Fox Fire
-
Posts
3092 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
20
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Fox Fire
-
-
Updated map? If anyone else claims Ireland, I claim Leinster at the very least.
-
-
I'm in the Celtic Isles.
There's only room for one Foxburo on this Island.
-
2
-
-
All of Ireland.
-
Just so you know, Sheepy. The Su-35 and T-14 images aren't showing:
-
Well honestly, if people don't want nukes they can just not buy them. Problem solved. Everyone wins.
-
Tanks and soldiers are both there for ground victories which relate to beige. Together they are the basic element of combat, GC. They can impact air attacks as well. Why do we need two? Donno a bout that. But, they are balanced well enough.
I understand your troll attempt. However, ships, ground, and air have distinct purposes. Missiles as well fwiw.
Now, I can accept the upthread argument that nukes are an "end tier" weapon. I take that to mean that they are designed to target cities with infra north of 2k. They do that quite well right now with no changes at all. The ROI on raising a city from 2.2k to 2.3k is not something I have calculated. However, I am confident that it is measured in months.
With 3 nuke armed attacker you could see one of these end tier nations lose 15 cities worth of this end tier infra. That is quite strong enough imho.
However, it seems the entry cost for nukes, aka the cost of the NRF, may have been set too low. This allowed players below this "end tier" to purchase nukes who then realize that they were not efficient at their "tier". So now they desire a "fix" to the nukes and want all sorts of things that will, again imho, be unbalanced. An unbalanced nuke system will drive players in the mid and lower tier, or below?, to own and use nukes almost exclusively.
I do not see this cacophony ending anytime soon and Sheepy has shown deference to such loud voices from time to time. As you all say, it's his game. So I would rather see the health of the game maintained and simply get rid of the things unless you are down for educating everyone who comes on proposing yet another OP "solution" to "fix" nukes.
I think we should get rid of missiles too then. Why? Because some people find them inefficient.
I'm not trolling. I'm just saying that people making suggestions shouldn't be a reason to remove something. If you don't want nukes, don't get them. I've never used them so I couldn't tell you how to solve this apparent problem, but removing them is for quitters.
-
So we can argue about who's relevant enough for what reference and why?
-
That is fair enough. I do however "get" basically all the other components. Nukes seemed flawed at their core. IE. if they "worked" then the whole game would revolve around having and using nukes to the exclusion of all other aspects of the game. This seems devastatingly dull. Why then does this component of the game exist at all? Nobody has answered me as to why they should be a thing in game.
I can gin up a satisfactory answer for all the other military units for example.
Yes, exactly. However, we can remove nukes and then missiles become the top weapons. Just like planes are the top weapons on the battlefield. I don't think this "flaw" is reason to completely remove nukes.
Why do tanks exist in the game? I mean nobody has ever given me an answer as to why they must exist in the game, so I should now assume that they shouldn't? That's just silly.
-
This turned out to be a fun thread.
-
He's also trying to hold people there against their will. Isn't that shocking too?!
No. I'm just waiting for him to sell the alliance for RL money just before internally sabotaging the whole thing out of butthurt.
-
3
-
-
Did you just post this in V mode?
You're not in an alliance. Who are these peace terms for?
-
1
-
-
Due to me exposing Grealind for being a lying son of !@#$ he cancelled on Celestial Union because he's a butt hurt lil biotch.
Grealind lying!? That's so not surprising.
-
2
-
-
Fox fire, drunk I assume, makes a solid point. There are constant calls here from people to change the game mechanics. Mostly to make people who chose less than optimal ways to play the game.
Leave the game alone and let it be our sandbox Sheepy. If people cannot read or check your formulas before building something then that is their fault man.
I'd agree if there was one place where all the game mechanics were stated. I swear it's impossible to find any consistent information on how everything works. Maybe spend more time putting in information on the wikia instead of changing the game mechanics every week?
And here I thought I was completely alone in the idea that changing the mechanics every month was stupid.
There should be some consistency around here. Regardless of whether or not people like it.
