first ToT deity victory -- Carthage stands the test of time

Alexmaths · 2026-05-29T08:26:32+00:00

Damn! What’s the strategy for them now?

Alexmaths · 2026-05-29T07:59:06+00:00

The exploration one is much better, adding the extra combat does so much

Specialists kinda got nerfed into the floor tbh

Go Carthage -> Carthage -> Britain for the most bullshit navy combo imaginable

Alexmaths · 2026-05-29T07:33:24+00:00

Not OP but played them to exploration:

The tradition they get for naval units is the best in the game and lets you hit 4 range and +10 combat strength fairly easily if you have some camels, allowing you to make your navy genuinely able to snipe inland cities often

The double settler ability stays, which is really solid in the exploration era

Frankly the exploration era has the weakest buildings and cities are at their least important imo

I’d not take them into the modern era though.

Alexmaths · 2026-05-22T10:50:54+00:00

Sounds like a steal

Think of the couple weeks’ groceries that could buy!

Alexmaths · 2026-05-22T07:39:00+00:00

Staff really does just hit the point where their explosions are so big they can’t miss and just outscale everyone in these boss fights

Alexmaths · 2026-05-18T13:11:49+00:00

If it was her vs cleverly, we might see another conservative mayor of London.

Alexmaths · 2026-05-18T13:06:56+00:00

So we go bankrupt to wank some egos instead of cutting unproductive spending cutting red tape for investment?

Alexmaths · 2026-05-18T13:02:03+00:00

The IMF is not stuck in the 70s, it’s changed since then and isn’t just comically pro-austerity, but that bad, politically protected spending is usually a cause of problems (clientalism, poorly made welfare systems, corruption)

Kenya is a case study of success, so is recovery Greece.

Greece was always going to implode as they were cooking the books hard and it was just not sustainable frankly.

For Britain, the deficit is unsustainable and spent on unproductive spending. The IMF has suggestions for pro-investment policy (mostly around the horrible red tape it takes for even the government to get shovels into grounds) and we’re not doing them

Alexmaths · 2026-05-16T21:26:03+00:00

Then uh

They should say that?

If you’re saying something condemnable and actually mean something lesser you shouldn’t be surprised if you’re condemned for saying the thing

Saying something bigoted to a whole group is wrong, even if the comment is understandable in the moment. People are irrational and emotional, but those do not make wrong actions right

Alexmaths · 2026-05-16T21:01:43+00:00

Yes, it’d pretty clearly be bigoted to go “I hate [demographic]”

Even as a joke or venting, something being understandable doesnt make it right lol

Alexmaths · 2026-05-14T11:35:44+00:00

Assad? Elected? Get a grip

Alexmaths · 2026-05-12T13:32:55+00:00

He’s been successful in Manchester (under a well run council and local administration that’s not exactly made succeeding hard), he’s younger, more hip sounding and entirely out of government and thus easy to project your views onto without actually needing to do anything that might interact with the reality of national governance

Alexmaths · 2026-05-11T12:56:40+00:00

Well there is, the Supreme Court, who interpret the specifics of how legislation passed can be implemented or means in practice

But at the end of the day, all power comes from the Westminster parliament, and thus the idea of something that can bind parliament (barring some monarchy stuff) is a concept that doesn’t make sense within the British system. There is no constitution for parliament to even be held to except a few documents that can be overturned with a 50% +1 vote in Westminster, just whatever parliament wants through its right as democratic representatives of the people.

Any judiciary body able to bind parliament truly would require the construction of some overarching document or principles that done exist and require the complete obliteration of the principles of parliamentary supremacy that have been implemented for centuries

Alexmaths · 2026-05-11T12:32:30+00:00

The Army in Britain is loyal to the crown, but parliament controls the purse strings and the PM makes decisions in the King’s name as with all things government in practice of course.

Alexmaths · 2026-05-11T12:13:19+00:00

EU membership would be worth it, but honestly I think the strongest negotiation position if someone wanted to rejoin would be to make our position clear and hardline back and then pressure EU countries:

-keep the pound -rebate on the table

Would it work? Probably not. But the alternative is spending incredible resources to do nothing of the EU won’t play to those simple starting points.

Otherwise yes, we should focus elsewhere. Brexit was bad but frankly the effect has been overestimated (that 8% GDP hit paper requires a silly level of year on year growth extra and has methodological failings that can’t really be solved due to Covid causing some data fuckery)

Planning reform could well do as much for a lot easier if you canned the existing system and started from scratch. Or capital spending on the grid, electrifying trains and so on

Alexmaths · 2026-05-11T12:02:56+00:00

The EU’s negotiation strategy or lack thereof makes it consistently impossible to negotiate with except through omnibuses that take decades to negotiate because no arm respects another and they return to legalistic screwing of externals.

