Four words: Ragnarok Mode

[eerr]

(and very incorrect )

recipe for sugar water: sugar, water

notice you dont count "recipe" in the recipe of sugar water. colons denote that what follows is decided by what came before, same way 2=1+1

i'm pioneering a new verison of the english language-i'm the beta tester for the newest version, as designated by the government.

 

[Sureshot]

actually, youd be better off going with the angle that ragnarok is "fate of the gods" as per its meaning as i understand it, and taken out the "mode"

then you could have said: "four words: ragnarok" since that translates to "four words: fate of the gods"

then you would have been correct

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Nope, he'd still be wrong. Just because a word and a phrase have the same meaning doesn't mean that they are considered the same thing. In all cases, there are subtle differences in connotation that must be considered.

 

[Sureshot]

oh definately, i was just trying to give him a pretend kinda way out, like "i was thinking if it was translated"

 

[MrManNo1]

I don't think he wants to get out. I think he's pretty content as to where he is at the moment.

 

[wilboman]

"Martha! Git the shawtgun. Them durn pedants is tryin' to russle our thrid agin!"

 

[MrManNo1]

"Martha! Git the shawtgun. Them durn pedants is tryin' to russle our thrid agin!"

I got most of that, but what is "thrid"?

 

[Aeon221]

It is third misspelled. How can you get a joke if you don't get the important part?

 

[Nikis-Knight]

actually, it is thread mispronounced.

 

[wilboman]

Nikis-Knight beat me to the explanation. It's "thread" in my mental imagining of cowboy/redneck.

 

[onedreamer]

out of curiosity... what is this topic about ?

 

[Silverkiss]

Ragnarok Mode.... o.o

A mode proposed by eerr. Didn´t you read the topic ? o.o

 

[lostkitten13]

I think he was confused about what is being discussed here...the english language or an actual topic.

 

[eerr]

I think he was confused about what is being discussed here...the english language or an actual topic.

a statement replying to a statement about a debate about a logical/fantastical fallacie
the redundantcy should end here
but not because i'm looking for a way of not looking stupid or anything


time to get back on topic- ragnarok mode,

My burning question-is, whats your version?

mine replaces time victory, and everyone wants to kill each other, that may hold a religious based theme(i'm not very picky!)

ideas-

avatar of your god(regicide mode)

religious world domination(tree huggers ftw)

dead units come back to life as some sort of angel(demon?) units
(and then everyone fights or something)

etcetera

 

[Chandrasekhar]

I think that forced war would be a nice thing to have regardless of whatever other features get included. Also, et cetera is two words.

 

[Endovior]

So far as 'Ragnarok Mode' goes, I suggest the following.

A Ritual (available with Armageddon) called Ragnarok. It does the following.

1: Starting from when the ritual is completed, no civs may change state religion.
2: All civs with the same state religion are automatically allied, and may not break this alliance for the remainder of the game.
3: All civs with different state religions are automatically at war, and may not declare peace for the remainder of the game.
4: Eliminates war weariness for the remainder of the game.
5: Causes an extra four unhappiness for each non-state religion in any of your cities.

Victory under this is as standard, noting that, as always, you can win with the aid of your allies.

Last thoughts: For those with no state religion (Grigori, Illians)... have everyone at war with them, or leave them neutral?

 

[Silverkiss]

Neutral .

 

[lorgen]

This seems to me to be extremely similar to the religious victory. Just, instead of using percentages, you use a solitary unit (Is that even what Ragnarok is? I thought Ragnarok was where the Norse dead went?)

Ragnarok is not the place the dead norsemen went. That is either Valhall or Hel. So, cut frim wiki:

In Norse mythology, Ragnarok ("fate of the gods"[1]) is the battle at the end of the world. It would be waged between the gods (the Æsir, led by Odin) and their aggressors (the jötnar, along with Loki and his monstrous children). Not only will some of the gods, giants, and monsters perish in this apocalyptic conflagration, but almost everything in the universe will be torn asunder..... /.../

Ragnarok will be preceded by the Fimbulwinter, the winter of winters. Three successive winters will follow each other with no summer in between. As a result, conflicts and feuds will break out, and all morality will disappear.

The wolf Skoll and his brother Hati will finally devour Sol (the Sun) and her brother Mani (the Moon) respectively, after a perpetual chase. The stars will vanish from the sky, plunging the earth into darkness.

The earth will shudder, so violently that trees will be uprooted, and mountains will fall, and every bond and fetter will snap and sever, freeing Loki, the God of Mischief, and his ferocious son Fenrir. This terrible wolf's slavering mouth will gape wide open, so wide that his lower jaw scrapes against the ground and his upper jaw presses against the sky. He will gape even more widely if there is room. Flames will dance in his eye and leap from his nostrils.

And so follows preparation to battle and the battle itself... And of course the aftermath, where only a few gods survive, along with two people who had been hiding inside Yggdrasil, and there is a new beginning to the world...

 

[Endovior]

Neutral .

I'm not quite certain that's the best option. Naturally, having everyone at war with them (except the Illians?) would tend to screw them over... but less so then, say, the Infernals after Glory Everlasting.

On second thought, the Infernals are mostly immune to Armageddon, aren't they?

I suppose it makes sense, from a balancing perspective... certain civs are less affected by certain Rituals, but are more affected by others. For example, the Grigori would be pretty much unaffected by Bane Divine... but (assuming War over Neutral) would be more affected by Ragnarok. And it should not be forgotten that it's likely that there will be other civs who have everyone at war with them after Ragnarok in many games.

 

[Eternal Requiem]

Hmm... if you take out the religion part... and you thinkg about it why not have the good civs and the evil civs be at war with one another? I mean putting it simply that would make more sense if you were not taking the religion part into it. As for the Neutral Civs... well that needs to be worked out... one way to sway neutrals is if they like a certain amount of other civs better then others and may decide to choose either good or evil sided