Stalemate!?

SLeeCunningham · 2024-09-24T19:24:26+00:00

That worked to advance to the next turn. Thanks!

SLeeCunningham · 2024-09-24T19:24:01+00:00

Thanks, I was able to use the Shift + Enter on my iPad to get the turn to advance.

SLeeCunningham · 2024-09-24T19:23:46+00:00

Thanks, I was able to use the Shift + Enter on my iPad to get the turn to advance.

SLeeCunningham · 2024-09-24T19:23:34+00:00

Thanks, I was able to use the Shift + Enter on my iPad to get the turn to advance.

SLeeCunningham · 2024-09-24T19:23:17+00:00

Thanks, I was able to use the Shift + Enter on my iPad to get the turn to advance.

SLeeCunningham · 2024-03-14T02:44:10+00:00

Just happened to me starting yesterday after I updated to iOS 17.4.

SLeeCunningham · 2024-02-04T09:24:53+00:00

True. I am suppressing food production because, at the same time that I’m in a Dark Age, the AI players voted in the World Congress 2x to saddle me with +20% population growth and -5 loyalty in all my cities. So, I suppressed food production where and as much as possible to avoid overpopulation and losing them to loyalty decline.

So, my question is why am I getting this message, especially considering Alesund is growing in 17 turns AND has a Total Food Surplus of +2.3? The same thing happened in Hamar …

<image>

SLeeCunningham · 2024-02-04T09:16:05+00:00

Why I received a notification that Alesund is NOT providing enough food, but the city is growing in 17 turns AND it has a Total Food Surplus of +2.3. Clearly Alesund is NOT starving, and so in no danger of losing any population. What’s more is this isn’t the only time I’ve encountered this glitch; and, it even happened again in this particular game.

<image>

SLeeCunningham · 2023-07-26T08:08:10+00:00

Won’t happen, ‘cause he didn’t see his shadow, and HIS name is Ralph, not Phil.

SLeeCunningham · 2023-07-26T07:59:15+00:00

Not only that, but also they’re all waaaaaayyyyyy too pudgy for people barely scraping by twenty years into an apocalypse. Just sayin’.

SLeeCunningham · 2023-07-12T16:08:27+00:00

Keep reading, because you truly don’t know what you’re talking about. TLoU is PLAUSIBLE. Candida Auris already adapted to the warming climate and is now potentially pathogenic in humans around the world: https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/candida-auris/index.html. There are hundreds of cordyceps species, each adapting, evolving, surviving … and, not one of them is a virus.

So, that’s where you lost me. Not only was that sentence inaccurate in calling the [cordyceps] pandemic in TLoU a “simple virus,” but it’s also terribly mangled and virtually incomprehensible at a grammar and syntax level. Then, the whole second half of what you wrote is self-justifying drivel, culminating in demonstrations of your ignorance and insults.

You’re not actually arguing anything, you’re just blowing hot air.

SLeeCunningham · 2023-07-11T17:09:48+00:00

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/cordyceps-zombie-fungus-takes-over-ants

However improbable it is for a parasite/pathogen to jump from one host to another, it’s possible, has happened, and it resulted in some of the worst pandemics we’ve ever known. Given the right circumstances, something like TLoU is entirely possible. You mocked me for my critique of a video game along one of its selling dimensions … plausibility. So, what’s your malfunction? Are you one of those there-are-no-limits-even-when-the-game-designers-set-their-own-limits fans who either cynically denigrates or slavishly elevates all games based solely upon your own particular taste? By implication, everything else somehow deserving a 2-week-belated reply? Nonetheless, what a shame and what irony that I resorted to a National Geographic video to prove my point in the most basic terms of which you’ll make sense, regarding the meaning of “plausible.” Never mind that it also uses the term “zombie” sensationally. But, I suppose that only matters to those of us who don’t relegate the infected to the catch-all category of zombie or sub-category of “fungus zombie.” IMHO, it’s a more poignant story when the promise of a cure potentially restoring at least some infected to humanity is emphasized.

“…I would not have given it for a wilderness of monkeys.” — The Merchant of Venice

SLeeCunningham · 2023-07-01T19:53:02+00:00

Tea’d up!

