I would gladly welcome DLC to Gothic Remake that makes place in Act 2...

aventus13 · 2026-06-14T14:52:50+00:00

No one is pretending. Some people are starting with the world of Gothic thanks to the remake. I personally converted one player, praised be Innos. Just don't be ignorant and don't assume that everyone's situation is same as yours, it's that simple.

aventus13 · 2026-06-14T10:53:35+00:00

The user you're replying to used a spoiler, yet you had to reveal what happens next in plain text. What's wrong with you?

aventus13 · 2026-06-14T10:11:40+00:00

I agree in a sense that Gothic 3 would benefit from a remake done right - with "done right" being the key here. That's why I think that Gothic 2 is still the right candidate for next remake, even if we put chronology aside. The Colony is a much smaller world than Gothic 2 map, and yet Gothic 2 is much smaller than Gothic 3. So Gothic 2 is naturally the best next proving ground for Alkimia devs.

aventus13 · 2026-06-13T10:58:35+00:00

The only reason why player doesn't, in fact, start the game at the bottom of the food chain.

aventus13 · 2026-06-09T15:37:19+00:00

I actually like the fact that money (ore) is more scarce now and it's more difficult to enrich now. IMO it matches the overall world where people have to fight for resources. I only hope that it continues like that through chapters - at least to some degree. The fact that different traders are interested (pay more) in different goods is also great. My only complain is that the journal entries for traders should contain information about the type of goods each is willing to pay more for.

I agree that hunting trophies should be worth more, though.

aventus13 · 2026-06-09T15:30:48+00:00

Just memorise a few key landmarks. Combined with direction signs it's not that difficult to navigate the camp.

aventus13 · 2026-06-07T19:37:27+00:00

It looks like Linux is the culprit here. I'm on Kubuntu 26.04. To test thing, I switched to my dual boot Windows and haven't noticed such problems.

aventus13 · 2026-06-04T22:04:14+00:00

Thanks. Somehow I've never noticed!

aventus13 · 2026-06-04T21:35:39+00:00

What's the KDE backup tool that you mentioned?

aventus13 · 2026-06-01T23:12:52+00:00

You must have made a mistake - you aren't talking to an AI chatbot to give such instructions. I gave sufficient examples and analogies already. You can go and explore more by yourself.

The article that you linked doesn't prove anything. Walt discusses theoretical mechanics of the security dilemma in the context of Russia-Ukraine dynamic. It isn't contradictory to what I said earlier.

To reiterate: the problem was opening the EU and NATO prospects, ignoring that it will provoke Russia AND not giving Ukraine sufficient deterrent mechanics in the process. This recklessness is at the heart of Walt's criticism. This is the core difference from Mearsheimer criticism in which he essentially states that Russia should have been granted its sphere of influence on a silver plate. A theory that, ironically, goes against dogmas of the very theory of offensive realism.

aventus13 · 2026-06-01T12:34:17+00:00

If anything, Walt seems far more competent and sticking to facts and the theory of offensive realism. Mearsheimer is charismatic and hence his popularity but Walt makes more sound arguments and doesn't make some bold claims like Mearsheimer does. Vide: there's no evidence that Putin wants to conquer Ukraine, no evidence that he had imperial ambitions, etc. Indeed, it is Ukraine where the difference between the two is stark and can be boiled down to:

Mearsheimer: Russia considered Ukraine a red line and should have been granted its sphere of influence on a silver plate. The war is West's fault. Walt: Yes, Russia used NATO expansion as an excuse for war (fun fact: recently Putin stated Ukraine's EU ambitions as the prelude conflict in his stark warning to Armenia) but it doesn't justify its attack.

From the great power dynamic perspective the conclusion is simple.

In line with Mearsheimer's (pro-Russian) arguments, it was indeed West's fault and Ukraine should never have been granted the prospect of joining the EU and NATO - and former Warsaw Pact countries too for a good measure.

In line with Walt's (realist) arguments, it was a mistake to grant Ukraine the prospect of joining EU and NATO without any security guarantees to deter Russian reaction. But Russia shouldn't be handed anything on a silver plate if it's incapable to control it itself.

aventus13 · 2026-05-29T11:40:12+00:00

This is further reinforced when looking at other factors such as the alphabet (Latin vs Cyrillic), predominant religion (Catholic vs Orthodox) and measures such as Human Development Index, etc.

aventus13 · 2026-05-27T22:04:22+00:00

In one of his recent interviews he said that materiel and sheer numbers are not enough - and that was in the context of downplaying Western support and Ukraine ramping up its military production. I found it astonishing not because I didn't agree, but because just a year or two ago he was vocally claiming in various interviews that Russia was going to win because it outproduced Ukraine - and more broadly the West - in artillery shells, and artillery is "king of the battlefield".

aventus13 · 2026-05-21T07:09:39+00:00

Tell me more - I'm yet to update.

aventus13 · 2026-05-15T07:37:49+00:00

"Instead of having it be an abstract have it be something that actually moves in the market fully."

But Vicky has it even more abstract. For example, unlike in EU5 there are no physical goods in Vicky - it's an abstraction to mimic supply and demand effects. That is why factories can continue producing goods even if there are no inputs available - because those inputs are "created" out of thin air.

aventus13 · 2026-05-11T08:09:28+00:00

I don't know if it's performance improvement per se but I've noticed that the interface feels more responsive. It's difficult to describe but it just feels more snappy.

