Political Philosophy discussion

[Thunderbrd]

Here you go:

First of all: There is no proving in science. There are hypotheses (formed by conjecture) and scientists (try to) think of experiments to choose between them. For obvious reasons, only hypotheses that are thought of are considered. If there was proof in science no established scientific theorem would ever be discarded (and still often be a valid approximation under certain conditions, like Newton's laws of motion when you don't have to consider fast speeds or small structures).

Hypotheses based on complex assumptions are penalized, because any additional assumption has a "likelihood price tag". That is the foundation of Ockham's Razor, which argues against assumptions such as "We haven't seen any planet around Antares, so I think there is a planet looking like a big pink elephant." Why Antares, why pink, and why should this one planet have a completely different (and very complex) shape compared to the planets we know? You could replace these points with slightly different ones, leading to a completely new theory which is no less likely, but all of these likelihoods cannot add up to more than 1.

We cannot "prove" that animals were not ridden in battle. Fine. We also cannot "prove" that animals didn't ride humans into battle. Or that humans didn't cartwheel into battle.

The very term modern scientific fallacies is not only wrong in my opinion, but incredibly dangerous in a time where facts seem to have become far less important than keeping your assumptions at all costs. Can we really afford throwing away what can be considered the foundation of the enlightenment, and instead go back to what has not worked in the millennia before?

Perhaps unscientific fallacies should not be completely forgotten in this, like thinking that e.g. Princess Diana was murdered and that she faked her own death - and it is the same people who think both: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2a07/ce95d7b4d114b34c2e5029deb579a20f242b.pdf To this I can only reply with Immanuel Kant:

I'm not trying to deny science or global warming or attack the validity of science and the scientific method or any other reasonable conclusion. I'm just saying that it seems very understandable why there would be a lack of evidence even if the behavior of riding and doing battle took place given what it is we are basing conclusions on. And that one of the problems that the scientific community tends to embrace is that they assume that something cannot be if they cannot find hard evidence of it, no matter how logical it is to assume it, including when there is good cause to say such evidence would be unlikely to be forthcoming for a host of reasons. This is a good example of such a case. It is hard to envision people would not have utilized horses for this purpose long before carts. Literally, the current teaching is putting the cart before the horse.

edit There is evidence for people riding to the battle, dismounting then joining the battle. Zappara had a whole line of units for this which eventually upgraded to units that did fight on animal back. They give the speed of movement of horses but fight as foot soldiers.

The Mounted Infantry unit is part of that line and operates like that in C2C. I have wanted to take Vokarya's full fleshing out of that line from AND for a while now. I would not be against having this go all the way back to the beginning EXCEPT that this seems like, gamewise, it should be a uniquely abnormal ability for mounted units to move as mounted and fight as melee. In C2C we make this mean that the unit is both Melee AND Mounted and as a result they do tend to currently get a lot of XP which is a driving factor in the need to cycle through all Combat Class XP bonuses and take the max of them for the unit within a category of Combat Classes (which are defined in design charts but not officially in the code) rather than just getting ALL XP bonuses from ALL UnitCombats.

It also means the unit has the power to get defensive bonuses, which normal mounted do not, and that's quite a bonus, particularly for a unit that can pursue. It might help to balance out against the throwing line though. There are a few benefits that tend to go to the more pure mounted units usually that these dismounting units don't get - might have to review that a bit more and see if it could be appropriate to take that dismounted unit concept all the way back to the first mounted units.

From a GAME perspective, the design itself, the balance of units are meant to generally include mounted units into the system of checks and balances that was pretty much originally mapped out in vanilla and that we have somewhat kept to and simply expanded on. Without them, there is a noteworthy void in that balance. I'm not against making them a little weaker than they become in the relationship scheme prior to charioteering, saddles and stirrups, and I think we are introducing saddles way too early so on that point we agree. I can also understand that more advanced training techniques may have been necessary to keep horses IN the fight and they would've otherwise been very hard to control enough for battle.

Bareback fighters would not have been highly effective at first, despite people clearly seeing the obvious potential. As I reconsider the unit balance, I will keep that in mind. But if we're to have megafauna riders, on the 'what if' premise even, we would still need to have prehistoric riders of the more obvious types as well, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Thunderbrd]

I can see this (the old way) but How do you assign degree of Difficulty? Would that not be a subjective choice? And what would be the criteria to base difficulty upon?

The basis MUST be the tech tree first because that is the game balance expectation for reaching a tech.

However, I also agree that difficulty should be a factor. We should probably do this automatically however, and setup a tag for the difficulty factor in the XML for techs, a % modifier that assumes a base of 100. You could set a negative amount for an 'easy' tech and a positive amount for a 'hard' tech. I wouldn't want to see it go lower than -50 or higher than 100 generally and most really should just be default 0, but if you can REALLY see reason to feel that this particular tech should be cheaper or more expensive than the game stage expectation for a tech at that point, then sure, why not have it adjust as such.

I've also considered making the base self-calculate as well (it can be done but I might need help actually expressing the formula). Then we wouldn't have to worry about hand recosting techs anymore period. The same kind of thing could be done for buildings and units and the whole standardization of things has been in preparation for building such a mechanism of a tag-based modified automatic calculation system. Once established, cause-based modifier tags could help to zero in on the final formula everybody really wants to see that both works with all causes of rationale as well as blends in the expectations of the needs of game balance.

 

[raxo2222]

I'm not a republican trying to deny science or global warming or attack the validity of science and the scientific method or any other reasonable conclusion.

Republicans aren't only ones denying science - Democrats are guilty too. Scientific denialism/ignorance is global thing.
Democrats like you can be ignorant or even can deny science - nuclear (or entire modern) physics is your weakness.
Ignorance and scientific denialism doesn't care about political alignment - someone can believe in (fake) stuff, if it matches his views.

I still remember, when you thought monoatomic gold was real - we don't need unicorn poo to make levitation work like in that Nanotech tech.
Or when you thought that fusion reactors can explode like nuclear bombs - fusion powerplants just fizzle out when something goes wrong.
Or that you thought Fukushima accident was absolutely lethal for ocean life - radiation dilutes enough to be harmless far enough from coast.

