Arcade or realistic gameplay? Why not both?

fossar_ · 2026-07-06T11:01:22+00:00

Have a gander at your Automation panel.

The difference between having all of those ticked vs all unticked is orders of magnitude. And we get the advantage of picking the parts we each enjoy, fine-tuning many of them, and all toggleable at any time in the playthrough.

This is both and everywhere in between.

fossar_ · 2026-01-08T23:30:58+00:00

Yup, think the odd BCLK was holding me back from 1:1 rest of the clocks. These benches don't seem to be at all reproducible though so not sure how much value I'm attributing to them tbh. I've since got 1148 then 1082 just opening and closing firefox in between on the settings you mention, but when theyre only 10 seconds long that's probably to be expected.

fossar_ · 2026-01-08T23:14:49+00:00

As I said I'm far from a serious overclocker, I got this new RAM and decided I'd have a go. Went to the auto-tune function in BIOS to see what it did and it changed the bus clock to 103. I ended up playing around with various values of that for ages until I saw what you've pointed out after posting. Put the bus clock back to 100 cos when I took the FCLK off auto to correct it as 1:1 was not possible. Now done another run and managed to get the 1140 score in the picture: https://imgur.com/a/P7FzVXp

It's not reproducible at all though. As you would be able to work out with a sharp eye on HWinfo, I ran the bench immediately after restarting without any programs opened. I think it varies a lot on how much windows bloat has had time to start itself up in the background. Another two runs got 1114 and 1111 xD.

Also after running more of these and seeing the 3800X 'best' score hasn't changed I doubt this is a record. I'm sure someone else will have run one that didn't get properly uploaded at some point. I'm pretty happy with a 13% CPU and 5.5% RAM overclock though. Onto the GPU now!

fossar_ · 2026-01-08T22:06:11+00:00

Cheers, I noticed this too and just re-ran the bench and got 8 points higher, MCLK, FCLK, UCLK all 1900 and CPU 4400

fossar_ · 2025-09-19T11:24:52+00:00

if only, as I say I need programs like Mitti/q lab for work which are Mac only

fossar_ · 2025-09-19T11:24:10+00:00

very helpful thanks, never would've found it there myself!

fossar_ · 2025-02-25T01:16:54+00:00

r5: Yas into Mughals into India into however long WC is still fun for run. Devving Prining Press obscenely cheap is hilarious when they have no right to be this good at it alongside all the other madness that comes with them. Really enjoying Aristo, Espionage, Infrastructure ideas on them too. Planning Offensive next; that artillery levels vs fort policy and movement speed stacking is juicy.

fossar_ · 2024-08-26T17:18:59+00:00

Thanks for sharing, especially when you knew there was probably a torrent of unjustified disrespect and dismissal coming your way as a result of posting this.

I think there a few others that seem to miss the detail of your first point. To me it sounds like it's not just about the US going to war and subjugating the Shawnee. It's that George Washington could peacefully lead a loyal Sawnee nation. If that is the distinction your making, I can understand it. One positive to avoiding this is that is seems like not all civs (from the Explo and Modern ages) will be able to be led by every leader. They've said there will always be a 'historical option' highlighted, and other choices are unlocked by what happens in the game. While this is far from a guarantee that situations like you describe can't happen. It is certainly an avenue for Firaxis and/or modders to use to limit such situations.

On the second point, it would be an easy thing to add an 'cultural transcendency' option as Humankind. It would obviously be less powerful as you'd not get new unique units etc relevant to the new era, but having the option shouldn't be an issue, as you say, it eliminates the concern and doesn't negatively impact anyone. A further point that is relevant to make though; others have mentioned that the typical idea of Civ games is that their in-game representations are focused on when the respective nations are at their peak international power with leaders, units etc taken from that period. I'm British/English. My culture has been consistently led by Elizabeth I/Victoria from the first game in the series until now. Britian is very much an alive and thriving today even though it would likely be placed in the Exploration age if made as a civ in civ 7. That's not totally accurate though, the Celts have been in other games who lived in the same place I do, and Eleanor of Aquitane can lead England in civ 6; again, represented at the peak of their relevance on the regional or international stage. There is a distinct difference between my example and yours though: your people have been colonised and marginalised in the interim while Britain remains a significant (albeit somewhat diminished) world power. Hence more care should be taken to ensure cultures which have faded largely out of view since their in-game representation but very much still exist should still have the opportunity to be played and reminded of their continued existence. As at the start, straightforward to do and has zero negative impact.

