Recent content by SMcM

Do you think it might be in order to change rules? e.g. each time you take off 6 points, and add 2, should accelerate the rate at which presidents are eliminated. This thread was doomed when it was moved to forum games tbh, I put it in history originally (since the Civ 6 section has had plenty...

Interesting thread... Cheese 7 (10 - 3) Just cheese is a bit plain I suppose Ham and cheese 10 Ham salad 10 Sausage 10 Cheese and onion 10 Egg mayonnaise 10 Tuna mayo 10 Chicken salad 10 Chicken mayo 10 Cheese and pickle 11 (10 + 1) Pickle is nice though

George Washington 21 John Adams 20 Thomas Jefferson 21 (20 + 1) For doubling America's land area with the Louisiana purchase James Madison 20 James Monroe 20 John Quincy Adams 20 Andrew Jackson 20 Martin Van Buren 20 William Henry Harrison 2 John Tyler 20 James Polk 20 Zachary Taylor 17 Millard...

George Washington 21 John Adams 20 Thomas Jefferson 20 James Madison 20 James Monroe 20 John Quincy Adams 20 Andrew Jackson 20 Martin Van Buren 20 William Henry Harrison 5 John Tyler 20 James Polk 20 Zachary Taylor 20 Millard Fillmore 20 Franklin Pierce 17 James Buchanan 20 Abraham Lincoln 24...

George Washington 21 John Adams 20 Thomas Jefferson 20 James Madison 20 James Monroe 20 John Quincy Adams 20 Andrew Jackson 20 Martin Van Buren 20 William Henry Harrison 8 (11-3) Again, barely a president John Tyler 20 James Polk 20 Zachary Taylor 20 Millard Fillmore 20 Franklin Pierce 17 James...

I'm so confused by the framing of this thread, where is this belief that America and NATO were around the corner from eliminating the Taliban once and for all coming from? It seems like you think regular military forces can just beat the Taliban as if they are just a weak regular army, and are...

Wish I could downvote the whole thread, I can't see why people want more leaders with this gimmick. Jokes aside, that is exactly why the whole idea is awful. Many rulers have given themselves titles in conquered lands to support their legitimacy.

Yeah apologies for the tone, it's just I constantly see people make that point about the term 'Byzantine', and I think they give it far more importance than it is due. Also, I don't think I made any comments in this thread prior to that, so that was someone else you responded to. Splitting...

I think everyone is aware the Eastern Roman Empire was never called the Byzantine Empire in its time. People do love to point out the same widely known facts over and over as if they are making original points. Anyway, it was a separate entity, A) because it had already become a de-facto...

I mean you're ignoring the 'blob' nature of Civ 6 civilizations, which means the whole continuum of the history of a 'nation' is treated as one. China is not representing one dynasty, for instance, it spans from Qin to the CCP. And no, they aren't exactly my top picks either, but I suspect the...

I mean there was a Kingdom of Bosnia in the late middle ages, and a Prince-Bishopric of Montenegro going back to 16th century, so not the most modern countries really. Now Macedonia and Kosovo, those really example of modern inventions. Slovenia and Slovakia have not existed as historically...

Exactly, this makes no sense

I mostly agree, but one problem- Morocco is not, and was not, 'black'. Some people think that because the Moors have often been referred to as black, but I'm fairly sure the main explanation for this is historical lumping together all non-European groups. Generally the distinction I would make...

It is only slightly worse than Civ 5 in this regard, I'd argue, and clearly far less bad than a Paradox game for instance.

Yeah I'm not a fan of that upside down map. Arguably it is hard to focus on what it is supposed to be showing us when the weird orientation is so distracting.