Of course in very far future these things could be more real (if we get to experience Caveman2Cosmos like future).
Exotic matter with similar properties like monoatomic gold (it won't be useful though, as there would be more efficient methods for same levitation effect) could be possible by Cosmic era.
1000 000 GW fission/fusion reactors could be deadly for surroundings.
But by then we will fling 10km asteroids like pebbles around solar system.
Also we could fire small projectiles to relativistic speeds or use antimatter like battery.
Not to say TW lasers (to send energy somewhere else of course), that emit UV/Xray radiation.

 

[JosEPh_II]

EDIT: Quote removed to preserve the peace.
Wow! Are you trolling?
Perhaps you just might want to remove this statement of error and socialist elitist propaganda. No place on this forum for this type of statement. Totally wrong and totally divisive.

I am politely asking you to retract it and don't do it again.

 

[tmv]

Democrats like you can be ignorant or even can deny science

Another weakness that is more likely on the left is anti-vaxxing. And that is indeed lethal to many people: https://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/

Or when the dangers of climate change are actually exaggerated (Venus, anyone?). That could only happen if the absolute level of CO² went above a certain threshold. The current crisis is about a dangerous rate of CO² increasing, which leads to animals and plants being unable to react in time, our technology having to exist in an environment that it was not designed for, and the current number of worldwide refugees increasing to more than a 100 times the current level if big regions become inhospitable, not to mention coastal areas getting underwater (and most of our biggest cities are at the coast, just like in Civ). But the planet is not going to heat to several hundred degrees Celsius, and the atmosphere is not going to become toxic. That might be possible by the greenhouse effect, but if the threshold for that development was so low it would already have happened the last time the CO² level was that high.

But you are right: The dangerous contradiction of the right is that climate change would increase refugee numbers, and the dangerous contradiction of the left is to leave nuclear fission energy when our only alternative is fossil fuels (renewable energy in the USA was at 17.1 % in 2018, but taking over the 63.5 % from fossil fuels and the 19.3 % from nuclear is not possible - numbers from https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 ).

Then there is the fact that science has almost become used to having its expectations crushed over the millennia. Just consider how evident it is for anyone watching that the sun moves over the sky. Or that the stars are in fixed positions, and certainly of a completely different nature from our sun. Or that you have to apply a force to keep something moving. Aristotelian physics is pretty much formed from our expectations, and it was shown to be wrong in pretty much every aspect. That's why contemporary science tries not to rely on these expectations. In a long process the current procedure was developed because all former and easier methods were faulty, whereas the current procedure has led to more development in 250 years than in the 10000 years before. Anyone wanting to replace this should show first that the "new" system (which far too often resembles an old one) can do the same.

 

[raxo2222]

socialist elitist propaganda.

Calling democrats socialists is like calling republicans feudalists.

America is much more capitalist than Europe (big corporations and no universal health care among other features).
American socialists like Bernie Sandres or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would be center left in Nordic countries or moderate left in more capitalist countries.
Most of democrats would be European centrists.
Those two mentioned would sound like capitalist conservatives, if Nordic far left would leak to USA

This is why USA needs multiparty system like Europe - Conservatives + Libertarians instead of Republicans, and Social Democrats + Centrists instead of Democrats.
Centrists and Conservatives would make up most of political scene - social democrats and libertarians are rare but loud.

Another weakness that is more likely on the left is anti-vaxxing. And that is indeed lethal to many people: https://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/

Americans are too busy accusing each other communists/socialists/nazis/feudalists instead of solving serious issues - that's why European politics are generally superior, even if we have crackheads too

 

[Toffer90]

The animal riding tech represent bareback riding, not mounted warfare in any way.
So the tech should come closely after one of the big animal domestication techs.
The first riding units at the animal riding tech should have lower strength than the Obsidian weaponry warriors, 2 movement points, it should not have the MOUNTED combat type but it should have MOTILITY_RIDING combat type.
Maybe a little withdrawal bonus, thinking they may be able to get back to their horses and flee when retreating the battlefield.
The first elephant rider with 1 movement point could have some strange abilities like perhaps heal while moving or 1 more strength or morale effects on the enemy or something.

In the "my take on stuff" modmod, the first camel and horse riding units have 3 strength, same as the stone spear-/mace-/axe-man.
The elephant rider is still considered a regular mounted warfare unit in the modmod with 5 strength, haven't decided on how to make them not mounted in combat and still be a viable unit to train.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Wow! Are you trolling?
Perhaps you just might want to remove this statement of error and socialist elitist propaganda. No place on this forum for this type of statement. Totally wrong and totally divisive.

I am politely asking you to retract it and don't do it again.

For the sake of peace, retracted. Also for the sake of peace I will restrain myself from further comment. The country is tense these days isn't it? Hardly tolerable really. I can hardly keep down my anger of late. I'll just shut up.

 

[Toffer90]

The country is tense these days isn't it? Hardly tolerable really. I can hardly keep down my anger of late. I'll just shut up.

As an outsider looking in, I do watch cnn and fox for anthropological reasons, my observation about your main media feeds are that they are taking an unapologetic political stance to everything, and is not afraid to show their subjectivity even in the news outlets. There also seems to be a lot of sensationalism and hysterical personalities on the front line for these channels.

When news anchors and journalistic reporters present news where judgement are prematurely reached due to subjective political convictions; then that makes the news skewed (non-neutral) and usually involves finger pointing (blaming) without proof, name calling, and the propagation of the established narrative of a specific political group in your society that the channel has sworn allegiance to.
Objectivity in news is important, that means journalist should refrain from taking sides or expressing clear cut judgement on matters, asking serious questions about morality and such is of course okay, but holding speeches, akin to moralistic preaching, about what is right and what is wrong is not something that belongs in news coverage. It should be entirely up to the viewer to interpret, reach conclusions, and form opinions about the news that are presented.
Guest experts and interview objects can of course say what they want when appearing in debates or on other serious programs about politics and the world, but the anchor/handler/journalist who is in charge of the program should try to reign in the talk to a more objective level when necessary, and not actively encourage subjectivity.

