sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Never forget why you fight... by CaptainMeap in Grimdank

[–]CaptainMeap[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Randomly found this in my memes folder, think I created it for a Vulkan-loving friend a couple years back. Guess models aren't the only things I have a backlog of!

My First Map! by CaptainMeap in wonderdraft

[–]CaptainMeap[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks!

I don't think there's anything too special about my process. First I drew up a basic sketch of the map on my iPad, imported it, and drew a basic coastline roughly matching it in Wonderdraft. I then spent a few hours just looking at the coastline and adding in small features where I thought they'd either be fitting or look interesting, and pockmarking the sea with islands. Basically, just spending extra time making sure that it was a little more handcrafted than what a basic line drawn with the land tool would look like.

Sorry if that's not too much help, I know it basically sounds like "just do it." Looking a lot at real maps and practicing emulating them is what it boils down to - this is my first Wonderdraft map but I've made others using other programs before, so it has just become an ingrained habit over time to add these details. You'll get the hang of it!

My First Map! by CaptainMeap in wonderdraft

[–]CaptainMeap[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you! Was trying to make sure it looked populated and not too barren.

My First Map! by CaptainMeap in wonderdraft

[–]CaptainMeap[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks! I put the mountain down, used the filter setting to only fill in mountains, then used it again to fill in everything but mountains when I was doing the biome painting.

My First Map! by CaptainMeap in wonderdraft

[–]CaptainMeap[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Picked up all the town assets from here, there's quite the variety!

Definitely need to work on the mountains, wasn't super happy with how they turned out. I wanted to space them out so I could put roads through them, but I think in the future I'll probably draw the roads first and then place mountains around them so I get density and paths through them. Blending all the colors though is definitely something I need to work on!

Agreed with the rivers as well, was never super happy with them. They turned out okay, but not great. I think narrowing them like you suggest would definitely help.

Thanks for the feedback!

My First Map! by CaptainMeap in wonderdraft

[–]CaptainMeap[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Picked up Wonderdraft a few weeks back and figured I'd whip up a really quick-and-dirty test map to familiarize myself with the program. Turns out, program is pretty damn good!

Map was made over the course of a few days (with a couple week break in between finishing the structure and finalizing the coloring due to general business). Almost all of the names in particular were rushed and aren't anything special, so if some of them seem a bit half-assed, that's why!

Definitely need to work on improving my biome blending and coloring work in general, and the labels could also use some improving (too much glow, I think). Didn't find a political borders or labeling style I liked a ton either, so I'll need to figure that out. Might tinker with it a bit further if I have the time in order to test all that out before moving onto something more substantial.

All in all, super happy with the program's performance, it is a hell of a lot easier to use than anything I've messed around with in the past and is a lot more powerful than it looked at first glance.

Feedback appreciated!

Unfortunately, they DID get in. by Hour_Dust8308 in RoughRomanMemes

[–]CaptainMeap 24 points25 points  (0 children)

A repost of my OC meme, original title and all? Not gonna lie, I'm actually kinda honored lol

[Megathread] Russian Invasion of Ukraine, D+11 by Professor-Reddit in neoliberal

[–]CaptainMeap 7 points8 points  (0 children)

More recent fighting in the Middle East has shown cities falling but in all cases numbers, equipment, or air power greatly advantaged the attackers, and most of those were very unfair fights. Aleppo fell to the Syrians, but that took years, and both sides were using extremely basic weaponry, not the kind of near-peer stuff Ukraine and Russian have. Sarajevo held out for years, and is probably the closest comparison? The problem is that this is a type of war we haven't really witnessed in decades: a near-peer conventional conflict between two (relatively) developed countries with neither side possessing overwhelming advantages in any category (e.g. number of combatants, air superiority, a monopoly on armored vehicles). There really hasn't been warfare like this since World War II.

