Bay 12 Games Forum

Wasn't saying that it's wrong, only that it's not specific to Trumpian diplomacy.

'Gangster-like' is a quintessentially Norky way to describe the US though; they do it all the time. Have for decades.

You should have probably read the replies after that before replying yourself, Akura.

Quote from: scourge728 on June 27, 2018, 12:45:37 pm

Personally, I would prefer being a teenager forever over growing old and dying

Wish granted, but now you're horny and stupid forever.

nothing has changed

But even more so.

still nothing has changed

Merchant Republics also don't have a vassal limit on MRs (only on theocracies; they can also have as many feudal vassals as they want).

So even if you wanted to keep that option on, you can still do it; just be a MR yourself.

Quote from: Descan on May 20, 2018, 04:26:27 pm

Is it a random *map* generator like the EU4 DLC thingy, or just a random political generator? The screenshot looks like the "or on a random map with historical analogues for the great kingdoms of yore" rather than a shattered world of counts and dukes, so I'm not sure if they intended to add a random geography generator too or if it's just an ambiguous wording.

Quote from: Holy Fury Announcement

Shattered and Random Worlds: Start your game on a fictional map of Europe as a small realm fighting for space, or on a random map with historical analogues for the great kingdoms of yore.

The announcement makes me think that it's both. A random political generator and a random map generator. _{Probably because they had the one from EU4 already and went 'We can merge these'.}

That's what I thought, but:


Looks like a "or on a random map with historical analogues" on a map of Europe, and not a randomly generated geography, nor a map of europe with shattered counties and duchies.

That's why I'm confused and would like them to say whether there's a random geography component too (and if there is, some examples) or if it's only on a map of Europe; because if it's the latter, a lot of people are gonna be disappointed, I think.

I only mentioned Malthus, as he is the boogeyman spectre of "Woooo! Population growth DOOOOOOOOM! DOOOOOOOOM!"

The actual merits or lack thereof, of his population model are not terribly important. That he was a prominent figure (if a quack), is.  His argument was shot down by all possible forms by the adoption of chemical fertilizer and mechanical planting/harvest.

Most claims about CO2 rising to genuinely toxic levels from industrial activity will be seen with similar levels of "WOOOOOOO!". However, that does not mean we should not look at the rising trend data, and not go "Yeah, we should do something about that before it gets there."

Remember, the very people that discovered that CO2 was a greenhouse gas warned about climactic impacts back in the late 1800s. They recognized the trend data waaaay back then.  We have just reacted to that with "Oh, that's just more Wooo from the doom sayers. Buy FunDongles today!"

The thing I think to take away from Malthus isn't "Malthus was wrong, we don't need to worry about the doom people say."

Malthus was right, and it took effort and decades to avert the crisis he saw coming. If he was wrong about anything, it was about whether it was something that could be fixed; but the "we can't feed the people we're birthing with current production" thing was true enough.

(Although considering how unsustainable current agricultural practices can be, from topsoil depletion to nitrogen run-off to using a non-renewable resource to make fertilizer, he might not have been as wrong as people say. :v)

(I also haven't actually read Malthus so disregard what he ACTUALLY said and just take what I said to mean the whole "people need food, we don't make enough food, ohshi-" thing.)

As is a continuous refrain with Francis, there's nothing new or tolerant about his stances. He's just aware of the church's inherent bigotry and does his best to rhetorically soften it. The RCC has been plying the "you don't have to be executed or burn in hell for being gay, but you need to feel bad and deny your true feelings to be saved" line for decades.

I dunno, as far as meaningless platitudes goes, "god has made you as you and loves you that way," while still pretty devoid of meaning, is still points a bit towards one way and not the other.

I mean, he definitely didn't go so far as to out and out say "God has made you homosexual and that's okay, he loves you regardless and wants you to do what is best for you," or something. Eh. The Church is as political as they come.