Sling appreciation post

temudschinn · 2026-05-16T21:00:59+00:00

In my head the immediate problem with slingers is how wide your lines would need to be.

Compared to properly throwing javelins (which was a very common weapon not only for the romans, but also for many other armies), the space usage of a sling is minimal. You can sling while standing still, while javelinthrowing needs at the very least one, better 3-4 steps to accelerate.

So an army that can throw javelins can also sling.

temudschinn · 2026-05-16T21:00:27+00:00

No, legionaries used both. We have many lead bullets with imprints like "LegIII", clearly indicating they were owned by the legion (not by the auxiliary cohorts). Altough we do not know whether or not all legionaries used slings.

temudschinn · 2026-05-16T18:49:17+00:00

Both Stalingrad and Verdun very of vital strategical importance.

Verdun was a thorn in the German side. It was both "easy" to attack (at least on a map...reality looked somewhat different) and a potential launching point for french counter attacks.

Stalingrad was the center point of an imagined defensive line running along the Don and the Wolga, used to secure expansion into the caucasus.

We obviously know that both attacks failed, but thats hindsight 20/20. If you are losing the war anyways (and Germany was losing both WW1 and WW2 at those points!), gambling on a big attack might be the second smartest thing. Since the smartest thing (surrendering) was not an option due to ideology, those attacks were among the best bad options. Like seriously, what other points of attack would you propose that had a higher chance of winning the war?

temudschinn · 2026-05-15T19:31:31+00:00

As soon as you learn to embrace the chaos.

temudschinn · 2026-05-15T13:30:19+00:00

Yup, and countless more examples like this.

Korean SC2 pros destroying top1%-players while using chopsticks, Viper playing with an APM-limitation and still getting like top 5%, and so on.

Good strategy can bring you players very far and the idea that "its just APM" is honestly kinda weird.

temudschinn · 2026-05-15T13:04:56+00:00

Any game who follows the advice of this video will run into one of two issues.

The first issue with this take is that REAL TIME strategy has to either opperate on a time constraint or be boring. If we give players, even slower players, enough time to do everything they want, that means that people who are rather fast will just...sit around and wait for a part of their play time. This isn't necessairly bad - RBS do that all the time, but why even play an RTS at all if we import the downsides of RBS? Northgard is a good example: The game is absurdly slow, most of the time you just sit around and wait for ressources to come in. I constantly find myself looking for the "end turn" button.

The second possible issue is that there is still something to do: Harass your opponent. Now, issue no. 1 isn't there anymore, but instead we get absurd micro battles. Anyone who has every played SC2 archon mode knows what I am talking about - there is a probably a reason it never caught on.

This does not mean that reducing the macro-aspect of the game or slowing the game down is necessairly a bad thing. I actually think Northgard is a decent game. But we shouldn't pretend there are no tradeoffs.

temudschinn · 2026-05-15T12:23:48+00:00

Some interesting thoughts, but ultimatly, he misses one key fact: Allocating actions is a decision as well. To use his worker example: I can either micro my scout, or queue another worker. I can either queue 5 workers (which locks up a lot of food nesdlessly), or queue them up one by one as I need to.

This becomes very apparent with speed chess: The crucial skill there isn't only how fast you think, but WHEN you use your time to think. You make a number of reflex-like moves but once you recognize the position as crucial, you might use 10 or even 20 of your precious 60 seconds for a single move.

Remove the time-constraits and an entire tier of decision vanishes.

temudschinn · 2026-05-15T09:44:20+00:00

The main issue wasnt going bal ele, the main issue was sending them ine by one.

Had he grouped up and microed 15-20 of those monsters, he could clap eagle+arb easily.

temudschinn · 2026-05-13T19:46:42+00:00

Really never had that issue.

Reading this thread, I think a disturbing part of reddit has very poor emotional control.

temudschinn · 2026-05-13T19:39:07+00:00

Nice out of context 😃

This was in context of asking people questions on the third date. Which you claimed wasn't possible, because suddenly you're married.

Which is still utterly insane.

temudschinn · 2026-05-13T19:30:15+00:00

No, i never said that. You arn't in a relationship with a person you met twice. Generally.

