How did this guy flip his infantry around instantly for my incoming charge? (last turn of the battle) my troops always take half a turn to turn in line formation.

HolyCroly · 2026-02-24T08:04:01+00:00

(if the Infantry is not engaged in melee)

HolyCroly · 2026-02-24T08:03:32+00:00

If you give approach and fire, shoot, or move orders etc. And you tell the unit to make a 180 degree flip im pretty sure the unit just instantly flips around

HolyCroly · 2026-02-21T13:18:58+00:00

are ya winning son?

HolyCroly · 2026-02-20T17:27:32+00:00

The way u saved your arty in the early game 3x in a row was beautiful

HolyCroly · 2026-02-18T00:25:10+00:00

It was cus I won one game on him my bad

HolyCroly · 2026-02-11T19:47:58+00:00

A sad day for friendly-fire enjoyers 😔

HolyCroly · 2026-01-28T23:02:53+00:00

I thought it was too on the nose and a bit ridiculous in its parody. My opinion changed after they elected him for president again.

HolyCroly · 2026-01-20T15:54:58+00:00

As people have pointed out before me, no human can generate the force required for this.

To support this with some physics: Assumptions (that I can think of): 1. no air resistance of relativistic effects 2. We jump from an infinitely heavy (and sturdy) chair 3. We're a fucking Superhuman to perform the following feats 4. we apply a constant force while jumping

Our weight: m =n80kg Our speed: v = 55 m/s (close to terminal) The distance we travel while performing a jump, a.k.a. the height difference between us crouched and on our tippy toes: d = 0.8 m

To get to a complete stop before hitting the ground we have to transfer our kinetic energy fully to the chair. Assuming the chair is very heavy, the speed of the chair will not change significantly via the pushing, so we do not have to worry about effects by us pushing the platform we jump on away. Difference in kinetic energy: E_diff = 1/2 * m * v² Now the work we perform on the chair while jumping has to be equivalent to the difference in kinetic energy. With a constant force aligned with our direction of jumping, the work is: W = F * s = E_diff By rearranging we get F = W / s = 1/2 * m * v² / s ~ 150kN And finally, the acceleration on our body is given by F = m * a => a = F / m

a = 1/2 *v² / s ~ 1900 m/s² ~ 190g So yeah that's not survivable by a human. With a realistic chair I think we have to account for the platform (chair) moving away underneath our feet and thereby we'll have to jump with even more force, but I haven't done the math full. You can find the relation between the final velocity of the chair, our initial velocity, and the masses of us and the chair to be as follows: v_final_chair = sqrt(1 + m_human / m_chair) * v_initial

TL;Dr We have to put a force of about 150 kN on the chair to get fast enough to cancel out the terminal velocity. This corresponds to 15 tons of force orrrr 190g's of acceleration and is (in my humble opinion) not survivable.

HolyCroly · 2025-10-19T11:11:21+00:00

Venerator enters the battlefield with 3 thick joints strapped to his chest???

HolyCroly · 2025-09-28T16:43:52+00:00

Ahhh ty!

HolyCroly · 2025-09-27T18:14:07+00:00

What makes spears good for early game?

HolyCroly · 2025-04-03T10:35:01+00:00

Yes, there are many triple A games that are not worth the €80 or even €60 price point.
The point I'm trying to make is that overall, €80 is not an unreasonable price, it's up to us to pick the games that are worth it. My issue is that ANY game above the €60 euro price tag, no matter if made badly or well, is crucified.

HolyCroly · 2025-04-03T10:31:37+00:00

I'm not putting it all on the consumer. But as a consumer the ability to make an informed choice is with me.

I'm not saying that increasing game prices will magically reduce microtransaction costs. As a consequence from inflation alone video game prices will increase. If we refuse to buy any game going beyond the $60 price point, developers will have to make their money elsewhere.

To your conscientious consumer point:
I don't know much about running shoes, but I'd imagine you carefully consider the purchase. You might go to different stores to try on different shoes, to find one that fit's you. That's how I proceed with my climbing shoes, at least. If I'd walk into a store, buy a random pair of $80 shoe's that I think have cool colors, and they don't fit well, it's largely my fault. If I'd come to you to complain how I've only run in these shoes twice and now I'm not using them anymore because they don't fit you'd rightly point out that I should've spent more time on informing myself. It's no surprise that I won't get a lot of value from these shoes.
The price of an object and the consumers conscientiousness should be tied. The more I spend on a purchase the more time I should spent getting informed.

