Titus Ultor
-
Posts
893 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Titus Ultor
-
-
Lol. The TLA team has a guy named 'Caesar'. We can totally get away with Gandalf as a cheat unit.
-
Even if it isn't true, there's still great tragedy in the fact that much of the world would actually believe that the U.S. would do something that's usually reserved for fascist empires.
-
For the first time I believe ever, I agree with Quacker. AoE3 is a Microsoft product. Microsoft owns the company that created it, and AoM. If you want to bash Microsoft, realize that these two products are theirs just as much as their operating systems.
If you don't want the operating systems, they don't have to give you the games. It's called "business sense".
-
The sad part is that he's half-serious. Like I said before, he's pretty much a dimwit with only one virtue: he's loud when he's angry. And he's too dumb to understand what he should be angry about. The media really isn't that scummy, for the most part. Unless he means Geraldo Rivera or a similiar no-talent sack of lies.
-
Archers can, if used effectively, have a great advantage over cavalry. Remember Agincourt? If the cavalry's mobility is done away with, it is fairly vulnerable to even sword-armed infantry, especially when the horse is unarmored. Which is why, in traditional RTSs, mounted melee troops have always been given unrealistically high armor ratings and hit points. They're really actually more vulnerable than unmounted troops if you can stop them from moving much. They're simply larger and more obvious targets, and they can't wheel around to face you as fast as you can move around them (believe it or not, but a man can run circles around a horse trying to turn about without wheeling around). Their weapons are awkward to use on the left side, and their shields are entirely unavailable on the right.
It's excusable, however, that AoK makes the horse troops stop moving to engage enemies. Could you imagine how difficult and complex the graphics and mechanics of the game would be if mounted troops were wheeling about constantly? Also, the numbers used in RTSs (particularly in 0 A.D., where we project that we won't pass a population cap of a hundred) are never enough to really simulate how horses would get bogged down in a sea of men.
Oh, and an elephant and mahout would actually cost much, much more than a horse and rider. Elephants eat more, require much more room and more training to be used effectively in war. Also, horses are much more resilient to different climates (elephants wouldn't do well in Gallia; look what happened to Hannibal's army up in the Alps).
-
Lol. Drugs can do a lot of things to a man, Bobby. A lot of things.
Anyway. Michael Savage is essentially a poorly educated idiot. Even completely discounting his views. He's just not a very clever man at all. He doesn't even have the ability to attract listeners as much as an overweight, pill-popping, un-college-educated blowhard.
-
Neither would columns, for that matter. It's more of a recognizing Roman buildings thing that a literally historical thing. If we were to be legitately historical for a starting Roman village, it'd almost have to be a fortress of some kind, or at least one formerly owned by a conquered people. Colonies were rarely built on completely new territory without the military being involved beforehand.
-
Some people call it LSD..
And as science progresses, we've become more and more aware of different chemicals and properties of the human mind that lead to moods and dispositions. It's not unlikely that we'll figure out what chemical inspires a new stimulae to come from within the mind, instead of from without.
-
A former Marxist myself (purely orthodox), I noticed several things about Marx's theory and general ideas.
- Marx's famous quote of "from each as he is able, to each as he needs" is actually derived from the Bible (Acts 11 or 12, if I'm not mistaken). The passage which he drew it from is about the rather socialist early church: the rich would sell their property as they could, and give to the poor as much as they needed.
- Marx's beef was with religion as "the opiate of the masses". He felt that religion was used by the ruling class to keep the lower classes docile and generally not causing a worldwide revolution.
- The theory of communism relies on a strong feeling that all men deserve equal treatment, an ethical theory that can be traced back to the Bible.
Just a few quick points you could start an essay about. I don't want to give too much away.
-
We should try to avoid too much micromanaging of armies. Remember, you'll also want to be expanding your economy at the same time, and advancing your civilization in general. Notice that Rome: Total War has you do the socio-politico-economic stuff in one screen, and the military in an entire seperate type of game. If that doesn't highlight how much focus the military would take for that kind of micromanagement, I don't know how else to do so.
-
Science is not just about reductionism. Science is about improving the lot of mankind as a whole. Sure, the fact that the universe is constructed of various atoms and forces that we'll never see is rather irrelevant to most people. But the fact that understanding physics allows us to create safer cars is something that everyone benefits from. The fact that we understand chemistry and the interaction between atoms and cells (both individually invisible) allows us to cure diseases.