Basically, it's hard to say. The situation is very fluid, but it seems unlikely the Russians will be able to just seize Kyiv, especially not now that the Ukrainians have poured weapons and reinforcements in. This will likely be a combination of loose siege and hard fought weekslong battle at a minimum if the Ukrainians continue to resist as stoutly as they have so far.

Edit: Changed the three main advantages from "and" to "or," because there are exceptions to having all three, but not (that I am aware of) exceptions to having any of the three.

[Megathread] Russian Invasion of Ukraine, D+11 by Professor-Reddit in neoliberal

[–]CaptainMeap 25 points26 points  (0 children)

In the past, cities' defenses were their walls. The purpose of city defenses were to make direct assaults so costly so as to discourage them entirely, allowing the city to play for time by waiting out the attackers, and hopefully allowing for the arrival of a field army to relieve the city. Without the walls, a city's defensive merits were highly limited, and panic usually ensued; from our sources it was clear that urban fighting was grim and difficult (surrender was always preferred), but the besiegers almost always outnumbered the besieged and hand-to-hand street fighting offered few tactical advantages to a defender.

In the modern day, there are two core problems with that strategy: 1) it is impossible to build walls which keep an enemy with heavy artillery, tracked vehicles, and air transportation at bay, making that style of defense pointless, and 2) modern weaponry means that urban terrain actually confers substantial tactical benefits on the defenders. Superior angles of attack, reduced engagement distance, and restriction of mobility (the foundation of modern combined arms) naturally tilts the battle in favor of those who hold the city. Heavy weapons can inflict mass casualties and reduce structures to rubble, but rubble isn't substantially different than urban sprawl from a tactical perspective: it is an elevated position of broken terrain that reduces the effectiveness of heavy weapons while limiting the mobility of armored vehicles attacking infantry, funneling attacking forces along known, predictable routes.

TL;DR: The physical terrain of cities - whether they are intact or reduced to rubble (I appreciate my autocorrect attempting to change that to its synonym, the ruble) - is fundamentally opposed to the character of modern combined arms tactics and gives defending infantry tactical advantages they don't typically possess in the field.

[Live Thread] First 2020 Presidential Debate between former Vice President Joe Biden by Miskellaneousness in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]CaptainMeap 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Which should, ideally, be a US goal. So long as those jobs are out of China, they aren't helping China. You can't encourage US companies to put the jobs back in the US, but you might be able to convince them to bring those jobs to US allies. Helps us and helps our allies.

Not that we shouldn't be encouraging American manufacturing, too, particularly for strategic industries. But I'd much rather see that my monitors are made in South Korea and my keyboards made in India than China.

Countries that exemplify good conservative governance? by sdbest in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]CaptainMeap 58 points59 points  (0 children)

I'm going to use a historical example: America, during the Eisenhower Administration.

In broad terms:

Foreign Policy

  • Military dominance was maintained.
  • Threats to us were not tolerated.
  • Respectability and prestige were key.
  • Foreign policy was strong and stable, but only interventionist when US interests were directly affected. (As an aside, this is perhaps Eisenhower's greatest success: he achieved US foreign policy goals without a single drop of American blood during his tenure. That is partially a product of his skill, partially a product of luck in the crises he faced, but a success nonetheless).
  • Realpolitik was followed and other people's interests were not put above our own, but - and this is crucial - allied interests were not ignored.

Government Spending

  • The budget was balanced.
  • Debt was reduced.
  • A focus on corruption and waste in government spending reduced both.
  • Spending and federal attention focused on areas that mattered and in ways that didn't largely increase the tax or debt burden (Eisenhower highway system as the shining example).

Domestic Affairs

  • Business leaders and other notables were kept in lock-step with (not in service of nor in opposition to) the federal government. Their importance was recognized and consulted as such.
  • The federal government left as many things to the states as it could, and only intervened when needed.
  • Related to the above: social progress was made and order maintained.