US journalist\anchors are imo more akin to political mouthpieces, the claqueurs of politicians, on a systematical level.
This US media culture is polarizing to the core, and when I watch it, it feels like I'm leaving the rational "grown up" world that I'm used to in European channels, and entering some sort of strange parody reality that are more akin to game shows or late-night shows.
Even commercial breaks gives me the same feeling when comparing it to European commercials, like it's a parody or some such.

It's of course ok for channels like CNN to have more subjective programs, like satire or some such, as long as there's a balance between objective and subjective programs, and that there is no question about which is which.
Currently there are very few clear cut objective programs on that channel.

Sorry, no offence intended to any US citizens here, just expressing my general impression of some things.

 

[tmv]

This is why USA needs multiparty system like Europe - Conservatives + Libertarians instead of Republicans, and Social Democrats + Centrists instead of Democrats.

How do you get a multiparty system with first-past-the-post? Don't get me wrong, there are many advantages with that system (people don't get into parliament just for being "party soldiers", and more accountability). But entrenching a two-party-system is perhaps the major downside of that system, especially since it usually leads to the two parties getting closer and closer to each other (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling's_law). This is only broken when the "establishment" of one party is forced to become more radical, usually from the outside (not that that would ever happen, of course ).

In continental Europe proportional representation is the norm, I think. In that system, there is a stronger incentive to stay in your position, since a new party could try to take your old position otherwise. On the other hand, almost all governments have to be based on coalitions, so the parties in parliament usually stay a bit more friendly towards each other (you never know when you might need them). The parties themselves become extremely powerful, since there are a lot of members of parliament who got there on the party vote. And very often the third-most powerful party gets to be "kingmaker", giving that party an extreme amount of influence, especially compared to their share of the vote (e.g. in (West) Germany from 1969 - 2005 and again from 2009 - 2013, only broken in between and since 2013 by the two most powerful parties forming a coalition).

In short, there is no perfect system. Either you choose a system with strong accountability and limited powers for the parties, and get an entrenched two-party-system where these parties are often very similar (see above for the current situation where that particular "problem" has become smaller than usually). Or you choose a system that can grant you many parties that could even be one-topic-parties, but you get overly powerful parties and members of parliament who don't really represent anyone other than their party. In Germany, you can often push a bill through simply with an agreement of the party leaders or parliamentary leaders (and perhaps the governors), the members of parliament will fall in line. That is something that I don't think could happen in the USA. For that reason, especially in "normal" times, the first-past-the-post system has many advantages.

The current problems I can only see from a distance. My home country has perhaps become a bit more unstable lately, but compared to the USA and especially the UK, it is still on a rock-hard foundation. But I think the close or perhaps too-close distance of the two parties left many people frustrated, and we currently witness a reflex to that.I wouldn't be surprised at all if the "left" party became much more left, especially if Trump is elected again. After that, politics would get really nasty (right now it is still just a "serious disagreement" compared to what might come), perhaps only tempered by the fact that third terms are forbidden. But the pendulum has definitely taken up speed in the last 30 years, both on the right (Bush sr - Bush jr - Trump) and on the left (Clinton - Obama). What comes next?

 

[Thunderbrd]

I think I'd prefer a No Party system where candidates run on their own platforms whatever that may be. Would at least keep us from becoming tribal and blinded to massive problems in our own 'side' because we know about them but have to choose to overlook them so our team can still win. The 2 party system has this country serving nothing but huge $ interests and has sealed out all other voices despite putting on a grand show to pretend that's not how it actually is.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

I think I'd prefer a No Party system where candidates run on their own platforms whatever that may be. Would at least keep us from becoming tribal and blinded to massive problems in our own 'side' because we know about them but have to choose to overlook them so our team can still win. The 2 party system has this country serving nothing but huge $ interests and has sealed out all other voices despite putting on a grand show to pretend that's not how it actually is.

From my reading of your constitution a few months ago, it agrees with you that there should not be political parties and that each candidate for any office is elected on their own merits.

 

[tmv]

I think I'd prefer a No Party system where candidates run on their own platforms whatever that may be.

That would require actually forbidding representatives to organize themselves in any way, shape or form, otherwise this "no party" system is very temporary. There is a lot of influence to be gained by representatives promising each other to have common policies. And then there is the allotted time for representatives speaking before the House. If they are not organized (and no representative can speak for another one), all of them would probably want to speak on important matters. It would be worse than a filibuster (yes, I know that filibusters can only happen in the senate, but the situation there is not that different).

And that is if everything works well, but if everything worked well, this reform wouldn't be needed. The system has problems because the rules are being ignored. So what if they are still ignored and we get secret parties instead of parties out in the open? I dare say that would lead to even more corruption than now, because now these representatives have a lot to lose right from the start.

The strange thing is that there are measures in place that should lead to less corruption, but either they are not working or they are too weak. First-past-the-post should keep the representative / senator mostly free from party chains, at least compared to a proportional system. That the government is formed by an (indirect) popular vote should reduce the connections between government and parliament, whereas a system like in Germany actively connects the two by having parliament elect the head of government. The senators being elected by the public instead of the old system where the governors got involved should make them answer to the public. All in all the US system should be one of the least corrupt systems, since most of the other countries (even democracies) have far less checks in place to keep the politicians honest. The only thing I can think of is the superpower status of the USA which can make any position of influence far more attractive for certain personalities which should be kept away from such positions at all costs.

The only other thing that is almost unique in the USA is the single head of the executive branch - most other countries have a head of state and a head of government. But I cannot see how that should play a role, especially considering that one of these positions is usually very weak.

 

[Harrier]

The country is tense these days isn't it? Hardly tolerable really.

So is The UK.