However, the fact is, there is no consistency. Never really has been. This game is certainly not the PaW I started playing and it's consistent changes have lead me to mostly ignore the updates because It's simply WAY too often. How do you expect a game to play out with inconsistent rules? You can't. The game never plays out. It becomes a new game all the time.
I'm not saying I'm opposed to improvements and suggestions. I'm saying it happens way to often for me to even bother trying to keep up and change my game play so often. One fundamentally changing update per year at most, should be just fine.
-
1
-
-
lol I wonder who reads all this
Not me.
-
Besides, the F-22 is from 2005, yet it's on the list.
-
Well, the in-game date is still 2001...
That doesn't mean they can't be added. I mean we'll be caught up to the appropriate dates pretty soon anyway and this isn't earth. I'd just like to see some more modern Russian weaponry in there. It's not just the US that has post-1980's weaponry.
-
1
-
-
Abu is just getting too much attention.
-
2
-
-
To the military customization menu for more modern weaponry:
Planes: Su-35 Flanker
Tanks: T-14 Armata
-
3
-
-
Congrats, as we ourselves stand blockaded.
-
Why not just give nukes their own kind of "timer" or limitation separate from the MAP system?
-
1
-
-
No it said for the foreseeable future and specified what it could foresee. Its a reading comprehension thing. And yes food. I and it also addressed water.
"Everything" on the planet is not dying. Period. Bring the rhetoric down a notch and I may engage.
Poverty was defined in all of those. Actually it is extreme poverty. It is less than or equal to $1.25 a day in 2005 USD and adjusted for inflation from there.
Go ahead and go check the graphs. 1 is smaller than 2 by the way. When something goes from 2 to 1 it is said to be falling. I enjoy that you like confirming my point though. I did say 1.011 (in 2011) so yeah, I agree with the world bank who agrees with me. =)
Geopolitical forces and intervention is what happened to and in Syria. Not water.
On nuke we can discuss it elsewhere if you like. But if you actually care about climate change then nuke power is basically your only option. Sorry for inconvenient truths but there it is. Not perfect but then nothing is.
I would say that the black plague is a good example. Far worse compared to what is actually predicted by people who are more knowledgeable than you or I. I would say it strained the governance of the time, sure. But if you were to actually argue that it broke down then you would be wrong.
What happens when tension grows, over anything, enough in a multi-polar world? Often war. So we got that to look forward to. But that is part of the human condition and civilization.
No, the UN report specifically says "(say 2030-2050)". The World Banks Global Monitoring Report for 2015 gives completely different numbers and explains the figure has shifted from $1.25 to $1.90. They go on to say that they intend to make future revisions for certain regions because it's the World Bank. You can trust them. But let's be honest. $2 a day is a bit of a joke. If that many people are that poor.......
I suppose I can't deny that global poverty has decreased, but the cost of living increases and it seems like around the same amount of people are starving from over a decade ago.
I'm not saying the drought is the primary cause of the war, but I'm saying it played a significant role in the build of of tensions that lead to war. If you know anything about how the climate is expected to change, you'd know the middle east is getting the worst of it. The whole area could be uninhabitable in 100 years, because the heat alone will kill you. People in the whole area are feeling it right now with this drought. It's forcing people out of rural areas and into urban areas and straining the nations:
With regional violence and political turmoil commanding global attention, water may seem tangential. However, drought and water shortages in Syria likely contributed to the unrest that stoked the country’s 2011 civil war. Dwindling water resources and chronic mismanagement forced 1.5 million people, primarily farmers and herders, to lose their livelihoods and leave their land, move to urban areas, and magnify Syria’s general destabilization.A rapidly growing body of research examines whether human conflict can be affected by climatic changes. Drawing from archaeology, criminology, economics, geography, history, political science, and psychology, we assemble and analyze the 60 most rigorous quantitative studies and document, for the first time, a striking convergence of results. We find strong causal evidence linking climatic events to human conflict across a range of spatial and temporal scales and across all major regions of the world. The magnitude of climate’s influence is substantial: for each one standard deviation (1σ) change in climate toward warmer temperatures or more extreme rainfall, median estimates indicate that the frequency of interpersonal violence rises 4% and the frequency of intergroup conflict rises 14%. Because locations throughout the inhabited world are expected to warm 2σ to 4σ by 2050, amplified rates of human conflict could represent