the need for war
But I'm noticing I'm going a bit off-topic.
-
I downloaded that "Simone in the sands" wav file and played it backwards. They seem to be right on that one: because that was really said.
-
I've drawn some schematic pics of my vision about tollposts:
(1) In this picture you can see a bridge with two possible building spots. Normally you would just have a bridge. A player can select to build a tollpost and when he/she does, the possible buildings zones light up. The player can then build two towerlike buildings (which troops can garrison in) in those zones on one side of the bridge that deny access over the bridge by using walls and a gate. Everytime someone wants to cross the bridge toll has to be paid before the gate is opened. Obviously there can only be on tollpost per bridge, otherwise you could have situations were two different players claim control over a bridge (or one players builds two posts) and others would have to pay toll twice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Basically the same: at every gate (in this case of a city) there automatically is the possibilty to create a tollpost. When you want to build one, the possible zones light up. If someone wants to enter they have to pay toll, otherwise the gate won't be openend.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misc ideas:
1. Trading units should have the option to automatically pay tolls.
2. Should toll prices be standard or should players define them? Maybe let it depend on how your diplomatical relation to that specific civ is?
3. What should happen when you don't want to pay the toll fee, and the gate is opened when another unit passes through and you go through as well?
I often used this tactic in AoK in case of a siege: gather my cavalry next to a gate; wait for the AI to pass a unit through it and then go into the enemies territory (with one knight under the gate to make sure it stays opened). This relates to point 3.
4. Should players be able to make four gates after each other, so that another player has to pay toll four times? This won't be possible at a bridge, because there can only be one tollspot there, but what if a player makes a city with seven gates (Minas Tirith) and places a tollpost at each one?
5. If the tollpost is like a tower and units can garrison in it, then it is better defendable (especially helpful with a tollpost at a bridge, because in most cases you won't want to let an army behind there).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whoa, huge post. I hope this helps the guys at TLA alot
! Please comment on this. -
Use the php code and randomly rotate them, because I'm afraid to choose one banner over an other: they are all great
! -
No unique names (Eru, Bauglir, Tolkien) because there can only be one of those and therefore they are unfit for forumer ranks.
My list (we could later make a poll to choose):
0 - Snaga
1 - Warg
2 - Hobbit
3 - Adan
4 - Uruk-Hai
5 - Naugrim
6 - Wraith
7 - Olog-hai (otherwise you could only post at night
)8 - Dúnadan
9 - Nazgûl
10 - Quendi Lord
11 - Ent
12 - Balrog
13 - Maia
14 - Vala
-
I'd like to mingle myself in this little discussion.
When I approach this problem from the point of view of a pragmatical leader of a nation, I think war can be justified in the following cases:
1. You were attacked and fought back.
2. Warring to aid an ally or friend who is getting attacked.
(extreme case 3: Fighting of an attack of invading alien species)
Why do I think that it is just in those cases? Because more sacrifices will follow if you don't put a quick halt to an aggresive force early on ("München"). And suppose that you DO surrender. Then what? Your country will be annexed by a stronger nation. That nation can give no guarantees to treat your people decently.
Doing nothing when your nation gets attacked will not only cause lots of casualties, but will also ensure that the invading force gets encouraged to attack more other nations. Same goes for your friend's nation: chances are that if you do nothing, you will get attacked eventually anyway, by a stronger opponent (by war or another way).
And, idealistically, if those two rules are always followed then there won't be war, so those rules are not destructive.
Ultimately, it would be good, in my opinion to create a worldwide nation, so the only possible war would be civil war.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small point, that I think is nice to know:
War always seems to be justified by the winners. You'll never hear about the "baddies" England or France from back in WOI, because they were the winners and as such could lay all the guild to the losers.
PS: I hope that we all understand that the main reason for attacking Iraq was never to liberate it (or to destroy that never found mass-destruction weapons)! That's what was used in public. Because if the coalition would really think that to be important then they have a lot more wars to wage.
-
Hollow Arrows
-
Hmm that brings me to an idea: would it be possible to import small photos as picture for a hero unit? I understand that there is already the idea for a "hero-editor" where people can "dress-up" (bleh, makes me think of Barbie dolls
) heroes?Would be nice to create a powerful Numenorian Knight with my own picture, hehe
. -
Actually there are no good modern games about The Lord of the Rings, are there? I only heard some positive things about The Two Towers for Playstation2, but that was a movie based game.
And the upcoming The Battle for Middle-Earth seems promising for a game (see other thread).
-
To get back to the stereotype thing. Apart from Legolas and Gimli, there isn't actually that much sterotyping going on. For example when Sam hear the Orcs who'd just captured Frodo, talk about him, then they describe him (if I remember correctly) as "An Elvish Warrior with an Axe." Actually it might have been a sword, but it was definately a melee weapon. On the other hand the Dwarves in The Hobbit used bows to attempt to hunt stuff in Mirkwood. And of course the Silmarillion is full of Elves wielding swords, spears and axes.
Well that actually shows that outsidethe world of Tolkien, those types are stereotyped (that doesn't well, does it
?).But anyway, that was what I am talking about: outside the world of Tolkien.
-
Yes you're right about that Randy, but would that code really be excessive, because most likely those characters will be in the game already?
But I agree that having fancy cheats should be at a very low priority.
Is there such a thing as "just war" ?
in Hall of Intellectuals
Posted
I could go against all that, but I will conclude with this: you have convinced me
.