 

[JosEPh_II]

@Toffer90 ,

The USA has returned to an age of Yellow Journalism. Most TV news people or newspaper reporters (or editors) do not use the 2 verified source rule anymore that a true journalist is taught as must do, must have to present an article. Instead many are reacting to tweets of a tweet of a tweet with no verification process involved. And as such our News Media today (both TV and Printed) is tainted and is the propaganda or political stance out of the Person or Corporation that owns them. When you notice a news personality repeating the same thing over and over at least 3 times during the same broadcast they are setting narratives and not giving news. There is a name for this type of repetitive behavior (is called xxxx law) and it fits the definition of Propaganda.


@raxo2222 ,
Many Democrats already call themselves Socialists. Bernie Sanders is running on that very Socialist Globalist platform. Several others are supported and funded by wings of the democratic party like the Social Justice Democrats or SWJ's. All are seeking a Globalist One World Government. And the destruction of the Constitution and the 3 Branches of Government we employ from the Constitution.

Republicans are automatically labeled as an Ultra Right Wing Nationalist, White Supremist, Deplorable Conservative and worst of all Christian nut jobs. When in fact Republicans are from all spectrums of our nation and skin color and religion or not. But all Republicans support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This country is Not a Democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. Does that fit the Feudalist definition?


America is at a crossroads, either we uphold the Constitution and it's 1st 10 Amendments (Bill of Rights) or we become another Socialist Marxist Regime. Many fear a 2nd Civil War is coming. Outside forces (other world powers) are working to help foment this into action. And a 2nd Civil War may escalate into another World War. This time with multiple countries hurling Nuclear weapons at each other. The Death Toll will be staggering with projections of at least 1/3 of the world Population killed.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

However Bernie Sanders version of Socialism is still to the right of centre, it is nowhere near the left as thought of in other countries.

Also the current version of socialism has evolved, just like the current version of capitalism has, from how it was in the late 1800s to early 1900s.

America is at a crossroads, either we uphold the Constitution and it's 1st 10 Amendments (Bill of Rights) or we become another Socialist Marxist Regime. Many fear a 2nd Civil War is coming. Outside forces (other world powers) are working to help foment this into action. And a 2nd Civil War may escalate into another World War. This time with multiple countries hurling Nuclear weapons at each other. The Death Toll will be staggering with projections of at least 1/3 of the world Population killed.

Actually we outsiders don't see the threat as a Socialist Marxist Regime (left) but a Fascist Totalitarian Regime (right). After all you have taken concentration camps, as started by Australia this time round, to a bit of an extreme over there. Rumour has it that you have also started disappearing people, kids come home from school to find their parents gone, is the main one we hear.

 

[JosEPh_II]

However Bernie Sanders version of Socialism is still to the right of centre, it is nowhere near the left as thought of in other countries.

Also the current version of socialism has evolved, just like the current version of capitalism has, from how it was in the late 1800s to early 1900s.

Actually we outsiders don't see the threat as a Socialist Marxist Regime (left) but a Fascist Totalitarian Regime (right). After all you have taken concentration camps, as started by Australia this time round, to a bit of an extreme over there. Rumour has it that you have also started disappearing people, kids come home from school to find their parents gone, is the main one we hear.

So you believe these "rumors"?? Really? I think you need to do some investigating and maybe check out why your media sources are feeding you rubbish. We don't have Concentration camps. Nor are we Nazi. That is just disgusting and disturbing that your news agencies portrays the USA that way. Not the Truth at all. And out right lies.

And yes Bernie Sanders is far left of centre. And the Only Fascists are the Antifa groups. Unless you are of the distorted view that being Conservative is being Totalitarian Fascist. If you do then you are blind. Hard working Americans f that have held steady jobs built a home and raised a family paid their taxes and built up their communities are Totalitarian Fascists'!??? What an Upside down view.

 

[raxo2222]

I quoted posts from here as derailing potential was created on this post.
Some of these or part of these can be on topic though, I just quoted them raw
Quotes within quotes are lost though.

So here is political drama:
#51

I was actually considering suggesting this as well but wanted to see how the rest panned out first. I agree with this. I'm not sure that megafauna should come off elephants though because some of them may be accessible even if elephants as actual resources aren't, and I'm thinking that these riding techs should only be selectable if you have access to the animals to be ridden somehow.


I do still feel this is a fallacy of modern scientific thinking that suggests that if you cannot find evidence of something (even if it is obvious that it would've been), then it cannot be the case that it was. The only support for this theory that chariots came before riding is the assumption that you couldn't ride bareback and thus you'd have to have horse skeletal remains dating to pre-charioteering showing bit wear on their dental records, which they don't. They also haven't found remains of animals ridden in battle before then. Doesn't mean it didn't happen... just means that it would've been rare enough that they haven't found proof of it happening. So by modern scientific fallacies, if they can't prove it happened then obviously they're proving it didn't.

If we're going to have Mammoth units in the game, are you saying we should push Charioteering into the Prehistoric to make this fit?

Furthermore, being a 'What if' mod in the first place, can we not at least agree that even if people didn't ride horses or other animals bareback prior to chariots, that at least, they could have? Even in the game, riding units (cept the megafauna and elephants) don't usually make a big difference until later anyhow.

#52

It really is. Like if the jet engine and the pencil sharpener were invented in the same year, so that means they took equal beakers to invent.

#53

I don't think I said that. My last statement was that AH should precede Domestication in the Tech tree. And that I thought Animal riding should come after AH but either in the same column as the Domestication techs or precede them. Upon reflection I felt it would be better for AR to precede the Dom techs.

I also do not think that any Domestication tech should be dependent upon any other Dom tech ( one of your points of contention if I got that correct). With maybe the exception of Cat after Canine.

#54

I can see this (the old way) but How do you assign degree of Difficulty? Would that not be a subjective choice? And what would be the criteria to base difficulty upon?

#55

Here you go:

First of all: There is no proving in science. There are hypotheses (formed by conjecture) and scientists (try to) think of experiments to choose between them. For obvious reasons, only hypotheses that are thought of are considered. If there was proof in science no established scientific theorem would ever be discarded (and still often be a valid approximation under certain conditions, like Newton's laws of motion when you don't have to consider fast speeds or small structures).