a large and critical impact of anthropogenic climate change.The stress of water shortages in the middle east in a situation that only gets worse with time cannot be brushed aside. The entire area is basically being slowly baked to death while all the aquifers continue to be sucked dry.The trouble with major war in modern times is the pure potential for destruction. I think a crusader war with Islam and aggravated tensions with Russia could be catastrophic for the whole world when combined with issues like climate change. There are a LOT of Muslims out there and a religious war.... Is basically already happening. Could get worse. The migrant crisis is insane and the tensions that's building up within Europe during a fundamental economic crisis is crazy. It's already brought violence and killing between natives and refugees. It's a lot of people flooding in, and they don't want to leave. Those people are fleeing more than just war.And OK, not everything is dying, but it is a mass extinction, it is caused by humans. It could severely impact our society. -
I did read it. Did you? buddy? The passage is pretty good and relatively balanced. I do read that they assess that population growth is sustainable for the foreseeable future. I agree. I read that water used in agriculture is inefficient and that fixing it will be hard. Agree. What I did not read is "We are facing an environmental apocalypse, basically. Everything on the planet is dying". So no, buddy, It does not look like it agrees with you. It does explicitly agree with me. So, thank you for that.
In 1970 2.218 billion people lived in poverty. In 2011 that number had fallen to 1.011 billion. That is an absolute fall to say nothing of the % fall.
That reminds me that you can check out gapminder for lots more comparable data.
Your opinions are interesting. Read or reread what you posted. Lets say "While all the environmental problems discussed above are largely or entirely the result of human activities, they vary in the degree to which they can be linked directly to population size, growth or distribution." So I would say the ball is in your court to defend that population is the "primary cause". And since the UN report says that it IS sustainable, maybe you can back that up too.
Syria is a regional issue and if you are trying to link it to "water" ummm, yeah no.
What is actually just a convenient way of not learning about actual issues is to over dramatize them and work oneself into a tizzy. Actually working on feasible/realistic policies requires critical analysis and an understanding of the issues as they are to the best of our abilities. For example I note that you are against nuclear power. We can argue about this elsewhere but turning your back on nuke power is about the most un-green policy that you can support.
Anyway. Syria is a region issue and the conflict there is not driven by water.
"Human civilization is more fragile than you're thinking it is.
-And obviously a lot less fragile than you are thinking it is. Worse has happened already and civilization did not end.
The UN report said food production was sustainable until 2030-2050.
Everything on the planet actually is dying, by that I mean there is a mass extinction happening right now. This is well documented and proven. Experts say it is the result of human activity.
People are still starving and poverty is what a government defines it as. Define poverty. The World Bank, one of the sources in your random article (you sure like graphs) defines it as earning less than $1.90 USD per day and that accounts for nearly a billion people.
Water definitely plays a role in the build of of tension before the Syrian civil war. Like all the farmers leaving their land and moving into urban areas, straining the nations economy. Go read a book.
There is nothing green about nuclear power. "Nuclear energy is clean" is the biggest lie in the industry. Sure, it doesn't put smoke into the air. Instead, it just leaks radioactive particles into the air, ground and water while leaving us with insanely harmful byproducts we can't figure out what to do with. Did I mention what happens if something goes wrong with them?
Civilization has regionally ended a few times. Arguably broke down globally for a while during the black death. There is a lot of ideological tension built up in the modern world. What happens when that's combined with a lack of resources?
-
Because I'm sick of seeing you talking about government and would like to hear a better solution.
How would Libertarian Socialism differ from the current system? I mean in a practical sense and not a fantasy.
You don't seem to like me too much. I hope that didn't influence your decision to leave IRON.
Anyway, just because I point out an issue doesn't mean I need to have a solution. My ideal government would be much smaller, have a flat tax code, discourage capitalization beyond ones needs, enforce fair trading and accountability, have a neutral foreign policy and work to shrink the upper and lower classes of society. Basically the total opposite of what the US is now. Though that has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. Whatever government system I want is irrelevant to what the entire planet actually is.