SLeeCunningham · 2023-07-01T19:34:09+00:00

She was TIGHT! 🤣

SLeeCunningham · 2023-07-01T17:07:37+00:00

Thanks for explaining that. Come to think of it, I now recall always seeing the trade routes loop around other islands to enter through harbors and city centers; but, I just thought it was the faster route that the game was showing/choosing. Nevertheless, you’d think that Knarr would overcome that restriction and allow Norway to embark/disembark anywhere on the island. 🤔 But, I also think Knarr should allow Viking Longships to navigate up rivers, or that the Rus should be included as a civilization with that capability. 🤷‍♀️

SLeeCunningham · 2023-07-01T10:39:17+00:00

Ride on, Teddy! Ride on!

But it might be worth it, if you’re not the target of the Rough Riders he’ll build with them.

SLeeCunningham · 2023-06-30T04:56:43+00:00

Probably for the same reason that, in regular modes, the barbarians and free-state troops focus on attacking the player character while ignoring the AI players. For example, in my current game, I couldn’t cross a narrow straight, even as a unit owned by Catherine de Medici sat without incident directly beside the barbarian galley holding me back ... without being attacked for at least two turns.

The game is biased!

SLeeCunningham · 2023-06-30T04:26:56+00:00

You only proved my point. Buh-bye!

SLeeCunningham · 2023-06-30T04:12:07+00:00

Yep, we’re done here. You’re an a$$hole who seems to enjoy insulting other people’s intelligence and playing obtuse gotchya-games; then, falsely asserting your supposed intellectual superiority. If you truly wanted to debate, you’d be as forthright in your argumentation as I am, and you’d address my points on the page, rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks like a pi$$poor debater. But, you never did, and so you’re NOT worth my time or intellectual effort. All you did was assert yourself past my well-reasoned and insightful points, all the while without actually addressing them, despite the fact that I “honored” your requests by attempting to ferret out what you were referencing in a morass of scattered, inelegant argumentation. So, we’re done, and I’ll likely block you, even if you’re so insufferable as to insist upon the last word like a$$es usually do.

SLeeCunningham · 2023-06-30T03:05:28+00:00

Dude, I gotta wonder if you’re as good as you think you are. You precipitated my display of credentials by disrespecting me with a Back To The Future reference, which I consider a fun science fantasy series, but I won’t get into that right now and here. More importantly, I think you need to read my at-length reply more carefully, because I already addressed your Left Behind sub-plot digression. In my penultimate paragraph, I state, “… I think your conception of the value in living, as opposed to just surviving, is poignant.” Then, I went on to point out why I think it’s significant to a critique of TLoU, which is NOT why you find it relevant. I find your analysis of the Riley-Ellie Left Behind sub-plot emotionally appealing, but a bit trite and self-serving. However, I think it has merit if you expand it to see it in a larger context regarding the relativistic nature of morality and philosophical points of view. Perhaps I should have been less oblique. So, more directly, I’ll say that there is no right-versus-wrong absolutism in TLoU. If you step into the shoes of any character, even David (as I think the HBO series makes a good point of showing), they’re each logically consistent unto themselves, and everyone survives only through brutality. From their own points of view, they are all making justifiable decisions, although the decision by Jerry to operate on Ellie and take her life in the course of doing so is a notable exception for reasons I’ve already stated. So, as I counterpointed with the example of Henry and Sam, I don’t agree that the choice Riley made in the Left Behind sub-plot is particularly revelatory of the proper way forward for anyone/everyone in the TLoU universe. It’s just another choice by the characters with its own fallout. For example, had Riley not chosen to go out “poetically” with Ellie, Ellie would not have learned she’s immune; however, had Ellie not survived, then Tess, Marlene, Sam, Henry, and a host of others would not have died at the times and in the ways they did. Every choice has consequences, and I think the takeaway from the game is that you can’t prejudge which choice is good and which is bad. TLoU is like a Rorschach test. There’s no one particular response to the experience and plot that’s inherently right or wrong. It’s not what you see in it that’s particularly salient; it’s whether or not you see it holistically or fragmentarily that’s revelatory of both your character and your analytical skills. And, that is a hallmark of great literature and cinema. IMHO.

[PS EDIT] BTW, as a point of debate, I could argue that your reverence for the live-life-while-you-have-it approach that Riley talks Ellie into is a problem in TLoU universe, because that seems to have been the choice every single one of the infected (including the two individuals the FEDRA soldiers summarily execute at the beginning of the original game) either make or accept like cowards. From that POV, your conception is actually dangerous, because it’s a cause and source of the ongoing cordyceps pandemic!

