Silver
-
Posts
167 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Silver
-
-
Wow, I had no idea it was that good.
ABC recently got their hands on one and it was like brick but instead of a paddle, you used your body.
The difference is the camera only recognized you as a blue person with no detail.
The two videos look amazing but it still seems like there's a lot of work to be done.
-
finally,
hungarian girls!
Care to add why?
-
Romans are the more interesting culture to play in 0 AD by far
Yeah but when this game does come out I'd wager that the vast majority of players will be using Roman or Greek. I try to run against the norms unless a civ is overpowered like the Assyrians in AoE. It's also fun to find a counter and just use it on people who stick to 1 civ.
-
The real life economy is full of loans and debts and credit and interest rates and all that complicated stuff. WoW's economy just has pieces of gold, and there aren't so many complex ways it can fail.
WoW proves we should go back to the gold standard. Ron Paul 2012!
Uh, sorry, not sure what came over me there.
WoW doesn't have politicians either.
This is the key in my opinion The Great Depression was in part caused by the 'Own your own home' spewed by politicians in the 1920s. That's about the time when the people stopped SAVING before BUYING.
There was of course inflated stock values.... and that came crashing down because it was all pure speculation.
George W. Bush was a big pusher of the Own a Home programs and Clinton, Bush (many other presidents, I'm sure) and Senators had de-regulated markets over the past few decades.
That put inflated prices on homes, which caused more and more people to default, which caused stock prices (mortgage backed securities) to drop next to nothing. Surprise, Surprise, consumers in debt again just like in the 1920s, this time it wasn't wall-street that burst with overinflated prices, it was the housing market which in turn brought the whole house of cards down.
I don't agree with the gold standard completely... but I guess when you see the Fed, government and Treasury boards fail time after time with their monetary and fiscal policy, it's much better than the alternatives.
-
Your list for Wow basically described most internet users, forums and most games.
-
The trailer is very good. It has me thinking that I should follow up and learn more about the game... who knows I may even buy it.
It sounds like it's very deep in the strategy aspect of the game... which is something I don't enjoy as much as an economy/strategy game.
I'll definitely take return to their webpage to see how the game develops.
The trailer reminds me of those Microsoft Surface, from a year or two ago, it's still commercial only and extremely expensive... one day!
-
A good commander would make sure he provided his troops with the best equipment and would ensure that they were in the fighting spirit. Being a good commander means all of these things. Same goes with good officers. Officers fall under the general word of 'commander', but if we take it as meaning 'supreme commander', we can further say that a good commander awards his good officers and demotes his poor ones. So a good commander ensures good officers, though this may not be necessarily true 100% of the time.
Oh... I guess if you're talking about any who is in a position to command troops it makes sense, I thought you meant higher ranking people who generally control large numbers of troops and assign officers to smaller groups of them.
I'm too tired to disagree with you, especially on the equipment issue... I stayed up late and had to wake up early to finish writing a paper for a political science class.
A good commander or even a good leader of a state does not always have access to the best equipment and morale of troops is something that a commander can't always ensure.
I wouldn't be surprised if good commanders were sometimes forced to take on children from families who are in a more privileged position.
Anyways I think it's fair to say that there are many things you have to look at and it isn't as simple as X commander had more victories therefore he is better.
And while Sun Tzu is really abstract and general in his comments there are still many that are very practical. I haven't read it in a very long time but I do know he addresses tactics and espionage and all that good stuff.
-
What about troop morale, available equipment, etc...?
I don't think it's as simple as the better commander...
What about good officers? Motivating the troops and effectively carrying out orders, etc...
It's late and I can barely think but I'll leave you with this Chinese name -
Sun Tzu, I have his book, The Art of War, if you can believe how nerdy I am.
-
I like RTS because I played it a lot more and I like having to look after an economy in the early game and not neglect it as the game goes on. I'm not a big fan of head to head fights unless I have a huge advantage in strength and numbers. I prefer to choke the economy of the other team.
-
I miss the old days, back when you logged on to The Zone, I liked the neat little glitches where it looked like you could have unlimited players or your game description was extremely long.
I never really got into AoK until it was too late to play online but I was really competitive in AoE1 and RoR.
I miss those days, a lot. I still think The Zone was the best place to play online, I preferred it over ESO, etc...
-
I'll be dead honest, I suck at Rome Total War, I mean I'm really bad except when I'm in battle... it's just I got bored of it so fast.
If anyone can give me tips on what to build and how to replenish troops and move around faster that would be appreciated.
I'm not very good at turn based games, I guess. I am more of a free type of player (no turns all real time) and just out build, outwork and out maneuver other players.
-
There's 175 people dead or something extremely high. And some of the fires are thought to have been set deliberately.
-
Actually, there is a game were you can press "~" to change all words to Latin, Glory of the Roman Empire. An RTS like none you've ever seen before. Trust me.