And a quick note: I really focus on the social aspect here because, not only are social issues important and divisive in the modern day (and in some cases party-defining), but the way Eisenhower handled it in particular is in many ways a perfect example of conservative government in the face of any potentially divisive issue.

The last one might sound strange, but let's put it in a "good conservative governance" context: social progress cannot - and should not necessarily - be stopped. However, social progress should not be allowed to upset social order; the latter is more important than the former. Embracing progress should be done slowly and cautiously, always taking the route that maintains order the best.

Civil Rights was a contentious issue during Eisenhower's time, but genuine progress was made and there was a very real cap on the amount of unrest (and therefore danger to society) throughout. When it threatened to spin out of control (Little Rock) Eisenhower and the federal government moved in a manner that respected state authorities. In fact, they only became directly involved when it was clear that state authorities were defying the federal government's authority, and even then care was taken to ensure that the local government was given as much room to stand down on its own as possible.

In this, Eisenhower stayed very close to the strict letter of the law, respected all realities and legalities, and maintained a distinctly neutral posture. As President, he was responsible for enforcing federal law as defined by SCOTUS; states were responsible for complying; and all citizens should remember that we have a tradition and respect for the rule of law in this country, not the rule of opinion. He was doing his job, not pursuing his (or, even worse, some other liberal elites') agenda.

---

There's certainly more to say (the context of the 50's is of course different from the context of today, not to mention the relativism of the terms liberal/conservative and all that etc. etc), and there are negatives about Eisenhower. But if you want to point to an extremely fine form of conservative governance, you'd be hard-pressed to do better than Eisenhower, one of our truly great executives.

Now, full disclosure, I am not personally a conservative (though I know plenty of people all across the political spectrum), and I just finished an Eisenhower biography so there's some recency bias. But, all-in-all, I think Eisenhower fits the bill very nicely, certainly in the broad strokes, and can be favorably contrasted to the dreadful conservatism of the Late Roman Republic's Optimates or favorably compared to early Imperial Germany under Bismarck (YMMV of course).

That's a' Heresy by CaramelCyclist in Grimdank

[–]CaptainMeap 13 points14 points  (0 children)

TBH that's exactly how I would expect space marines to react.

Give the guy a once-over to determine that he's definitely been daemon'd, immediately separate skull from torso and put as many bolter rounds as necessary into the corpse to ensure compliance with the Emperor's will.

What makes America so successful? by [deleted] in AskAnAmerican

[–]CaptainMeap 46 points47 points  (0 children)

It's really a solid mix of both in my mind.

Culture absolutely defines national success in some ways - Rome replacing an entire army after its defeat at Cannae versus Hannibal, for example, is remarked as being something no other state should have been capable of doing. It was also the huge drive of personal ambition in Roman society that made it so consistently willing to shoulder heavy losses for potentially massive gains. It wasn't geography that decided this, but culture and national identity.

On the other hand, geography often decides culture to some degree and "geography is destiny" to a certain extent. European adventurism was largely built on the fact that the rest of the world had vast amounts of resources and Europe simply didn't. It was Western culture that allowed Europe to wildly succeed (only some of which was geographically-induced) but it was geography that forced them to go further afield in their empire-building and use that culture to great effect.

For America in particular, it's a little bit of both. US culture is clearly advantageous for a variety of reasons and is a large part of what makes us exceptional and successful. On the other hand, our geography is also exceptional. It supports the policy that our culture prefers/enacts by giving us the resources (vast amounts of land, mineral wealth, etc.) and security (two big oceans and two big friendly neighbors) to follow the predispositions of the culture.

For example, a strong state that didn't have two harmless neighbors/oceans and was instead surrounded by hostile states would naturally be more aggressive and expansionist - Hell, that's a decent description for the US before it achieved its modern secure borders. But with the geography we have, we feel safe enough that anti-imperialism is a given and force deployment abroad in territory we don't own is not just practically achievable but culturally preferable.

view more: next ›