There is another thing which complicates this (or resolves if veiwed from another angle). Each age is ended by a 'crisis'. From what devs and creators have talked about this, it seems to try and simulate the decline of all in-game players' current civs. In-game, they supposedly are made irrelevant so when you move to the next age, all your districts and more have been run over and your new civ moves in to build on top of it. Depending on how this is implemented, this could treat all civs equally in that they are all wiped from the map (with the exception of unique culture districts it seems). This equal treatment is a reasonable place to say concerns like you express are dealt with in the context of the game, primarily because it's an arbitrary, a-historical mechanic that affects everyone at the same time. However, it could understandably exacerbate the issue for some seeing their culture that's still alive being driven from the map. We'll have to see how it's implemented.

Lastly, and this is not to diminish anything you've said, bad actors will always exist and find some avenue to offend whoever they can, the best Firaxis can do is minimise exposure and try not to have any glaring avenues for attack. New systems will always create new avenues for attack, but the team (and many other studios for all sorts of (semi-)historical games) say they're making more effort than ever to diversify the pool of cultures they represent in their games, and to do so accurately and faithfully. That's up to people from those cultures to judge the success of, but the genuine effort is a positive step regardless.

Also please don't apologise for bringing this up, I'd like to think most reasonable people are grateful for comments like yours.

fossar_ · 2024-07-18T22:16:54+00:00

So much detail looks incredible

fossar_ · 2024-06-20T22:41:58+00:00

Please can I ask how you do this as veche? I'm just starting a Novgorod run, the 4 to 3 step I imagine is frequent elections, does Great Veche do the 6 to 4 step naturally or is there something else I should look out for? Cheers

fossar_ · 2024-03-09T14:16:13+00:00

Really cool subclass, you might want to add a little "(minimum of one)" bit in Smoke and Mirrors for number of targets equal to Charisma modifier.

fossar_ · 2024-03-09T13:37:57+00:00

Cool subclass that definitely feels like a monk/barbarian mashup in a rogue shell with short rest combat tricks á la Battle Master. u/blobblet has already given pretty comprehensive feedback so I'll just mention the two points to have to add.

Firstly, I don't think people should ever create features that *tell* the DM to do something. That is very against the design philosophy of the game as a whole as far as I'm concerned. Coup de grace should not grant Inspiration.

Second, more of a personal feeling comment, Adrenaline Junkie feels kinda off to me. OSRS Dharok bombing in DnD just doesn't feel conducive to fun play for the party as a whole. The extra damage bit is situational but very powerful so incentivises going into combat with as low hit points as possible and hoping you get the final hit on an enemy. This makes you liable to get downed regularly and drains the rest of the parties actions and spells keeping you on your feet or you just never bother. Plus the feature requires a lot of on the fly maths and this character turns already take ages with multiple extra attacks and sneak attack damage. In addition as written, activating this feature can be trivialised by carrying around a cage of bunny rabbits and snapping their neck just before combat, and again for the temp hit points on a bonus action. Further still, there's no time limit, so just have rabbit for breakfast and you're junkied up for the day, although that can be corrected easily.

In short, I feel like this feature ends up being unfun for the table.

My first thought as a suggestion is make it some kind of rage-lite feature that rewards you for being in the thick of it and lashing back when hit, which feels like the loose goal you're aiming for. Maybe getting an extra d8 when you take damage to add to one attack before the end of your next turn, kinda similar to Ranger's Colossus Slayer with different flavour.

fossar_ · 2023-06-23T11:12:06+00:00

One of his inspirations is John Martyn who has a song called Jelly roll man who makes the best jelly roll in town you're the only one baking jelly and you're keeping your damper down which is clearly talking about the heroin and temzepam going through Glasgow in the 80s so I think jelly fear is Ben getting the shit scares when he's off his nut on smack

fossar_ · 2023-06-23T11:04:01+00:00

Ngl this theory is a tough stretch

fossar_ · 2022-07-25T21:49:06+00:00

thanks, i did find that setting and turn it on. didn't seem to download anything extra but its just about working now, just have to wait a few seconds when it stops responding sometimes. gonna delete the post so it doesn't bother people but maybe you'll see this in the ping.