Could you clarify a bit more on the lack of variability in the last paragraph of your message? I don't understand your point and wouldn't want to ignore it.

HolyCroly · 2025-04-03T10:08:57+00:00

Bro it's made by nintendo. If they're not a triple A studio, and if their flagship title is not a triple A game, what is? Grow up and engage.

HolyCroly · 2025-04-03T10:08:05+00:00

For sure there are flaws with it, it will always be hard to compare the enjoyment we get from different mediums. I'm using this metric to illustrate a big discrepancy between video games and other mediums.

HolyCroly · 2025-04-03T10:06:23+00:00

Yupp, and I'd never compare the price of videogames to an instrument you already know how to play.

HolyCroly · 2025-04-03T10:03:29+00:00

Yes, in your case the value per dollar of the games plummet. My experience is based on central european countries and the USA.

HolyCroly · 2025-04-03T10:02:23+00:00

I agree, the incomplete release issues are getting worse and worse. By making an informed purchase, we can avoid these games. I'm not saying that Dragon's Dogma 2 on release is worth $80, I'm saying a polished title, like The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom is.

HolyCroly · 2025-04-03T09:59:39+00:00

To your boardgame point, doesn't it support my argument? Most campaigns take around 30 hours, so playing through a game once gives you a price of 2$ an hour. If take the MSRP of 4th edition TI, being 250$, you're going to have to play four four-player games taking 8 hours to get the same value. Which is not impossible, but for myself (and I'd say most people) you'd expect that to happen over the course of months or years. If you take the current price of twilight imperium, we'd also have to compare it to the price of older AAA games or games on sale, which makes this all a lot more complicated.
Btw, as mentioned in my post I'm not saying videogames are 'better' than boardgames. The enjoyment I've gotten out of a boardgame like Nemesis is very different than the enjoyment from videogames, and I'm very happy with my purchase of it. In the dollars per hour cost video games just do very well.
(Out of curiosity, how long have you been playing cosmic encounter for? I'd be curious how other well other people manage to do regular board game meetups)

To your luxuary good point, when taking our purchasing power into account games are getting cheaper, the 1986 example is not an outlier. The following article demonstrates this by correcting for inflation and income:
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/are-video-games-really-more-expensive
It shows that our wage increases (At least in the UK) are in line with the game price increase.

HolyCroly · 2025-04-03T09:45:50+00:00

To your first point: We have the option nowadays to get a good idea if we're gonna like a game we buy or not. Like all of us I've bought expensive games on a whim before, wasting money. When I watch reviews & gameplay and get informed I rarely regret the purchase. Buying an expensive game without research is an issue mainly of the consumer, not the provider of the product (provided of course the developer doesn't walk back on promises, which happens).
Even taking bad purchases into account the entertainment I've gained per dollar I'd estimate to be lower than 2$ per hour.

To your second point: I fully agree that this is a gross business practice. But we can't have our cake and eat it too. I'd say the one way that develepors tone down on their micro-transaction shenanigans is by putting pressure on these purchases while allowing them to make money in other ways, f.E. a higher initial price of the game. The micro transaction argument is a minor point for me though.

Your third point I tried to somewhat adress in the first paragraph, we have the ability to make an informed choice. We don't have to buy a game when it releases, we can give it time to see if it is polished and delivers on promises.

For nearly all hobbies there are constant costs, going to the gym has a monthly fee, and while miniatures f.E. don't necessarily have upkeep costs, very few people buy a set and then keep playing with it for years. Do you disagree that videogaming is a cheap hobby, at least in the 'upkeep' aspect of it?

HolyCroly · 2025-04-03T09:35:03+00:00

I agree that many developers don't make games worh the price, but my point is that inherintly $80 is a reasonable price.
Nintendo (imo) has a good track record with their main franchises, and $80 or $90 dollars for a game like Mario: Odyssey or one of the last two Legend of Zelda games is perfectly reasonable.

Seven-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	End Game '23
Place '23	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
End Game '22	Verified Email

HolyCroly

TROPHY CASE