As for solutions to the actual topic:
Population: There is no standard solution. Government regulated reproduction on a global scale, a mass extermination, forced sterilization? We are overpopulated as is and still growing. The only thing to do at this point is stop reproducing faster than we are dying. Which, on a global scale, is impractical. Our society is actually dependent on endless growth and without it our global economic system would collapse. Society would need to fundamentally change itself to even try to look for a practical solution.
Climate Change: Not much to be done here either. Stop polluting the planet with fossil fuels and let the earth do it's thing. Nuclear energy is not a very bright idea either.
PMC's: Stop using them. Tax payers fund a military for a reason. One which has not even been used to it's extent for decades.
I bullcrap your bullcrap. In fact feel free to dig into the UN data sets. You will find that my analysis falls within their data. They have some nice graphs and huge data sets and everything. Good times. Anyway, those are some decent quotes from the UN did you read them? Experts do agree with me yes. I agree with them too.
>Apacolyse. >Everything dying.
OK mate...calm down. It's ok. Being shrill does not make your analysis any better and it certainly does not enhance your point.
So are things going extinct? Certainly. Most, although not all, of those species are niche species. Is that a problem? Sure. Is it OH MY GOD WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE RUNFORTHESHELTERS!!? As I said, highly specialized species are at the highest risk. Humans, btw, are in no way highly specialized. Will other niches develop once climate stabilizes? The history of the earth suggests that they will.
Can we modify our behavior and support policies that address deforestation, cleaner oceans, more sustainable, duverse, and healthy food suplies? Most certainly.
If we were overpopulated to the extent you seem to think we would have insufficient food and water. To show you how wrong you are, I will challenge one of your assumptions. Hunger is globally decreasing, not increasing. This is a fact.
On a more somber note there are real problems with the environment. What the end result will be is very hard to project. Overstating the problem can be just as negative as ignoring it though. People will, correctly, assess that you are being alarmist/overdramatic and tune you out.
Actually the DoD IG and comptroller have a pretty fair understanding of how much was spent on and how many were employed. Are their number suspect at some level? Sure. But they are generally accurate. How many were there durring the invasion? Basically zero. Durring the occupation there were some - overwhelming assigned to security duties. Nor were they particularly skilled in agrigate. So yeah, precisely my point. Good for light infantry duties in low intensity conflicts.
Frankly, mercenaries had far more relative capability in the past. Today the requirements for an effective force far outstrip anything other than one provided by a State.
OK..... And I just gave you something from the UN that agrees with me from the actual UN website rather than some random shit I found on google because it has cool graphs. Did you read it? It's their full report on world population monitoring, buddy.
In 2000 there were 790 million starving people. In 2015 that number is 795 million according to WFP:
https://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpm/wpm2001.pdf
I think you underestimate the severity of a mass extinction, especially when the primary cause is overpopulation. We are consuming many resources faster than they can reform. That is a fact. Another fact is that it is not sustainable. Which is what I'm defining overpopulation to be. You say water is a regional problem until it actually becomes a global problem (see Syria). Forest, oil, metals, gasses, all of these things are only regional until sustainability reaches it's tipping point. Calling it a regional problem is just a convenient way of ignoring it.
And of course we can attempt to modify our behavior, but it's a slim chance. Our behaviors are natural and people are far more concerned with the direct issues of their daily life than something that not only hasn't effected them but would require a fundamental change in their lifestyle or behavior. The climate talks in Paris were a joke, as if nobody even wanted to be there. I mean, I think the issue has already reached a tipping point where we may just be screwed no matter what we do. Even at this point, nobody is doing anything. I don't mean to sound like an alarmist, I just think people should take it more seriously. Human civilization is more fragile than you're thinking it is. But even if we are screwed and nobody does anything, so be it. Yin and Yang will do their thing.
The Battle of Kiev
in National Affairs
Posted
Foxburo officials would like more information on the origins and reasons of this conflict in Chernigov so that we may take an official stance.
(I've been away and ignoring this section lately).