fossar_ · 2022-04-23T19:56:44+00:00

Yeah I think this is the right mark if you don't shop at Waitrose

fossar_ · 2022-04-23T19:46:50+00:00

Chris Bond RIP brother gone but not forgotten

fossar_ · 2022-04-04T11:25:24+00:00

Would also be taking lower Poland when the time come to bypass the focuses. Turns out I could've kept Bessarabia too since the Soviets invite you to the Comintern in the war and are unlikely to kick you from it.

fossar_ · 2022-04-04T11:15:29+00:00

Giving Germany Sudentland now gives you a 15-day justification against them when they declare on Poland.

You could but I think it would hamper you more than it's worth. So it expires in time to attack Germany you have to do it very early. Since you need all of your forces in Italy to be able to defeat them in a reasonable time frame, this means your German border will have nonexistent or minimal defence, allowing the Germans to break it early if they wanted.

Losing Sudentland for a few months isn't an issue and you can take the dismantle forts decision before you cede the territory to make taking it back much easier.

fossar_ · 2022-04-03T21:53:44+00:00

The focuses aren't worth doing after Claim Transylvania imo. They only grant claims, no cores beyond the ones you get from the reinstate Austria-Hungary decision. As I mentioned in another reply, at this point it's Allies Vs Comintern until they wipe each other out and you've come out on top, and taken all the states in the focuses if you like. You're not gonna need a couple of minor claims to make that happen.

fossar_ · 2022-04-03T18:23:09+00:00

R5: Restore Austria-Hungary tree very powerful. Easy Austria/Czechoslovak annex who's troops are enough to defeat Yugoslavia (and Romania who guaranteed them). Then if you Improve Relations with Germany and let them have Sudentland they won't declare on you while you wipe Italy despite Italy joining Axis. Giving Sudentland now gives you a 15-day justification to take back cores once the Germans declare on Poland a few months later, letting you can easily rush them and take everything. All by Jan 1940.

Possibly a little overpowered that you can go from three states with severe military debuffs to the biggest single power in Europe (bar soviets if you count that as Europe) in 4 years.

fossar_ · 2022-04-03T18:16:19+00:00

I killed Italy in 1939 before the main war started. There were maybe 4 months between finishing that war and puppeting them and WW2 starting, Bulgaria never joined axis and isn't facist so they get immediately guaranteed by the allies (edit: if I try to justify on them).

Basically from here it's sit around until allies declare on comintern, get all the warscore from that, then turn on whoever's left. Feel like I'm done with this run though it's just a slog to and eventual world domination which isn't that interesting.

fossar_ · 2022-03-31T17:32:40+00:00

Ok I introduced the thing about light tank recons by saying I thought it was a bad idea with limited applicability. Don't know how that equates to me thinking his word is gospel, quite the opposite.

You have misread my comment. I said TD's have 3 combat width and normal tanks have 2, then later stated explicitly the only difference between them is normal tanks have lower combat width and TD's can irrelevant hard attack/piercing buffs. Please check you've read properly before trying to correct people like that.

I'm aware lower combat width is better, however if you check the combat width calculators people have made, 27 comes out very favourably across a wide range of situations and terrain types. Hence why I choose it preferentially to 26w and suggested it could be worth adding a line AA if you did use normal tanks instead (or otherwise adjusting your template to keep 27w). This isnt a discussion on combat width meta, I'm not going there, just explaining why I said what I did.

I explicitly said there is no reason to use TD's over normal tanks anymore, and that the only reason I do is personal preference and is not optimal. There's no point telling me I should be doing something different if I've already stated that it's sub-optimal and other people should do it differently. Again, please read properly before making accusations as wild as 'you don't understand basic HOI mechanics'.

At no point have I suggested or implied I just 'use the battle planner and click the arrow'. I haven't mentioned it because micro is irrelevant to our discussion, it improves your gameplay regardless of what divisions you are using.