Hypotheses based on complex assumptions are penalized, because any additional assumption has a "likelihood price tag". That is the foundation of Ockham's Razor, which argues against assumptions such as "We haven't seen any planet around Antares, so I think there is a planet looking like a big pink elephant." Why Antares, why pink, and why should this one planet have a completely different (and very complex) shape compared to the planets we know? You could replace these points with slightly different ones, leading to a completely new theory which is no less likely, but all of these likelihoods cannot add up to more than 1.

We cannot "prove" that animals were not ridden in battle. Fine. We also cannot "prove" that animals didn't ride humans into battle. Or that humans didn't cartwheel into battle.

The very term modern scientific fallacies is not only wrong in my opinion, but incredibly dangerous in a time where facts seem to have become far less important than keeping your assumptions at all costs. Can we really afford throwing away what can be considered the foundation of the enlightenment, and instead go back to what has not worked in the millennia before?

Perhaps unscientific fallacies should not be completely forgotten in this, like thinking that e.g. Princess Diana was murdered and that she faked her own death - and it is the same people who think both: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2a07/ce95d7b4d114b34c2e5029deb579a20f242b.pdf To this I can only reply with Immanuel Kant:

#56

@tmv, I have used the same video before. I have a friend that looks very much like LB but he rambles less.

All evidence there is suggests that chariots come before riding, especially into battle. There is no evidence for riding into battle before chariots.

edit There is evidence for people riding to the battle, dismounting then joining the battle. Zappara had a whole line of units for this which eventually upgraded to units that did fight on animal back. They give the speed of movement of horses but fight as foot soldiers.

#57

I'm not trying to deny science or global warming or attack the validity of science and the scientific method or any other reasonable conclusion. I'm just saying that it seems very understandable why there would be a lack of evidence even if the behavior of riding and doing battle took place given what it is we are basing conclusions on. And that one of the problems that the scientific community tends to embrace is that they assume that something cannot be if they cannot find hard evidence of it, no matter how logical it is to assume it, including when there is good cause to say such evidence would be unlikely to be forthcoming for a host of reasons. This is a good example of such a case. It is hard to envision people would not have utilized horses for this purpose long before carts. Literally, the current teaching is putting the cart before the horse.


The Mounted Infantry unit is part of that line and operates like that in C2C. I have wanted to take Vokarya's full fleshing out of that line from AND for a while now. I would not be against having this go all the way back to the beginning EXCEPT that this seems like, gamewise, it should be a uniquely abnormal ability for mounted units to move as mounted and fight as melee. In C2C we make this mean that the unit is both Melee AND Mounted and as a result they do tend to currently get a lot of XP which is a driving factor in the need to cycle through all Combat Class XP bonuses and take the max of them for the unit within a category of Combat Classes (which are defined in design charts but not officially in the code) rather than just getting ALL XP bonuses from ALL UnitCombats.

It also means the unit has the power to get defensive bonuses, which normal mounted do not, and that's quite a bonus, particularly for a unit that can pursue. It might help to balance out against the throwing line though. There are a few benefits that tend to go to the more pure mounted units usually that these dismounting units don't get - might have to review that a bit more and see if it could be appropriate to take that dismounted unit concept all the way back to the first mounted units.

From a GAME perspective, the design itself, the balance of units are meant to generally include mounted units into the system of checks and balances that was pretty much originally mapped out in vanilla and that we have somewhat kept to and simply expanded on. Without them, there is a noteworthy void in that balance. I'm not against making them a little weaker than they become in the relationship scheme prior to charioteering, saddles and stirrups, and I think we are introducing saddles way too early so on that point we agree. I can also understand that more advanced training techniques may have been necessary to keep horses IN the fight and they would've otherwise been very hard to control enough for battle.

Bareback fighters would not have been highly effective at first, despite people clearly seeing the obvious potential. As I reconsider the unit balance, I will keep that in mind. But if we're to have megafauna riders, on the 'what if' premise even, we would still need to have prehistoric riders of the more obvious types as well, wouldn't you agree?

#58

The basis MUST be the tech tree first because that is the game balance expectation for reaching a tech.

However, I also agree that difficulty should be a factor. We should probably do this automatically however, and setup a tag for the difficulty factor in the XML for techs, a % modifier that assumes a base of 100. You could set a negative amount for an 'easy' tech and a positive amount for a 'hard' tech. I wouldn't want to see it go lower than -50 or higher than 100 generally and most really should just be default 0, but if you can REALLY see reason to feel that this particular tech should be cheaper or more expensive than the game stage expectation for a tech at that point, then sure, why not have it adjust as such.

I've also considered making the base self-calculate as well (it can be done but I might need help actually expressing the formula). Then we wouldn't have to worry about hand recosting techs anymore period. The same kind of thing could be done for buildings and units and the whole standardization of things has been in preparation for building such a mechanism of a tag-based modified automatic calculation system. Once established, cause-based modifier tags could help to zero in on the final formula everybody really wants to see that both works with all causes of rationale as well as blends in the expectations of the needs of game balance.

#59

Republicans aren't only ones denying science - Democrats are guilty too. Scientific denialism/ignorance is global thing.
Democrats like you can be ignorant or even can deny science - nuclear (or entire modern) physics is your weakness.
Ignorance and scientific denialism doesn't care about political alignment - someone can believe in (fake) stuff, if it matches his views.

I still remember, when you thought monoatomic gold was real - we don't need unicorn poo to make levitation work like in that Nanotech tech.
Or when you thought that fusion reactors can explode like nuclear bombs - fusion powerplants just fizzle out when something goes wrong.
Or that you thought Fukushima accident was absolutely lethal for ocean life - radiation dilutes enough to be harmless far enough from coast.

