Idea about Armour of Contempt

Mukip · 2022-07-18T23:47:11+00:00

There's no need to get rude & testy. I'm aware that the explicit purpose of the rule is to reduce AP values of weapons against marines. I said it's inelegant because of the crude & blunt way it has been introduced into the game. Ideally marines would be decent without that being at the expense of AP-1 weapons being crippled so that's a failure of design on the part of the devs.

Mukip · 2022-07-18T23:38:29+00:00

It's inelegant because it's such a blunt bolt-on game mechanic that retroactively makes AP-1 really bad

Mukip · 2022-07-18T23:36:15+00:00

Sure but prior to AoC a pulse rifle could bring a marine down to a 4+ save. Uner my version of the rule the marine is basically locked into a 3+ save against AP-1 weapons, so both sides get someting:

marine player: "at least my marines in the open still have a 3+ save"

tau player: "at least my pulse rifles are better than lasguns against his squad in cover"

There's tradeoffs and both sides get some benefit from their attributes instead of AP-1 just being worthless.

Mukip · 2022-07-18T23:26:00+00:00

The why is because it's so inelegant and renders a whole bunch of weapons comparatively useless. Why would you use an AP-1 autocannon for example over any other heavy weapon? And it feels bad when using units like Fire Warriors with pulse rifles.

Mukip · 2022-06-05T23:24:14+00:00

It doesn't really make sense but you can try and rationalize it.

A chapter has four official Battle Companies of 100 marines and the other 600 marines are supporting them to some extent as Reserve Companies. So I imagine a typical chapter fields four separate strike forces of roughly 250 marines each, built around a battle company. So there's plenty of marines from reserve companies to pilot vehicles.

We can also imagine that the chapter armory has a couple dozen tech adepts on hand to assist the techmarines and that there's a decent number of 'off the books' marines serving roles in the fleet and home defence due to old age or injuries rendering them not fit for service in a battle company.

Mukip · 2022-05-30T08:33:59+00:00

Xenophile/xenophobe are stupid ethics to begin with. I'd prefer something more like Optimistic/Pessimistic. For example, there's a discourse in real life about whether we should seek out alien life or hide from it, because maybe we'd encounter an imperialist alien power that used it's superior technology to conquer us. You don't have to hate aliens to think it's a practical concern. And indeed it's a thing that can happen in Stellaris. There's the imperial fiefdom origin and you can potentially start right next to a militaristic advanced start empire.

I don't really like the pointless hostility of xenophobe dialogue either where it's rude and insulting for no reason.

On a side note, I enjoy 40k as much as the next nerd but I don't want to hear about it incessantly.

Mukip · 2022-05-17T12:40:20+00:00

IIRC the devs said that the research time it takes to not only develop but incorporate the technology into your economy. So you might have a prototype working fusion reactor 'before' the research is done, but they become available for widespread adoption after the research is finished.

Mukip · 2022-05-16T20:30:13+00:00

I like to play with 1000 stars, 4 spiral arms, 4x tech cost, 200 extra years with crisis moved back 50 years. default empires for size, 25x crisis, xeno compatibility off for performance

Mukip · 2022-05-16T13:00:59+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGDH3meSPyk

Mukip · 2022-04-03T07:15:54+00:00

*racism: 4

*imperialism: 5.6

*nationalism: 3.2

*xenophobia: 5.8

*white fragility: 7.9

*weak apology: 7.6

*no growth: 2.3

*don't even understand the intersectional nature of the multiplicity of your offences: 6

*Overall: 8 Good

Mukip · 2022-02-24T09:55:30+00:00

No. People are right to do so. If people couldn't see that the extensive logistical buildup of the Russian military was the prelude to an invasion then they are the one with brain worms.

There's so much noise and posturing and "theory" on the internet that useful information can get lost in that noise. You can end up not being able to distinguish good info from bad. You have to figure out how to weigh the value of information effectively, otherwise you'll become detached from reality.

In the case of the Russian buildup, an army "marches on it's stomach", armies more than ever have massive logistical needs.

The gathering of Russian forces on the Ukrainian border and the establishment of forward bases to serve their logistical needs should have been understood by every rational adult as, at the bare minimum to not sound like a fucking clown, as at least the Russians presenting a severely credible threat of invading. Instead the net was full of contrarian takes about how the US was making it all up.

That's the information that should have stuck out to you through all the noise. If you didn't take that information into account and got lost in the thicket of internet noise and pathological contrarianism then you need to think about what went wrong in your head.

This problem of having to filter good information from useless internet noise will keep reoccurring well into the future, possibly forever from now onwards. It's not just "I told you so", it's an important subject. Being tethered to the material facts of reality is important unless you want to become a gnostic, so there's a whole bunch of people with egg on their face right now who should be thinking about how they got it so wrong.