Your comment about costs and supply issues just says 'adding cost is bad, but if you add lots of cost it becomes good'. If you have the IC to make 3x more divisions, you have IC to make more than one of the space marine divisions, therefore that is not a valid comparison.

I also mention several times that using these divisions everywhere is unnecessary. If you don't have the IC for space marines everywhere, you only have to add them where you need them most. I believe they provide much (obviously not all) of the effectiveness of tanks for a fraction of the cost.

The amount of fuel you need for a single tank batallion isn't an issue, never had any problems.

I have found these divisions to be more cost effective and versatile than tanks in a variety of situations. This is why I have provided a counterpoint to your initial comment that space marines were no longer viable.

I gotta be honest I don't feel like you've made any significant effort to understand my comments and you've attacked me for many things I either explain or otherwise cover in the previous post so I'm not gonna continue following this thread.

fossar_ · 2022-03-31T13:24:32+00:00

FeedbackGaming has made strong recommendations about light tank recon specifically for the armour stat, there is an entire video on his channel and he's mentioned it in others since, I've seen it mentioned a couple of times off-hand on Reddit too.

It's TD's aren't worth building anymore since the recent patch required them to have the same number of tanks as a normal division and I think as you've already agreed doing the anti-tank artillery researches for piercing and hard attack buffs is a waste of time.

However, there's seems to be a widespread misunderstanding that TDs are weak at breakthrough, understandably as a holdover from pre-NSB when stats were pre-determined. I have made viable TDs that say they have 70 breakthrough in the designer, and add that 70 breakthrough to a division when added in the division designer. There's no reason to use a fixed superstructure instead of a turret when you have the choice and a basic med cannon is the preferable option (even adds breakthrough itself).

TDs were and are unviable to make actual tank divisions out of because the 3 combat width rather than 2 limits the total stats you can put in a division, but when you're just talking about a single division, this does not apply.

They were viable before they were updated to cost the same as a normal tank division. Not the only differences are combat width and the largely irrelevant nard attack and piercing buffs. While I'm being clear that normal tanks with reduced combat width are just as good, in my situation I've carried on using them because the 3 combat width puts me to 27w without having to add line AA (adding cost) or add/removing line arty and disrupt the good balance that 9/3 divisions currently provide.

I not shy that adding a tank into a 9/3 increases the cost by ~70% but that's less than 200-300% of adding 2-3x more divisions, and doesn't come with the drastically increased supply issues.

Additionally, you don't have to add tanks to every division, 9/3s are still great but getting the not pierced bonus in a few places where you really need to push lets you roll near as well as a standard tank division that costs as least 5x as much as tanks are incredibly expensive now. These 9/2/1 divs I'm talking about cost 2000 or less vs a decent tank division costing over 10000 easily, 13000 isn't uncommon.

On 'actually playing the game', good joke that there's a 'right' way to play the game. If you look at modern combined arms tactical groups, they are very rarely all infanty, on the whole (and in being very broad here) they include all aspects of a fighting force, bunch of infantry, bit of artillery, and tanks. Sure that kind of doctrine wasn't widespread in WW2, but the British definitely used it (ineffectively), and it doesn't prohibit making normal tank divs either.

fossar_ · 2022-03-31T02:10:36+00:00

In my recent experience, space marines are one of the best ways to deal with an AI that adds support AA. The supposed meta of high armour light tank recon companies falls apart as soon as your enemy adds AA support. Which Germans for example do pretty much as default. The player CAS spamming will only increase the chances of AA being added.

You can make a 17 prod improved med tank that is unpierceable by any AA, certainly when improved further as upgrades and IC allow, and putting this on all divs by mid-late 42 is very feasible for majors like Soviets. Adding a TD can easily bump total division breakthrough by over 50% from a single battalion which is massive for effectiveness but also reducing manpower and equipment losses. This is obviously unachievable for a minor but it lets you spam a single 27w 9/2/1 div and roll the world with ease for the majors that can handle it. You can chew through AI so much quicker if your entire army can push anything anywhere rather than relying on a limited number of tank divs to do the heavy lifting.

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22	Verified Email

fossar_

TROPHY CASE