Of course in very far future these things could be more real (if we get to experience Caveman2Cosmos like future).
Exotic matter with similar properties like monoatomic gold (it won't be useful though, as there would be more efficient methods for same levitation effect) could be possible by Cosmic era.
1000 000 GW fission/fusion reactors could be deadly for surroundings.
But by then we will fling 10km asteroids like pebbles around solar system.
Also we could fire small projectiles to relativistic speeds or use antimatter like battery.
Not to say TW lasers (to send energy somewhere else of course), that emit UV/Xray radiation.

#60

EDIT: Quote removed to preserve the peace.
Wow! Are you trolling?
Perhaps you just might want to remove this statement of error and socialist elitist propaganda. No place on this forum for this type of statement. Totally wrong and totally divisive.

I am politely asking you to retract it and don't do it again.

#61

Another weakness that is more likely on the left is anti-vaxxing. And that is indeed lethal to many people: https://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/

Or when the dangers of climate change are actually exaggerated (Venus, anyone?). That could only happen if the absolute level of CO² went above a certain threshold. The current crisis is about a dangerous rate of CO² increasing, which leads to animals and plants being unable to react in time, our technology having to exist in an environment that it was not designed for, and the current number of worldwide refugees increasing to more than a 100 times the current level if big regions become inhospitable, not to mention coastal areas getting underwater (and most of our biggest cities are at the coast, just like in Civ). But the planet is not going to heat to several hundred degrees Celsius, and the atmosphere is not going to become toxic. That might be possible by the greenhouse effect, but if the threshold for that development was so low it would already have happened the last time the CO² level was that high.

But you are right: The dangerous contradiction of the right is that climate change would increase refugee numbers, and the dangerous contradiction of the left is to leave nuclear fission energy when our only alternative is fossil fuels (renewable energy in the USA was at 17.1 % in 2018, but taking over the 63.5 % from fossil fuels and the 19.3 % from nuclear is not possible - numbers from https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 ).

Then there is the fact that science has almost become used to having its expectations crushed over the millennia. Just consider how evident it is for anyone watching that the sun moves over the sky. Or that the stars are in fixed positions, and certainly of a completely different nature from our sun. Or that you have to apply a force to keep something moving. Aristotelian physics is pretty much formed from our expectations, and it was shown to be wrong in pretty much every aspect. That's why contemporary science tries not to rely on these expectations. In a long process the current procedure was developed because all former and easier methods were faulty, whereas the current procedure has led to more development in 250 years than in the 10000 years before. Anyone wanting to replace this should show first that the "new" system (which far too often resembles an old one) can do the same.

#62

Calling democrats socialists is like calling republicans feudalists.

America is much more capitalist than Europe (big corporations and no universal health care among other features).
American socialists like Bernie Sandres or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would be center left in Nordic countries or moderate left in more capitalist countries.
Most of democrats would be European centrists.
Those two mentioned would sound like capitalist conservatives, if Nordic far left would leak to USA

This is why USA needs multiparty system like Europe - Conservatives + Libertarians instead of Republicans, and Social Democrats + Centrists instead of Democrats.
Centrists and Conservatives would make up most of political scene - social democrats and libertarians are rare but loud.


Americans are too busy accusing each other communists/socialists/nazis/feudalists instead of solving serious issues - that's why European politics are generally superior, even if we have crackheads too

#63

The animal riding tech represent bareback riding, not mounted warfare in any way.
So the tech should come closely after one of the big animal domestication techs.
The first riding units at the animal riding tech should have lower strength than the Obsidian weaponry warriors, 2 movement points, it should not have the MOUNTED combat type but it should have MOTILITY_RIDING combat type.
Maybe a little withdrawal bonus, thinking they may be able to get back to their horses and flee when retreating the battlefield.
The first elephant rider with 1 movement point could have some strange abilities like perhaps heal while moving or 1 more strength or morale effects on the enemy or something.

In the "my take on stuff" modmod, the first camel and horse riding units have 3 strength, same as the stone spear-/mace-/axe-man.
The elephant rider is still considered a regular mounted warfare unit in the modmod with 5 strength, haven't decided on how to make them not mounted in combat and still be a viable unit to train.

#64

For the sake of peace, retracted. Also for the sake of peace I will restrain myself from further comment. The country is tense these days isn't it? Hardly tolerable really. I can hardly keep down my anger of late. I'll just shut up.

#65

As an outsider looking in, I do watch cnn and fox for anthropological reasons, my observation about your main media feeds are that they are taking an unapologetic political stance to everything, and is not afraid to show their subjectivity even in the news outlets. There also seems to be a lot of sensationalism and hysterical personalities on the front line for these channels.

When news anchors and journalistic reporters present news where judgement are prematurely reached due to subjective political convictions; then that makes the news skewed (non-neutral) and usually involves finger pointing (blaming) without proof, name calling, and the propagation of the established narrative of a specific political group in your society that the channel has sworn allegiance to.
Objectivity in news is important, that means journalist should refrain from taking sides or expressing clear cut judgement on matters, asking serious questions about morality and such is of course okay, but holding speeches, akin to moralistic preaching, about what is right and what is wrong is not something that belongs in news coverage. It should be entirely up to the viewer to interpret, reach conclusions, and form opinions about the news that are presented.
Guest experts and interview objects can of course say what they want when appearing in debates or on other serious programs about politics and the world, but the anchor/handler/journalist who is in charge of the program should try to reign in the talk to a more objective level when necessary, and not actively encourage subjectivity.

US journalist\anchors are imo more akin to political mouthpieces, the claqueurs of politicians, on a systematical level.
This US media culture is polarizing to the core, and when I watch it, it feels like I'm leaving the rational "grown up" world that I'm used to in European channels, and entering some sort of strange parody reality that are more akin to game shows or late-night shows.
Even commercial breaks gives me the same feeling when comparing it to European commercials, like it's a parody or some such.

It's of course ok for channels like CNN to have more subjective programs, like satire or some such, as long as there's a balance between objective and subjective programs, and that there is no question about which is which.
Currently there are very few clear cut objective programs on that channel.

Sorry, no offence intended to any US citizens here, just expressing my general impression of some things.