Never heard of it, I guess I should probably immerse myself more in the gaming community.
-
Oh, that's just suggestion/propaganda. I went to a public hypnotist event, and I was one of the people who got to go on stage and be hypnotized. It was a lot of fun, actually. Most companies take advantage of suggestion in their advertising.
Huh? They can broadcast into your head is what I mean, so it will sound like a voice is talking normally to you but someone else on the other side of the street won't hear it.
I guess the benefit is there's less noise but a problem could be freaking people out. (You can suddenly hear something and other people can't?)
I'd like to try and be hypnotized but the only problem is I'm not sure if I can be hypnotized.
-
Yeah, could be good. Could be bad.
EDIT: Krikey! They could have picked a better screenshot!
I don't mind, I like it. I'm a big fan of Roman/Greek styled buildings.
-
Too much hype. The game was dumbed down to kindergarten level. No real depth. No MMO capability. DRM and maximum allowable installs are a killer in my mind.
That's too bad. I've always been a fan of having a game like this, where you start off as 1 person/cell and you become a civilization and interact with other civilizations/worlds/creatures.
They just need one for the Roman period or ancient times and I will be extremely happy.
-
So, I'm thinking of buying and playing Spore.
Now I like strategy games, I like role-playing games to a degree and Spore received HUGE praise and attention as it was being developed.
I'm just wondering for all those out there who play it or have played it.... is it fun and engaging?
I'm just not sure if I should get it or save my money...
And add your description/gameplay experience if you can, I really want to hear what this game is like.
Edit - I just don't know much about it (even if it has multiplayer) - All I know is you start off with 1 thing, grow it into a creature, grow a civilization and explore.
-
Oh yeah. The Taliban are real scumbags. I'm glad that parts of Afghanistan have been liberated from them, but by occupying Afghanistan, I just don't think we're helping the situation. The Afghans are resentful of occupation, just as Americans were resentful of British occupation, even when that occupation was meant to protect them from rival powers.
There was actually a documentary on this in Canada because the support is split on Afghanistan.
Apparently these 'protesters' who resent America and NATO are payed by the hour to protest.
Around 70% of people in the South (where most of the fighting is happening) support the idea of having NATO troops there to protect.
The problem is the Taliban have managed to blend in with the Afghans and the Afghans don't feel very secure. And the Taliban also have Pakistan (and the mountains) so they have an endless supply of Taliban fighters to rely on.
I think at most 10-13% of the population wanted us to leave or something along those lines.
I'm not concerned that we have lost the support of the Afghan people, I'm worried that this war is unwinnable because there's no borders and we are undermanned because countries are refusing to commit troops to the south because it is the most dangerous area and where most of the soldiers are dieing.
Where did you read this?WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President Barack Obama has already used experts within the last few months to hold high-level but discreet talks with both Iran and Syria, organizers of the meetings told AFP.http://ca.news.yahoo.com/ad/afp-090201-wor...n_syria_focus_1
TEHRAN (AFP) - US President Barack Obama's offer to talk to Iran shows that America's policy of "domination" has failed, the government spokesman said on Saturday. -
that sounds scary. broadcasting messages into people's minds? just think of how governments could control people that way... where did you learn of this..er..new technology?
I read an article on it a few months or maybe even a year ago. It's not control over anyone's mind but people walking by heard it and stopped to check out the 'store'. (It wasn't selling anything.)
-
That's sure a dream I'm sure more people share, I do for one
Though I guess I dream even further, hoping we'll one day have the kind of virtual reality you can see in Star Trek etc, where you can get fully immersed, but I doubt that will ever be possible 
Would be fun though 
That would be the ultimate game. I'm just hoping 10-15 years from now we'll have a game where you put on the headset and immerse yourself in a game where it responds to vocal and physical commands.
I mean companies have found ways to broadcast messages into the minds of people, I'm sure we can get a cool game and maybe even a virtual reality.
-
Are you sure you're not looking in the released category?
I can sure see it under indie in the "Best Upcoming" category Aha you were right. I guess I'll register and vote.
I love strategy games based on ancient history.
That's why I'm dreaming of sometime in the future where you put on a headset and game where you can choose a time period, an existing civilization or create your own and attempt to conquer the world and your view can be first person as the leader or as a god like in Sims. The AI for the game would obviously be insane but I can dream right?
-
I don't see it under indie
-
Whatever you do, never get into a land war in Asia. And never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
Reminds me of Risk. I always went for South America or North America.
I tried to avoid Europe and Asia at all costs
and Africa and Oceania/Australia were in the middle for me.
-
Vista. It's funny because MS owns almost everything that's not open source.
I'm pretty sure Microsoft owns Apple.
What Americans can believe...
in Introductions & Off-Topic Discussion
Posted
Because soccer players act like they've been shot and mauled by a bear when they are lightly tapped in the leg or even when they haven't been touched at all.
It's also a little slow paced for me.
And I'm Canadian.