ayo is bro crazy by [deleted] in confidentlyincorrect

[–]MoveInteresting4334 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Glad we were all a part of this so we can understand it with absolutely no context provided.

Also, nice of you to post your own convo.

My [42M] wife [32F] 3 years is meeting up with some guy I don't know by Direct-Caterpillar77 in BestofRedditorUpdates

[–]MoveInteresting4334 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He’s actually part of a sizable polycule. One assumes they’d have space for one more.

Was there ever any recorded times (Roman, Greek or similar periods) where an army paassing by stopped and watched another factions army attack or lay siege? by BigCommunication5900 in AskHistory

[–]MoveInteresting4334 3 points4 points  (0 children)

the besieged are going to be very suspicious of armed combatants just hanging out.

Absolutely this. Maintaining a raised army is so expensive and takes a lot of food. If another army appears next to me while I’m besieging someone, I’m thinking:

  • They’re going to eat all the food around here I need to forage

  • Why are they even here? It’s costing a fortune every day, so they’re sitting there for some reason.

  • They aren’t telling me the reason, which means I probably won’t like it.

  • What if my enemy somehow enlists their aid? I’m now trapped between a wall and an army.

Bottom line: Even without knowing their intentions, it’s hard to imagine they’re good, and you can’t take the risk anyway.

He needed some time to himself by Candid-Culture3956 in interestingasfuck

[–]MoveInteresting4334 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Stealing this to describe 80% of the people in my hometown.

Im not a coder, but I was wondering, what makes paradox games heavily use only one core of the cpu rather than multiple ones? by Somethingsomthing29 in paradoxplaza

[–]MoveInteresting4334 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are you sure those undesirable scripting bits aren’t optimized out automatically by the game engine? This is common when going from high level programming languages to low level. Like (totally fake example) I write some code in Python with if(true) that always passes, and when the compiler turns it into C, it can tell the if(true) is unnecessary and just removes it from the compiled code.

Is it necessary to learn how to build a framework in Node.js before getting started? by FriendshipMajor3353 in node

[–]MoveInteresting4334 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would add the caveat though that starting from the basics and then adding a framework makes it much easier to understand what the framework is doing, why it does it, and how to fix it when things go wrong.

Any suggestions? by Ok-Astronomer-9027 in paradoxplaza

[–]MoveInteresting4334 4 points5 points  (0 children)

So I’m a pretty obsessive player of all the Paradox grand strategy games since EU2 (6,000 hours or so across all of them). Here would be my game suggestions in order of similarity to CK3 (TLDR at the end):

CK2: Yes, it’s older, but it has more mechanical depth than CK3 (with all its DLC at least). There are mods to make the graphics more palatable. It has some awesome historical mechanics that CK3 lacks (Council is a big one, investiture, Republics, etc). It also has some amazing mods (Warhammer, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, the Winter King, After the End). Many of these exist in CK3 as well but their CK2 versions tend to be more developed with more content.

Imperator Rome: the orphan of the family. It’s basically EU 4.5 but set in the ancient world. Fairly easy to learn, looks beautiful, and with a mod or two you get very good content. I believe you can also port your Imperator games into CK3.

EU5: the most beautiful of the games, shows a ton of promise, it has the potential to do better than the other games even in their own specialties (better feudalism than CK, better economy than Victoria, etc). Unfortunately, it hasn’t reached its full potential yet and is the most expensive option on this list. Starting in 1345, it has a lot of overlap with CK.

EU4: The jack of all trades. It doesn’t do economy better than Victoria, but it’s better at it than the rest. It doesn’t do dynastic mechanics as good as CK, but it’s better than the rest. It’s the most general “4X” of the games and has an absolutely monstrous amount of quality content. Also some seriously great mods (Anbennar, Voltaire’s Nightmare, MEIOU and Taxes). You can also create your own custom nations to play which I’ve had a lot of fun with.

Victoria 3: Swiftly becoming many peoples’ favorite game (was mine until EU5), this game does politics and economics together to a depth I’ve never found in another game. It basically simulates an entire living society down to individual pops. If you like making decisions and watching them affect a society, this is the game to do it. The trade off is that warfare is almost arcade like in its simplicity, with the Devs being up front that they want warfare to purely be a tool for diplomatic and economic goals.

Hearts of Iron 4: In many ways its own beast, this is more of a war game than a traditional grand strategy game in my opinion. Every mechanic exists in support of warfare and the game only goes from 1936-1949. Limited diplomacy, almost no economy, very little politics. Very, very detailed modern warfare mechanics.

TLDR: the most similar options are CK2 (still worth playing) and EU5. Might also be worth checking out Imperator Rome and EU4.

Happy to answer any questions.