#66

How do you get a multiparty system with first-past-the-post? Don't get me wrong, there are many advantages with that system (people don't get into parliament just for being "party soldiers", and more accountability). But entrenching a two-party-system is perhaps the major downside of that system, especially since it usually leads to the two parties getting closer and closer to each other (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling's_law). This is only broken when the "establishment" of one party is forced to become more radical, usually from the outside (not that that would ever happen, of course ).

In continental Europe proportional representation is the norm, I think. In that system, there is a stronger incentive to stay in your position, since a new party could try to take your old position otherwise. On the other hand, almost all governments have to be based on coalitions, so the parties in parliament usually stay a bit more friendly towards each other (you never know when you might need them). The parties themselves become extremely powerful, since there are a lot of members of parliament who got there on the party vote. And very often the third-most powerful party gets to be "kingmaker", giving that party an extreme amount of influence, especially compared to their share of the vote (e.g. in (West) Germany from 1969 - 2005 and again from 2009 - 2013, only broken in between and since 2013 by the two most powerful parties forming a coalition).

In short, there is no perfect system. Either you choose a system with strong accountability and limited powers for the parties, and get an entrenched two-party-system where these parties are often very similar (see above for the current situation where that particular "problem" has become smaller than usually). Or you choose a system that can grant you many parties that could even be one-topic-parties, but you get overly powerful parties and members of parliament who don't really represent anyone other than their party. In Germany, you can often push a bill through simply with an agreement of the party leaders or parliamentary leaders (and perhaps the governors), the members of parliament will fall in line. That is something that I don't think could happen in the USA. For that reason, especially in "normal" times, the first-past-the-post system has many advantages.

The current problems I can only see from a distance. My home country has perhaps become a bit more unstable lately, but compared to the USA and especially the UK, it is still on a rock-hard foundation. But I think the close or perhaps too-close distance of the two parties left many people frustrated, and we currently witness a reflex to that.I wouldn't be surprised at all if the "left" party became much more left, especially if Trump is elected again. After that, politics would get really nasty (right now it is still just a "serious disagreement" compared to what might come), perhaps only tempered by the fact that third terms are forbidden. But the pendulum has definitely taken up speed in the last 30 years, both on the right (Bush sr - Bush jr - Trump) and on the left (Clinton - Obama). What comes next?

#67

I think I'd prefer a No Party system where candidates run on their own platforms whatever that may be. Would at least keep us from becoming tribal and blinded to massive problems in our own 'side' because we know about them but have to choose to overlook them so our team can still win. The 2 party system has this country serving nothing but huge $ interests and has sealed out all other voices despite putting on a grand show to pretend that's not how it actually is.

#68

From my reading of your constitution a few months ago, it agrees with you that there should not be political parties and that each candidate for any office is elected on their own merits.

#69

That would require actually forbidding representatives to organize themselves in any way, shape or form, otherwise this "no party" system is very temporary. There is a lot of influence to be gained by representatives promising each other to have common policies. And then there is the allotted time for representatives speaking before the House. If they are not organized (and no representative can speak for another one), all of them would probably want to speak on important matters. It would be worse than a filibuster (yes, I know that filibusters can only happen in the senate, but the situation there is not that different).

And that is if everything works well, but if everything worked well, this reform wouldn't be needed. The system has problems because the rules are being ignored. So what if they are still ignored and we get secret parties instead of parties out in the open? I dare say that would lead to even more corruption than now, because now these representatives have a lot to lose right from the start.

The strange thing is that there are measures in place that should lead to less corruption, but either they are not working or they are too weak. First-past-the-post should keep the representative / senator mostly free from party chains, at least compared to a proportional system. That the government is formed by an (indirect) popular vote should reduce the connections between government and parliament, whereas a system like in Germany actively connects the two by having parliament elect the head of government. The senators being elected by the public instead of the old system where the governors got involved should make them answer to the public. All in all the US system should be one of the least corrupt systems, since most of the other countries (even democracies) have far less checks in place to keep the politicians honest. The only thing I can think of is the superpower status of the USA which can make any position of influence far more attractive for certain personalities which should be kept away from such positions at all costs.

The only other thing that is almost unique in the USA is the single head of the executive branch - most other countries have a head of state and a head of government. But I cannot see how that should play a role, especially considering that one of these positions is usually very weak.

#70

So is The UK.

#71

@Toffer90 ,

The USA has returned to an age of Yellow Journalism. Most TV news people or newspaper reporters (or editors) do not use the 2 verified source rule anymore that a true journalist is taught as must do, must have to present an article. Instead many are reacting to tweets of a tweet of a tweet with no verification process involved. And as such our News Media today (both TV and Printed) is tainted and is the propaganda or political stance out of the Person or Corporation that owns them. When you notice a news personality repeating the same thing over and over at least 3 times during the same broadcast they are setting narratives and not giving news. There is a name for this type of repetitive behavior (is called xxxx law) and it fits the definition of Propaganda.


@raxo2222 ,
Many Democrats already call themselves Socialists. Bernie Sanders is running on that very Socialist Globalist platform. Several others are supported and funded by wings of the democratic party like the Social Justice Democrats or SWJ's. All are seeking a Globalist One World Government. And the destruction of the Constitution and the 3 Branches of Government we employ from the Constitution.

Republicans are automatically labeled as an Ultra Right Wing Nationalist, White Supremist, Deplorable Conservative and worst of all Christian nut jobs. When in fact Republicans are from all spectrums of our nation and skin color and religion or not. But all Republicans support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This country is Not a Democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. Does that fit the Feudalist definition?


America is at a crossroads, either we uphold the Constitution and it's 1st 10 Amendments (Bill of Rights) or we become another Socialist Marxist Regime. Many fear a 2nd Civil War is coming. Outside forces (other world powers) are working to help foment this into action. And a 2nd Civil War may escalate into another World War. This time with multiple countries hurling Nuclear weapons at each other. The Death Toll will be staggering with projections of at least 1/3 of the world Population killed.