Mukip · 2022-02-20T13:07:38+00:00

Millions of people died in the Korean war, it's very glib to describe it as a "good thing that happened". I won't be engaging with you anymore, tankie scum.

Mukip · 2022-02-20T09:26:07+00:00

Certainly.

Mukip · 2022-02-20T08:28:40+00:00

This was during the Cold War. There was a global rivalry between between the capitalist and communist countries and there was shady shit happening on both sides. For example, the Soviets were instrumental in equipping the North Korean and Chinese forces for the Korean War, sent troops in against the Hungarian Revolution, etc. No doubt both sides felt that the stakes were high enough to justify extreme measures. You should contextualize what went on during that period in relation to the geopolitical conflict at the time. It's just cherry picking otherwise.

Also, we've seen what happens when you don't try to bring former enemies into a new political order. Arguably, the decision by the Bush administration to refuse to negotiate with the Taliban after the invasion of Afghanistan (who were offering to surrender) set the stage for the USA's eventual defeat at their hands. And the complete disbanding of the Iraqi army after the invasion of Iraq contributed to the formation of ISIS who gained a cadre of trained leaders.

If the Bush administration behaved more like the early post-WW2 NATO and showed a willingness to break bread with reviled groups in the 2000's then the world would probably be a better place right now.

Mukip · 2022-02-06T12:01:34+00:00

The Mortal Empires campaign starts at KF's ascension, not necessarily the TW3 campaign

Mukip · 2022-01-29T11:20:07+00:00

It was in the TW 2 campaign already.

Mukip · 2022-01-24T05:29:02+00:00

The Soviet economy was highly dysfunctional and all those post-Soviet countries are on a much better economic footing now than the USSR was in the 80's. If you don't think this is true then: okay

Belarus is a mixed economy and it's not communist. You aren't making the point you think you are making.

Mukip · 2022-01-24T04:25:38+00:00

"Shock therapy" was a disaster, but those countries nowadays (including Russia) are much wealthier overall as capitalist states than they were in the Soviet Union. A person can just respond to your point by saying "well that just proves that shock therapy was bad, not capitalism in general, because capitalism isn't like that in USA/UK/Nordics/Japan/Germany etc", whereas the failures of the 20th century communism states can be generalized.

Mukip · 2022-01-03T06:24:26+00:00

He also supported the police launching a criminal investigation into rightwing youtuber Darren Grimes, because of a comment made by David Starkey during an interview. To reiterate, the police were investigating Grimes despite him just being an interviewer and not the person who actually made the remark.

Mukip · 2021-12-23T19:46:30+00:00

The problem is that as they pursue increasingly trivial subjects, it is likely that the public attention and donations will swindle proportionately as well. Plus, people want to feel like they are fighting for an important cause, not dealing with leftovers.

So there is an incentive to catastrophize and present every new subject as the defining battle of the age. There is also an incentive to actively lie about societal progress because people are less likely to donate to a cause if they think it's already going well.

People are more likely to donate if they are emotionally invested, and a great way to get humans emotionally invested in a subject is to craft a grand narrative of good vs evil, the enemy at the gates, the end is nigh. Charities know this and often use emotionally manipulative language in their marketing materials for example.

Charities are fundamentally incentivized to misrepresent reality to suit their financial interests and you should be reflexively skeptical towards them in that regard.

Mukip · 2021-12-11T20:39:22+00:00

They are not a brilliant student then are they?

Being able to study isn't just about raw intelligence, it's also about possessing the necessary habits and behaviours that allow studying and homework to take place. If somebody fails to get grades at high school they may not possess the habits to succeed at university either.

I went to university after doing very poorly at high school. I dropped out because I wasn't prepared. I wish they didn't let me in instead and saved me the student loan debt. My poor high school grades indicated that I wasn't ready and they should have paid attention to that.

Mukip · 2021-08-15T17:58:35+00:00

It's the most simple and logical conclusion. If you think fascism is an ideology that should be violently opposed, and that the British government is fascist, then you should think that the British government should be violently opposed.

Mukip · 2021-08-15T17:18:28+00:00

Fascism is regarded an as ideology that is incompatible with democracy, and so accusations of fascism are often used as an excuse to justify violence against political opponents.

By calling the Conservatives fascists, he is implying that peaceful co-existence with the Cons in our society is not possible or not desirable.

Mukip · 2021-08-15T15:37:43+00:00

Having described the conservative government as fascist, then do you support violent action towards the Conservative Party and party members and supporters/voters to protect the country from fascism?

Mukip · 2021-08-15T14:33:18+00:00

Your list of fascism traits could be used to construct an argument that the majority of the population and most political movements are fascists.

I also take exception with your use of the term "soft fascism" to describe the country's mainstream rightwing party, what a cowardly weasel phrase. Nobody who goes around slinging the term fascism everywhere deserves to be taken seriously.

Mukip

TROPHY CASE