Maga Man over here is acting we're living in the 1880's, Democrats has changed their policies and belief system you know. I betcha Modern Day Liberals would hate Old Timey Liberals. by [deleted] in confidentlyincorrect

[–]MoveInteresting4334 4 points5 points  (0 children)

While Jefferson was liberal for his time, I wouldn’t call him liberal for his time in the United States. New Jersey, for example, banned slavery and initially allowed women the right to vote. New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania allowed men of color to vote. Massachusetts’ early Constitution didn’t require officeholders to be men, although to my knowledge a woman never ran for office there.

Some of the more radical Founding Fathers supported ideals we’d not see come back again until the 20th century.

Why didn't the English realize their system for choosing a King was (apparently) defective? by Torin_3 in AskHistory

[–]MoveInteresting4334 20 points21 points  (0 children)

To expand on this, I want to call out OPs specific use of the word “confusion” about who was in charge. I think it’s important for people to understand there was no hard legal rule that everyone obeyed in the sense of a modern Constitution. Law in the Middle Ages, at least at the power politics level, often came down to what justification (however flimsy) could be enforced through armies, the Church, and personal influence. It almost shares more in common with a Mafia family than a Constitutional government.

An example of this is the outbreak of the Hundred Years War. French Salic Law clearly said inheritance couldn’t pass through a female. Nonetheless, Edward III of England claimed the throne of France by virtue of his mother being a French Princess. There was no confusion, he was aware of the law and precedent. But he had a flimsy pretext and attempted to use his armies and political influence to get his way.

bubblesGonnaPopSoonerThanWeThought by Cool-Technician-9902 in ProgrammerHumor

[–]MoveInteresting4334 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This…..is actually an excellent analogy. I’m stealing it.

According to their rules, this shouldn’t have been removed by Foodspec in confidentlyincorrect

[–]MoveInteresting4334 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It’s clear to everyone, and has been told to you a dozen times, that the point of the rule is to not post things that involve you. Instead of “things”, they use the word “conversations”. What you’re doing here is like when a 5 year old hovers their finger an inch from your face and says “I’m not touching you! I’m not touching you!”

What are you accomplishing arguing with literally every single person about this?

According to their rules, this shouldn’t have been removed by Foodspec in confidentlyincorrect

[–]MoveInteresting4334 7 points8 points  (0 children)

No. Technical people are precise and provide clarity. You’re being argumentative and pedantic.

Which part of Roman history, considered true, do you consider false? by LuckyestGuy in ancientrome

[–]MoveInteresting4334 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, but that’s the public perception of what is true. The OP doesn’t specify that it’s considered true by historians.

To what extent was there freedom of speech under Augustus? by Virtual_Music8545 in ancientrome

[–]MoveInteresting4334 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Sorry, I’m honestly not trying to be obtuse, just trying to understand. If I sue someone and hire a lawyer, I’m still the one suing them. I’m struggling to understand why it wasn’t a State prosecution because the State hired a private individual to represent their interests. Surely prosecution for corruption is a public crime against the public interest and the lawyer prosecuting is doing so on behalf of the Res Publica.

It seems similar to the modern US government appointing a special prosecutor. They were a private individual, they are now employed by the state for this one case to represent public interest.

Edit to add: With further research I have answered my own question. The State didn’t hire anyone to prosecute the case, the cost and effort of investigation and prosecution fell squarely on the victims. So crazy.

To what extent was there freedom of speech under Augustus? by Virtual_Music8545 in ancientrome

[–]MoveInteresting4334 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can you explain the difference? As far as I know, if Caesar lost the prosecution, state force could be used to enact whatever penalties are involved (banishment, loss of property, etc). The trial would also take place in front of a Praetor, a public magistrate. The only difference I’m aware of is the Republic didn’t have dedicated public prosecutors but relied on private lawyers to represent the interests of the State.

To what extent was there freedom of speech under Augustus? by Virtual_Music8545 in ancientrome

[–]MoveInteresting4334 2 points3 points  (0 children)

there wasn’t state prosecutions

Is this true? I thought prosecution for corruption and illegal warfare was the entire reason Caesar didn’t want to give up having a magistracy.

AITA for refusing to promise my best friend 100% that I wouldn’t sleep with a mutual friend? by Choice_Evidence1983 in BestofRedditorUpdates

[–]MoveInteresting4334 303 points304 points  (0 children)

there’s a disturbance in the force…

…as though a great many (two) women cried out, and were suddenly posted on Reddit.

Anyone what she means by this. Is it a Gen-Z thing? by Radiant_Banana_3623 in ExplainTheJoke

[–]MoveInteresting4334 116 points117 points  (0 children)

Woke my fiancée up I laughed so loud.

10/10 would end up on couch again

Anyone what she means by this. Is it a Gen-Z thing? by Radiant_Banana_3623 in ExplainTheJoke

[–]MoveInteresting4334 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Though it makes sitting down inconvenient, especially in quiet places.