#72

However Bernie Sanders version of Socialism is still to the right of centre, it is nowhere near the left as thought of in other countries.

Also the current version of socialism has evolved, just like the current version of capitalism has, from how it was in the late 1800s to early 1900s.

Actually we outsiders don't see the threat as a Socialist Marxist Regime (left) but a Fascist Totalitarian Regime (right). After all you have taken concentration camps, as started by Australia this time round, to a bit of an extreme over there. Rumour has it that you have also started disappearing people, kids come home from school to find their parents gone, is the main one we hear.

#73

So you believe these "rumors"?? Really? I think you need to do some investigating and maybe check out why your media sources are feeding you rubbish. We don't have Concentration camps. Nor are we Nazi. That is just disgusting and disturbing that your news agencies portrays the USA that way. Not the Truth at all. And out right lies.

And yes Bernie Sanders is far left of centre. And the Only Fascists are the Antifa groups. Unless you are of the distorted view that being Conservative is being Totalitarian Fascist. If you do then you are blind. Hard working Americans f that have held steady jobs built a home and raised a family paid their taxes and built up their communities are Totalitarian Fascists'!??? What an Upside down view.

 

[raxo2222]

#71
@JosEPh_II I clearly stated, that few of them actually can be called "socialists" but they are tame - all that stuff they promise is reality in Europe, especially West/Nordic parts (Some biased media thinks, that he's much more left than he's actually).

Also I said, that you Americans keep accusing each other Nazis/Communists.
That is Democrat biased media call Republicans Nazis, and Republican biased media call Democrats Socialists.

Also instead of feudalism I could used ultraconservatism or something like that too - whatever political reality was in Europe in 17th/18th/19th century.
#66
@tmv

The current problems I can only see from a distance. My home country has perhaps become a bit more unstable lately, but compared to the USA and especially the UK, it is still on a rock-hard foundation. But I think the close or perhaps too-close distance of the two parties left many people frustrated, and we currently witness a reflex to that.I wouldn't be surprised at all if the "left" party became much more left, especially if Trump is elected again. After that, politics would get really nasty (right now it is still just a "serious disagreement" compared to what might come), perhaps only tempered by the fact that third terms are forbidden. But the pendulum has definitely taken up speed in the last 30 years, both on the right (Bush sr - Bush jr - Trump) and on the left (Clinton - Obama). What comes next?

This pendulum already is between Stalin/Hitler according to their yellow journalism

#73
Joseph

And yes Bernie Sanders is far left of centre. And the Only Fascists are the Antifa groups. Unless you are of the distorted view that being Conservative is being Totalitarian Fascist. If you do then you are blind. Hard working Americans f that have held steady jobs built a home and raised a family paid their taxes and built up their communities are Totalitarian Fascists'!??? What an Upside down view.

He isn't accusing regular Americans.
They don't want country turned into authoritarianism like communism/socialism/theocracy/corporatocracy or military dictatorship.
He just says, that some politicians are taking this way too far into right side.
Also corporatocracy (like in cyberpunk movies)/theocracy (like Vatican or Christian version of Saudi Arabia/Iran) would be more fitting than plain fascism as accusation towards Repuplicans

I'm not sure what would sent pendulum into left so hard to turn your country into SJW/Marxist totalitarianism.
Pendulum would fly over European Conservatives, Liberals, Centrists, Social Democrats, and Nordic far left and still not lose leftist momentum.

Conservatives in my country are more socialist economically compared to Republicans (but probably more religious), they even "bribe" citizens with family welfare stuff to vote on them.
Making family is what some religious people want, and they run various programs to help that, but they are failing.

Some of your Republicans would gladly remove all welfare programs, or just strongly defund them.
Also some of them would privatize and deregulate everything - your economy is already more privatized and deregulated compared to Western/Nordic countries in Europe.

 

[Thunderbrd]

#71
@JosEPh_II I clearly stated, that few of them actually can be called "socialists" but they are tame - all that stuff they promise is reality in Europe, especially West/Nordic parts (Some biased media thinks, that he's much more left than he's actually).

Also I said, that you Americans keep accusing each other Nazis/Communists.
That is Democrat biased media call Republicans Nazis, and Republican biased media call Democrats Socialists.

Also instead of feudalism I could used ultraconservatism or something like that too - whatever political reality was in Europe in 17th/18th/19th century.
#66
@tmv

This pendulum already is between Stalin/Hitler according to their yellow journalism

#73
Joseph

He isn't accusing regular Americans.
They don't want country turned into authoritarianism like communism/socialism/theocracy/corporatocracy or military dictatorship.
He just says, that some politicians are taking this way too far into right side.
Also corporatocracy (like in cyberpunk movies)/theocracy (like Vatican or Christian version of Saudi Arabia/Iran) would be more fitting than plain fascism as accusation towards Repuplicans

I'm not sure what would sent pendulum into left so hard to turn your country into SJW/Marxist totalitarianism.
Pendulum would fly over European Conservatives, Liberals, Centrists, Social Democrats, and Nordic far left and still not lose leftist momentum.

Conservatives in my country are more socialist economically compared to Republicans (but probably more religious), they even "bribe" citizens with family welfare stuff to vote on them.
Making family is what some religious people want, and they run various programs to help that, but they are failing.

Some of your Republicans would gladly remove all welfare programs, or just strongly defund them.
Also some of them would privatize and deregulate everything - your economy is already more privatized and deregulated compared to Western/Nordic countries in Europe.

TBH, I don't honestly think we should persist in this discussion. I apologize for starting it by slipping with my honest feelings. Joseph is right - we're on the verge of civil war here. Bullets are already flying now and then and we're liable to tear apart the team with this crap just as much as the country is getting torn apart by it. Toffer is right that this is largely due to the laws changing which now allow journalists to be completely unbiased and we're flipping open that pandora's box open wide here of late and as a result, few of us can even begin to see things realistically because long hidden truths ARE surfacing and being used to manipulate us with even more insidious lies. All sides ARE guilty and we need to stop taking the bait.