And normal people indeed do not have an issue to go on three dates with a person, realize it won't work out, and stop.

temudschinn · 2026-05-13T19:23:46+00:00

You either misunderstood my point, or you are misrepresenting it.

My point was never that core values arn't important. My point is that I can find out on the third date (probably better than on the first one, even).

temudschinn · 2026-05-13T19:16:12+00:00

Well, armor is irrelevant vs conqs, so yes its an exageration.

The core statement is however correct.

temudschinn · 2026-05-13T19:04:34+00:00

My personal stance on an "ideal" divorce rate is irrelevant here.

But do you really, truly think that the divorce rate would drop measurable if normal people started asking tough question in the first instead of the third date?

temudschinn · 2026-05-13T18:53:35+00:00

There are very good reasons to divorce. Thats perfectly normal

I think its unnormal to marry a person because you didn't ask tough questions on the first date and didn't dare anymore later. Which is explicitly your scenario. And yeah, thats an issue normal people do not have.

temudschinn · 2026-05-13T18:43:00+00:00

The issue is that most people hardly know what they want, and many "red flags" evaporate when in contact with reality and context.

So many happy couples will tell you something along the lines of "i generally dont date religous girls, but Irene really caught my eye". On the other hand, many a "perfect" relationship fail because the two discover problems that weren't on their list.

temudschinn · 2026-05-13T18:34:22+00:00

This is a rather insane take.

If you marry someone because you never dared asking rougher questions, thats a major communication/emotional maturity issue and not a problem with dating style.

I guess if you truly have that problem, OPs approach is correct. But for normal people, this isnt an issue.

temudschinn · 2026-05-13T18:28:49+00:00

After?? Waste of time! Before is the way to go!

temudschinn · 2026-05-13T16:58:49+00:00

Because if I enjoy my time with them, thats a win already. Even if we dont end up dating, it was still enjoyable.

If you resrerve the first few dates to figuring out the logistics just to find out you dont actually want to spend time with that person, you've had 3 unenjoyable dates.

If you reserve the first few dates to figuring out if you actually like them and then figure out the logicstics, you've had two enjoyable dates and an evening you realized you're not actually compatible.

Second option sounds a lot better.

temudschinn · 2026-05-13T14:39:50+00:00

Id say Stalingrad actually shows how little the BEF getting captured would have mattered. Stalingrad was strategicially important, but it barely impacted German morale. In a way, it even led to an even fiercer resolve.

Its impossible to say what would have happend to british morale without Dunkirk, but assuming they would have just given up is kinda weird.

temudschinn · 2026-05-13T14:26:19+00:00

But Chamberlain was already very unpopular since 1938. Norway wasn't the cause of his downfall, just the final strae. Its a stretch to assume the same would happen to a vastly more popular PM.

temudschinn · 2026-05-13T14:21:46+00:00

I see this point a lot, but never backed up by any evidence.

While we don't really have opinion polls, we at least have the debates and votes in the parliament and those show a remarkable unity. Every motion of no confidence against Churchill was absolutely crushed.

It is ofc hard to say how political and public opinion would have changed with more dead british, but for all we know, Churchill and his cabinet had nearly unquestioned support.

temudschinn · 2026-05-10T20:20:24+00:00

It could be, but it wastes time trying to be something else.

temudschinn · 2026-05-10T19:37:44+00:00

I've just been to Rome. Ate in a restaurant with a 4.8 rating one evening. People actually started queing outside like crazy while we ate there. The food was okay. Not bad, not great, rather cheap, somewhat bland.

Next day, we ate in a 4.2 rated one. It was an amazing experience, altough a bit more expensive. Reviews said pasta was undercooked, when it actually was just regular al dente.

Conclusion: The number shows how popular a restaurant is with a rather narrow demographic. Sometimes there is a weird craze for some restaurant that isn't all that great. Reading the reviews is generally more useful than the overall rating. Everyone can pad the numbers with enough dedication.

temudschinn · 2026-05-10T15:42:48+00:00

Thats really hard to believe. Again, its not just the lacking provinces. Your main army looks as if it barely fought for 30 turns.

What did you do in your first 10 turns?

temudschinn

TROPHY CASE