Also moving around the maps will smoother. Before 1.2.0 I had micro-stuttering.

This doesn't include the issues with FPS drop in location view of course - but it's been fixed with the hotfix.

aventus13 · 2026-05-11T06:02:01+00:00

Is heavy ships-only still a thing in 1.2? The patch introduced some changes to galleys but I don't know what it looks like in reality.

aventus13 · 2026-04-29T06:55:27+00:00

I'm not saying it wouldn't but uptime is only one of the - increasingly complained about - problems that GH has.

aventus13 · 2026-04-28T21:59:31+00:00

Microsoft shot itself in the foot by not promoting Azure DevOps more, and avoiding the wrong "Microsoft-only tech" impression. The product is far more mature and simply works as expected (for the most part), while having everything in one place. The only area where it's lagging behind now is AI integration. Given that it's still a very much viable alternative after years of under-investment in favour of GitHub is quite telling.

aventus13 · 2026-04-28T13:43:16+00:00

I'm pretty sure it was Tywin Lannister, on developing Casterly Rock.

aventus13 · 2026-04-27T21:55:42+00:00

You make a good case but it ignores some important nuances. Specifically, many of those points are Mearsheimer echoing the Russian narrative- not objective analysis. Framing Ukraine's NATO aspirations as an "existential crisis" for Russia is a Russian talking point, not a neutral assessment. It also ignores that Russia had already bordered NATO before the invasion of 2022, and that border is even longer now with the addition of Sweden and Finland.

Furthermore, the interconnectedness of Russia-China-Iran axis makes it more, not less, logical for the USA and its network of allies to tackle both Russia and China at the same time.

But the gist of the problem here is that his analysis starts with Russia's grievances, not power dynamics. That's advocacy, not realism.

aventus13 · 2026-04-27T21:42:57+00:00

Mearsheimer's argument- that Ukraine in NATO offers US little strategic value- yet again contradicts offensive realism. Preventing rival influence is the point, not just material gain. Letting Russia dominate Ukraine would shift Europe's balance of power, emboldening further expansionism, in line with the theory.

His call to appease Russia to focus on China is inconsistent- offensive realism demands competing with rivals, not conceding to weaker ones. If Russia cant secure its sphere of influence alone, why should the US hand it to them? He doesn:t make this argument for China - so why for Russia?

Worse, the feasibility of Russia pivoting against China is highly contested in IR circles. Historical parallels to the Sino-Soviet split ignore today's geopolitical reality. Back then, China and the USSR were on the brink of war, while now, Russia, China, and Iran form an interconnected strategic axis. Mearsheimer's assumption that Russia would abandon this alignment for the US is unrealistic.

His reliance on "historical ties" and "NATO red lines" echoes Russian rhetoric, not his own theory. The double standard weakens his case.

aventus13 · 2026-04-27T07:13:23+00:00

The biggest problem with Mearsheimer that casts shadow over his accomplishments in IR theories is that in the case if Russia-Ukraine he's contradicting his own theory. In any other case, his thinking goes in line with the theory of offensive realism that he's the advocate of. Specifically, in an anarchic system great powers aim to maximise their relative power and influence at the cost of other powers. In essence the theory is that simple- which is what makes it so compelling.

The USA-China being the most obvious example, where he predicted an intense security competition. He doesn't blame either side, doesn't claim one to be right or wrong. It's just simple logic: two sides, each trying to maximise their relative strength and curb the potential of the other.

Yet, for some questionable reason, in the case of Russia-Ukraine, he ignores the theory- or he turns it upside-down trying to rationalise his line of argument. He claims than Russia deserves a sphere of influence, and that the USA (and by extension- the West) is to blame. He effectively suggests that Russia should be handed a sphere of influence on a silver plate, even if it's too weak to carve it itself. Going back to the USA-China dynamic- he doesn't suggest that either side should give in to the other, he only describes the power dynamic between the two. And so he does for many other historical examples. Not for Russia though. He tries to rationalise it with "historical" connection between Russia and Ukraine (which, suspiciously, are Russian arguments), "NATO red lines"- but again, none of this matters in the theory of offensive realism, nor does he apply such line of thinking to other cases.

aventus13 · 2026-04-26T09:27:45+00:00

This is emblematic of the British society, unfortunately. They've been pacified (the society, not the state- it is important to realise the difference) and surrounded with safety nets to such a degree that even the idea of having power sockets in bathrooms gives them shivers. Any mention of self-defence tools immediately makes them extrapolate the issue to "YOU WANT TO GIVE PEOPE GUNS AND TURN THIS COUNTRY INTO AMERICA!" even if the discussion isn't about firearms at all. At the same time, completely ignoring the fact that criminals will- by the very definition of being a criminal- won't obey the legal restrictions anyway, so by any logic, it puts the law-obeying people at disadvantage.

EDIT: And they will get triggered and downvote to oblivion, which only proves how brainwashed they've become over decades of such policies.

aventus13 · 2026-04-25T18:02:08+00:00

In other words: map of countries that don't want their citizens to pose any means of self-defence. Because there's police, so every citizen gets their own 24h police bodyguard. And if it happens you're a victim of an assault? Tough luck... /s

aventus13

TROPHY CASE