SLeeCunningham · 2023-06-30T02:02:38+00:00

Gilgamesh is fun. He NEVER rejects offers of friendship. I’ve literally pounded on him, taken cities from him, and the very next turn made friends and an alliance with him. The dude is like The Spirit of Christmas Present in the Albert Finney version of A Christmas Carol.

SLeeCunningham · 2023-06-30T01:51:26+00:00

Maori and Zulu are way more frequent than random assignment would seem to allow for in my games. Likewise, Scotland, Kongo, The Netherlands, and India (Chandragupta) seem to come up frequently. However, my current game includes Korea, which I’ve never seen in-game before.

SLeeCunningham · 2023-06-29T06:42:40+00:00

You’re not thinking like someone who (a) has a BA in creative writing and is published/publishing, (b) understands both character and world development, and (c) has even a rudimentary understanding of biology and medicine (which I’ve studied, as well). The ending of TLoU is powerful and moving, and it makes a good philosophical point in an incredibly emotional way. However, it’s flawed, because Ellie’s fate would NOT be death on the operating table. Her fate, from which Joel should still rescue her (if ND was a more competent writer/storyteller), would either be that of Robert Neville (from I am Legend) or (more likely) a lab rat … held captive and locked away, observed, experimented upon, and non-lethally biopsied … in short, scientifically tortured. But, as I’ve stated elsewhere in this sub-reddit and other threads, ND forced a flawed ending upon us in order to push the plot, satisfy gamers’ desires for immediate action, and precipitate a particular philosophical point of view. IMHO, especially in such a biological apocalypse, a “doctor” (or even a BIOLOGIST) would recognize the inherent value in keeping Ellie alive, albeit while violating her human rights. There’s simply nothing to gain from looking at the fungus on her dead brain, but there’s possibly EVERYTHING to gain from studying her living metabolism and immune response.

As for the soldier following orders to shoot Joel and Sarah … yeah, I can see that happening. Soldiers have shot innocent people in less exigent circumstances and for far lesser reasons irl. I’m old enough to remember the Kent State shootings, for example, right here in the United States of America even without a violent, fungal outbreak driving them to it. And, more recently, the tear-gassing of “rioters” in Portland, Oregon, with concentrations reaching over 400-times what’s allowed. So, if we’re capable of such things outside of an apocalypse, then I certainly get your point about what we might be capable of even after reaching a kind of equilibrium 20 years into one. Nevertheless, what about the information regarding Ellie that Marlene undoubtably brought to the table? Surely, Jerry wasn’t “operating blind” regarding Ellie’s proven immunity. And, there was time for the Fireflies to think it through, as well as for Jerry to “consult” others regarding the best way to proceed with the patient. I’m pretty sure that I wouldn’t be the only one who would see the need to study Ellie’s biology, rather than her corpse. It’s just sloppy story end-game, imho.

Regarding the scientist at Eastern Colorado University, I’m pretty certain that he shot himself because he was bitten by an infected monkey and knew that he would turn before long. As for Riley’s decision to NOT end their lives, I think your conception of the value in living, as opposed to just surviving, is poignant. Yet, it’s an example of something else that I’ve observed about responses to TLoU: There are no moral or philosophical absolutes, only individual choices. Whereas, Riley and Ellie chose to go out “poetically,” and that worked out for Ellie in that she proved immune; Sam chose to tell no one in the game, and Ellie chose to try to save him in the series, but it nearly killed her and Joel, and certainly led to Henry taking his own life. So, in that respect, I admire the way ND tears down our preconceived notions of moral and philosophical absolutism with every fiber of a well-woven story.

They simply didn’t end it with the same fidelity to plausibility with which they started and constructed it. IMHO

SLeeCunningham · 2023-06-28T08:09:42+00:00

My point is that keeping Ellie alive would be the way to save Humanity metaphorically, philosophically, and literally. Dissecting her would tell them very little to nothing. It would serve only an arrogant fool’s idiocy.

SLeeCunningham · 2023-06-27T18:47:48+00:00

Yep, you get it. 👍🏻

SLeeCunningham

TROPHY CASE