The Very Many Questions-Not-Worth-Their-Own-Thread Thread XXXII

[The_J]

Are there any game statistical differences between the Civs in CivII? Or are they just Cosmetically Different Sides?

As I recall, the rulers had different personalities, but I don't know if that translated into different statistics.

Diplomacy in CivII was mostly random anyways (same in all old games, e.g. MoO2 too).
But no, no differences. Didn't have traits, UUs, UBs, or anything else.
Civ III was the first one, IIRC.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Are there any game statistical differences between the Civs in CivII? Or are they just Cosmetically Different Sides?

Mostly aggressiveness, research priorities and how they handle their cities.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

See, whenever someone thinks that a representative democracy is too much is bad, and a more restrictive franchise, or no franchise at all is good, those people may not be fascists, but they are certainly authoritarian. which is a close cousin.

I don't think they would like being called authoritarian. I think I've mentioned before that they point to totalitarian states as the natural consequence of going against what they see is the normal way of things.

The reason they give for limiting democracy is that people are too stupid to vote properly. Oddly enough, during the Scottish referendum for independence, they were against the idea of an independent Scotland and one of the reasons they gave was that the Scottish don't know how to rule themselves. Then again, they find the idea that anyone who would want to split from the United Kingdom to be absurd and incomprehensible. They can't understand why the American colonies would want to revolt against the British Empire.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think they would like being called authoritarian. I think I've mentioned before that they point to totalitarian states as the natural consequence of going against what they see is the normal way of things.

That's practically a cliché of authoritarian thinking, though, that the inevitable alternative to whatever the speaker regards as the natural order of things is the gulag.

 

[Lexicus]

The reason they give for limiting democracy is that people are too stupid to vote properly.

Which is exactly the intellectual basis of authoritarianism, and has been since popular democracy became a serious alternative to various forms of authoritarian rule. If these people don't want to be called authoritarians, perhaps they should change their authoritarian views. Just saying.

 

[Cutlass]

I don't think they would like being called authoritarian. I think I've mentioned before that they point to totalitarian states as the natural consequence of going against what they see is the normal way of things.

The reason they give for limiting democracy is that people are too stupid to vote properly. Oddly enough, during the Scottish referendum for independence, they were against the idea of an independent Scotland and one of the reasons they gave was that the Scottish don't know how to rule themselves. Then again, they find the idea that anyone who would want to split from the United Kingdom to be absurd and incomprehensible. They can't understand why the American colonies would want to revolt against the British Empire.

Tough crap. They don't like it, they should avoid being it. If they are for taking away the rights of others to have a say in their government, then they ate authoritarian. And any claim to the contrary on their parts is either ignorance or lying.

 

[civvver]

We have candy bowls at work containing the bite size versions of various candy bars, you know the ones that are half the size of fun size and about a quart of regular? Anyway we have a big variety and currently there is baby ruth which I don't really like. Snickers are way better imo. I'm guessing majority of people prefer snickers as well. But it got me thinking, they have the same ingredients, nougat topped with caramel and peanuts wrapped in milk chocolate. So why do they taste so drastically different?

There are some subtle differences is you look. Baby ruth has larger peanuts, while snickers is usually peanut halves, snickers seems to have more caramel. But I think the biggest differences are these two things: Snickers has creamier chocolate while baby ruth's is more waxy. Baby ruth's chololate flakes/crumbles more when you bite it as a result. Second biggest difference is the nougat. Snickers again is creamier and they taste different but I can't explain either flavor really, they just taste like whipped, nutty chocolate.

So I think I prefer snickers on texture alone.

Thoughts?

Edit: While we're at it, what's the best candy bar? I like butterfinger.

 

[Synobun]

Both of those are super gross.

Kit-Kat, Aero, and Coffee Crisp are the superior bite-sized candies.

 

[Samson]

While we're at it, what's the best candy bar? I like butterfinger.

Aldi do a bitter cherry and chilli wrapped in dark chocolate that is the best candy bar I have tasted.

 

[civvver]

Both of those are super gross.

Kit-Kat, Aero, and Coffee Crisp are the superior bite-sized candies.

I didn't say they were the best, just wondering the differences. Although I guess super gross would imply no difference?

I see snickers (or milky way if you have a nut aversion) as kind of the replacement level candy bar. Like very acceptable but perfectly average in every way.

 

[Synobun]

I didn't say they were the best, just wondering the differences. Although I guess super gross would imply no difference?

I see snickers (or milky way if you have a nut aversion) as kind of the replacement level candy bar. Like very acceptable but perfectly average in every way.

Oh, I was answering your edited question.

I don't know about the real question... I'm not sure they even sell Baby Ruths here.

 

[Traitorfish]

Steam has both Crusader Kings II and Victoria II on sale for roughly the same price, but I can only reasonably justifying buying one of them. What does the wisdom of crowds have to say on this one?

 

[Synobun]

Steam has both Crusader Kings II and Victoria II on sale for roughly the same price, but I can only reasonably justifying buying one of them. What does the wisdom of crowds have to say on this one?

CK2 requires a lot of DLC to be truly entertaining. Victoria 2 only has one or two DLCs as far as I know, and most of what you see is exactly what you get.

On a budget for a more complete experience I'd go with Vicky. But I'd be lying if I said it was more fun than CK2. I've put over 700 hours into the latter.

 

[Lexicus]

Steam has both Crusader Kings II and Victoria II on sale for roughly the same price, but I can only reasonably justifying buying one of them. What does the wisdom of crowds have to say on this one?

I have CK2 without any DLC but I still haven't played it yet. If you do get it let me know how it is. I picked it up on Steam for like $7 during a special offer weekend or something.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Crusder Kings 2 is more story generator and test of character than a real strategy game.
In my first game I impregnated my daugher in law, tried to arrest my son on trumped up charges, and ended up plotting the assassination of an eight year old boy. Every step of the way, it all seemed perfectly logical.
I haven't played Victoria 2, but I really recommend CK 2.

 

[Lohrenswald]

Steam has both Crusader Kings II and Victoria II on sale for roughly the same price, but I can only reasonably justifying buying one of them. What does the wisdom of crowds have to say on this one?

don't

 

[Lexicus]

Crusder Kings 2 is more story generator and test of character than a real strategy game.
In my first game I impregnated my daugher in law, tried to arrest my son on trumped up charges, and ended up plotting the assassination of an eight year old boy. Every step of the way, it all seemed perfectly logical.
I haven't played Victoria 2, but I really recommend CK 2.

Hmm, sounds fun, reminds me of the machinations I would use in Medieval 2 TW to get my high-stat generals to be the king/heir instead of the pathetic mediocre characters who were always in the line of succession by default. Funny how many of my kings idiotically charged with 1 bodyguard unit into a full stack of enemy spearmen

 

[Arakhor]

They're totally different games. Victoria is about 19th Century colonialism, industrialisation and parliamentary politics, whilst CK II is about mediaeval dynasties, vassal management and other shenanigans. (You still get up to grand strategy map painting either way.)

I'd definitely recommend CK II, with maybe the Conclave and Way of Life DLC to go with it.

 

[shadowplay]

Is the Nintendo Switch expected to be a hot seller this holiday season? How has it been doing since it came out?

 

[Snerk]

Is the Nintendo Switch expected to be a hot seller this holiday season? How has it been doing since it came out?

It's been selling well so there's no reason to think it isn't in for a strong holiday season. I doubt I'll get one but it seems cool enough.