If the moon actually physically or emotionally inspired people simply by existing, it would be able to be proven by science. But if it's more about how the moon affects you based on, like Morgan suggested, about how you've developed an understanding or emotional attachment to the moon, it's more out of the realm of science.
Er.. well. That's science, too. Psychology and physiology.
-
I tend to agree with Morgan on the point about the moon's affect on creativity. The only other reason I can figure that would lead to greater alertness and thus creativity on nights with a full moon would be that the greater amount of light may influence sleeping patterns.
If one truly wanted to test this theory, you'd have to throw several hundred people into seperate rooms with access solely to electric light, with no clocks or anything of the sort. Otherwise, it's mostly anecdote and conjecture.
-
I realize this was several posts ago, but to address Caesar's claim of interdependency between the U.S. and Canada.. The fact is is that Canada is far more reliant on the financial resources of the U.S. than the U.S. is on the products of Canada. One simple reason can clarify as to why.. the U.S. has a huge market in which it operates. A loss of trade with Canada would raise prices in the U.S.; in Canada, on the other hand, it would mean the loss of what is, by far, their largest trading partner.
-
"Why the Jews" is a very simple question to answer, if only for one major principle: inertia. To engender the hate of a people towards another is a very difficult matter. To bring out and grow already existing hate is much easier. Jews have always been outcasts in Christian societies, if only because Jesus spoke against them and most of their religious traditions. It also didn't help that the Gospels (and Roman secular texts) place most of the blame for Jesus' death. It hurt the Jews even more that many of the strongest and most powerful voices against Christianity were the leaders of the Jewish religion (with the power to imprison and even sometimes execute those proclaiming Christ).
The involvement of the Jews in the killing of Jesus of Nazarene sort of cemented their position as "bad guys" throughout the growth of Christianity, in much the same way that the Crusades put the stirrings of anti-Christianity deep inside the religion of Islam.
When Hitler rose to power, both his very capable political sense and his own inbred dislike of Judaism provided a very good scapegoat. As his mind spiralled further into insanity, his hatred became stronger and more irrational, and his passion turned his adoring masses violently against the Jews, as well.
-
Gorgeous! And that's all there is to say.
-
You'll find that a British accent is very good when dealing with Americans. We trust people with them, for some reason or another. Chris, your "TV announcer" voice is the sort of sound Americans totally buy into. At this point, the only thing that could be improved is maybe scripting, and removing the filler words (umm, uhh, et cetera). Very informative.
-
If someone offered it to me, I'd just have to try it. But I don't think I'd go looking for it. If only for propriety's sake.
-
I usually start at about the calves, and work my way up. I'm not sure if this is for any specific reason, but it's just sort of how I look at people. But I have a definate attraction to eyes.
-
That's insane.
Speaking of MMO games, has anyone else heard of Roma-Victor?
They're an (mostly) independent developer, who claims that they won't require any subscriptions. All you have to do is buy the game.
-
Blizzard's sold out (just calculate how many users on WoW by fifteen dollars a month) already, and China would be communist enough to steal it.
Anyway.. isn't gaming addiction actually a problem, as it were?
-
Any one remember Iran-Contra? There were judgments passed on U.S. officials breaking national laws to provide arms to Iraq, Iran, and Nicaragua. Just thought I'd interject this, since so many people were calling for justice that had already been handed out.
-
Lol... I guess we all have our own individual needs.
Actually, I'm hoping that our players will find historical errors for us to correct! Hate to leave in an error, and never find out. -
Zezar.. maybe you should upload the file to some free image website or something first?
I'm looking forward to reaffirming Roman dominance against the rest of these piddly civilizations!
-
Unless we added motion blurs, I doubt you could get more movement into that shot..
Multi-weapons for units?
in General Discussion
Posted
Also for the sake of our poor programmers and artists. Super Units, in such a way as we're implementing them, didn't truly exist historically as "super-units". Sure, they were better equipped and trained when comparied to the levied soldiers of most other nations. Perhaps they also inspired the morale of their allies, and frightened their enemies.
But they couldn't have taken on several opponents at once, and not expected to run into serious trouble.
My point is that Spartiates simply represent a higher class of warrior, in this case taking the form of the bold soldiers of Sparta. Above their literal place in history, they are a gameplay mechanic manifested with an imperfect historical texture.