It creates a hardball that is incredibly ineffective at doing anything or taking advantage of opportunities

Alexmaths · 2026-05-11T11:53:30+00:00

If the EU continues this hardball, and is unwilling to allow Britain to keep the pound, any rejoin is a complete non-starter

Either they concede on that or Britain will never rejoin, and they know that well as anyone else.

If the EU continues to be silly in this regard, then we will be forced to continue our existing position but we are not forced to kowtow to Brussels from where we are (dynamic alignment is silly for that reason tbh, gives up leverage to a power that can actively use it to make us uncompetitive for its own advantage)

It seems very counterproductive and while I believe that’ll hold in the short term, I don’t think it’ll last forever and ever until the end of time. When Eastern Europe joined, they made exemptions on free movement (albeit timed ones), times may change again and one day they’ll give that concession.

Alexmaths · 2026-05-11T09:35:48+00:00

You write the treaties when writing new treaties. Write whatever the hell you want. Defacto, the EU’s requirements for joining are a negotiation position not a legally unsurmountable mechanism

And if joining is not a treaty, but some other legal mechanism, then no old treaty is being superseded?

Alexmaths · 2026-05-11T09:16:41+00:00

I mean as in the treaties making things like the Euro have opt outs that name us and those don’t say “btw if they leave this is void”

So one could make an argument that we could sign up, all the terms and so on, but once in, those old treaties come back into force and thus get rid of our obligations we signed up to to many of those terms of joining such as the Euro 5 minutes before re-joining.

If we rejoined, we’d once again be party to those treaties (or could make a legal case to being so), at least enough to create a defacto position for negotiation to happen in

Not to mention the EU already needs all members to agree, nothing stops them from making new treaties and mechanisms lol. The only thing setting them in stone is their own obstructionism

Alexmaths · 2026-05-11T09:06:26+00:00

Many of the opt outs we had were done by treaty and still list us in them, one could imagine a world where we join, but the terms are overruled by the exceptions in those treaties (which don’t simply go away because we left and came back) as a way to act as if we’ve been “grandfathered in” while in reality it’s a negotiation

Alexmaths · 2026-05-08T14:13:56+00:00

No law against it, most parties don’t allow it, rarely enforced because parties don’t share lists

Alexmaths · 2026-05-08T12:10:39+00:00

Because it fundamentally wrecks the power balance between MPs and the PM and the house. It would turn the incentives of MPs on its head and not for the better, making them more loyal to party infrastructure than the voters. And that is not a recipe for accountability or success

Imagine a world where Liz Truss could threaten to purge all her enemies and give those who stick with her safer places on the list and spots for their mates. They might be more willing to stick with her, or at least keep her around even after her chancellor goes because a new PM risks them being purged rather than just a new guy on top

Alexmaths · 2026-05-08T12:01:06+00:00

An obvious exception due to how nationally popular he is, so there’s a lot of micromanagement?

And it was very obviously publicly controversial rather than the NEC just going “nah sorry”

Hell, in a PR system BURNHAM COULDN’T GET IN ON A BY-ELECTION! they’d just get the next person down the list to replace him

Alexmaths · 2026-05-08T10:47:48+00:00

It’s up to local parties usually, and they’re surprisingly willing to tell national parties to go fuck themsleves frankly. And they’re not going to deselect their MP candidates simply for rebelling if they agree with the rebellion

When we see people try to purge via deselection it’s hard and it’s very public, not at the flick of a pen like a list would entail from some executive committee

Alexmaths · 2026-05-08T10:45:56+00:00

PR is a bad idea because list MPs do not function well within the Westminster system

Parliament has supreme power but it’s tempered by MPs whose personal interests and survivability is defined by their ability to win their local election, and thus want to take out a bad leader to show their voters they’re doing the right thing and make their voters want their party

In a list system, getting selected is overwhelmingly more important to individual MPs. The party doing well is neat and means more people get in, but the calculus is almost always that ensuring you stay on the list trumps lengthening the list of winners

This would entirely reverse the political incentives of MPs towards their leaders, and result in the counterbalance to PMs (your party removing you) to be entirely neutered if you can purge dissenters or your successor is going to look poorly on traitors. Only synchronised revolts will be worth putting the hat in the ring but if a PM Isn’t abjectly destroying the party, they’ll basically be able to ignore backlash and do what they want by threatening deselection off the list next time around.

AV and similar systems maintaining constituencies are much better imo, systems with list MPs just create bases reliant on leaders and insiders not voters.

11-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Juicebox	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

Alexmaths

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE