Elerond

We need to be cautious. Russia is a member of the ISIS coalition and the only reason this happened was because they are indeed heavily invested in there bombing campaign We must recognize the Russian contribution and accept this accident, I am hoping Russia will send ground troops into the ISIS territories so we can finally end this godforsaken war that exists in this benighted land where Western troops are not liked yet are expected to intervene I dont want the West to lose anymore troops but the Russians are angry and they are new to the overall conflict so it makes sense they send the required infantry If Russia sent there its own troops, then there is high change that Syria and Iraq then become part of Russian Federation. And I am not sure if that is what anybody even Russians want. 1. Russia isn't going to be sending ground troops. Their goal is to force a peace process and keep Assad in power, not to retake the country for him. 2. Syria and Iraq becoming part of RF? What? How does that work? In scenario where Russia sends ground troops to take areas from ISIS they don't just need to march in and shoot some people that oppose it, because ISIS members will just become part of civilian population and take over again when those troops go away. To prevent that they need to actually conquer those areas and establish new rule which takes time and effort to build infrastructure, governmental control, dismantling current power structures etc.. Also we have USA's attempt as burden that shows that trusting local governance isn't necessary working policy and Russian current desire to show that it's world's super power and it's able to do same and even more than USA. And then why Syria and Iraq become part of RF, that is because actually accomplishing all previously mentioned things Russia (or any other country that tries to do it) needs at least decade worth of time and effort to build new working order there. And if Russian current political climate don't change in that decade it could be very difficult thing for Russian leadership just give up control of those lands even though they don't necessary want to keep them, as those lands have quite lot natural resources that interest parties behind Russian political elite. So I am saying that Russia (or any other party) sending troops to combat ISIS has high change to become permanent occupation even if such is against their interests. Holy Smoke dude you Finns like to treat people fairly....no way the Russians if they did send troops would be there longer than they absolutely have to and they wouldn't be too concerned with civilians ...but they wouldn't go in guns blazing One month maximum but there would be Russian casualties But what would that establish as soon as they leave ISIS takes control back if you don't dismantle their power structures and support systems, which take time even if you don't care civilian casualties (and such approach can make things even harder as there will be more people willing to join as they have now common enemy).

We need to be cautious. Russia is a member of the ISIS coalition and the only reason this happened was because they are indeed heavily invested in there bombing campaign We must recognize the Russian contribution and accept this accident, I am hoping Russia will send ground troops into the ISIS territories so we can finally end this godforsaken war that exists in this benighted land where Western troops are not liked yet are expected to intervene I dont want the West to lose anymore troops but the Russians are angry and they are new to the overall conflict so it makes sense they send the required infantry If Russia sent there its own troops, then there is high change that Syria and Iraq then become part of Russian Federation. And I am not sure if that is what anybody even Russians want. 1. Russia isn't going to be sending ground troops. Their goal is to force a peace process and keep Assad in power, not to retake the country for him. 2. Syria and Iraq becoming part of RF? What? How does that work? In scenario where Russia sends ground troops to take areas from ISIS they don't just need to march in and shoot some people that oppose it, because ISIS members will just become part of civilian population and take over again when those troops go away. To prevent that they need to actually conquer those areas and establish new rule which takes time and effort to build infrastructure, governmental control, dismantling current power structures etc.. Also we have USA's attempt as burden that shows that trusting local governance isn't necessary working policy and Russian current desire to show that it's world's super power and it's able to do same and even more than USA. And then why Syria and Iraq become part of RF, that is because actually accomplishing all previously mentioned things Russia (or any other country that tries to do it) needs at least decade worth of time and effort to build new working order there. And if Russian current political climate don't change in that decade it could be very difficult thing for Russian leadership just give up control of those lands even though they don't necessary want to keep them, as those lands have quite lot natural resources that interest parties behind Russian political elite. So I am saying that Russia (or any other party) sending troops to combat ISIS has high change to become permanent occupation even if such is against their interests.

We need to be cautious. Russia is a member of the ISIS coalition and the only reason this happened was because they are indeed heavily invested in there bombing campaign We must recognize the Russian contribution and accept this accident, I am hoping Russia will send ground troops into the ISIS territories so we can finally end this godforsaken war that exists in this benighted land where Western troops are not liked yet are expected to intervene I dont want the West to lose anymore troops but the Russians are angry and they are new to the overall conflict so it makes sense they send the required infantry If Russia sent there its own troops, then there is high change that Syria and Iraq then become part of Russian Federation. And I am not sure if that is what anybody even Russians want.

In some areas enemy scaling is just ridiculous for high level player character. Like for example Gunner base where weakest enemies were sergeants. So it seems that Bethesda has not learn from their previous tittles.

Nah. its a war zone and accidents happen ...Russia knows this It was not accident, because Turkey knew that there was no aircrafts that are hostile for them in air. It was just show of power from Turkey.

we already have taken over that since all wars started by western in Middle East and all over the world....Chechen, Bosnian, Viatnamese, Iraqis, and what not....Indonesian immigrants also flocking in, not to mention Bangladeshi and Nepal... There is a joke, Bangladesh political candidate even say "I don't fear to loose, i can go to Malaysia and win", in the campaign. Malaysia also being called Banglasia now... That was just how many Germany has taken in this year. Total amount is much higher. Although Germany is quite generous in its refugee policy. But nothing can compare to those countries that neighbor crisis countries, they will always take biggest load even if they don't have resources to do so.

Malaysia is about size of Germany, which have taken over 800000 refugees from Syria alone. Germany also has over 2.5 times Malaysia's population.

I read that link about Sweden, surly that can't be right....it makes it out like Sweden is some barbaric land? It looks thing from very single minded perspective that cause it to interpret things so that they fit article's writers and publication's political views. Meaning that it is very typical Breitbart article and you should not believe anything that you can#t confirm from other sources. But Sweden is barbaric land, every Finn will tell you that is the case I'll be honest if I was a Swede I would be offended by that article....I am not a swede and I was offended ...what political views do Breitbart follow? It is right-wing and mostly pro-republican publication.

In this case it isn't Christianity precisely but history of our cultures and laws and social changes that are happened and attitude change where people have stopped to care specifics of other people's religious views and grown attitude that asking specifics of other people's religious views is impolite. This is created culture where quite few people care what are religious views of others in our countries let alone religious views of outsiders. Usually only times when people start to care religious views are when somebody tries to force their religious views to others. This is attitude that is common withing everybody regardless of their religious background. I personally had partial religious upbringing where everybody that didn't believe as those that taught me were heretics, although at that time worst offenders of heresy were those in other Christian religions especially Catholicism and religions with Christian origins like Jehovah's Witnesses and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), because they should have know better and Muslims for example were seen as people that just didn't know better and should be saved to mercy of the Christ. But anyway everybody measures things by their own background because that is only thing that people can use as measure stick.

Calling religions or things related to religions heretic or heresy is thing that has become socially unacceptable in many western countries, because of long history of burning and other wise killing people that had different view on some religious matters. Also there have been lots of wars and massacres that were justified by other side's claimed heresy.

I read that link about Sweden, surly that can't be right....it makes it out like Sweden is some barbaric land? It looks thing from very single minded perspective that cause it to interpret things so that they fit article's writers and publication's political views. Meaning that it is very typical Breitbart article and you should not believe anything that you can#t confirm from other sources. But Sweden is barbaric land, every Finn will tell you that is the case

No but there are many people in the West who wont call ISIS Islamic because they are acting in a way that many Islamic commentators say they aren't Muslim. Obama for example doesn't refer to them as Islamic For me I don't know why people think it matters. As I said earlier most people know they don't represent the Muslim community Actually as long as we call them ISIS or ISIL we are calling them Islamic as we accept them to be part of Islam in their name. It is clever branding trick from their leaders. Even Daesh term, which said leaders are said to hate, has implication that they are Islamic. I would not be so bold and assume that most of people know that they don't represent Islam and Muslim community, because even though there isn't actually any good study about subject, so polls and political behavior seem to show that people link them more and more heavily to mainstream Islam. Seriously...you Finns as well? Guys I am really shocked that people look at ISIS and assume this is what the global Muslim community believes...but thanks for honesty Elerond why do people in the EU tease Sweden and say things like " the Swedes are all self-hating and they enjoy taking in refugees " ? I would guess it because that is how right-wing media in USA has pictured Sweden and some people in EU use that is as joke or ammunition depending on their political views. Like for example http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/04/20/self-loathing-sweden-should-only-welcome-persecuted-immigrants-not-the-persecuting/ In Finland I haven't seen such behavior, but Finland has long standing tradition to tease and mock Sweden for everything so we aren't influenced by others in that sector that much because they are usually far behind us anyway with their jokes and teases. But to actually answer your question I don't know and I am not sure if they even say such thing in any meaningful amounts outside of internet forums where it can be used to strengthen some individuals own political views.

No but there are many people in the West who wont call ISIS Islamic because they are acting in a way that many Islamic commentators say they aren't Muslim. Obama for example doesn't refer to them as Islamic For me I don't know why people think it matters. As I said earlier most people know they don't represent the Muslim community Actually as long as we call them ISIS or ISIL we are calling them Islamic as we accept them to be part of Islam in their name. It is clever branding trick from their leaders. Even Daesh term, which said leaders are said to hate, has implication that they are Islamic. I would not be so bold and assume that most of people know that they don't represent Islam and Muslim community, because even though there isn't actually any good study about subject, so polls and political behavior seem to show that people link them more and more heavily to mainstream Islam.

Funnily didn't got actually any of your facts right. But on other hand you got them just so as people from Nordic Countries seem to want to represent their countries to outside world. First Finland is not actually part of Scandinavia (and also there isn't one single approach that Nordic countries have adopted towards any immigrants, but they all have quite different way to approach the subject) Second Nordic countries don't actually give special privileges for Muslims or other immigrants, but instead immigrants often have difficulties to get same utilities that typical members of original population have. Third Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland actually have given military assistance against ISIS for quite long time now. Which is thing that comes as surprise for quite many Nordic people. Forth there isn't not actually those certain districts (where ambulances and firefighters need police escort) even in Sweden where those "news" about it come. I would say that reason why Nordic countries aren't targeted by Islamic terrorists (although Denmark was already target of such attack), is because they are poor targets for them. Because even in Sweden, that has largest Muslim population in Nordic Countries, Muslims make only 5% of total population, which means that amount of people that could be recruited to do such attacks is low. Also attacks in Nordic countries will produce much less coverage for their ideology. Also it is worth to note that Islam isn't actually one single religion, which has quite big influence in current crisis in Iraq and Syria. And it is also quite important factor when it comes to question how probable it is that some members of Muslim population become radicalized. Interesting article to read http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/11/21/whatever-the-heck-bernie-sanders-is-talking-about-its-not-socialism/ The senile old man is confused, or more likely lying. He says he's against capitalism, so he has to be a Socialist, what else is there? Or may be he just doesn't know what all those big words actually mean. Main idea behind socialist movements is to lower economical disparity between people. In classical marxism that means moving means of production from individuals to collective ownership of people, but that is not only way to approach the subject. Sanders seems to follow more right-wing version of socialistic ideologies where social equality is produced with market centered ways like progressive taxations, central buying system for social services, income support for poor and so on. But ownership of everything would still be private and government's role is to equalize money distribution instead of production.

So more rebels, terrorist and supporters of al-Assad is answer to current crisis, I see.

I would say that double edged lasersaber could be used in similar fashion as quarterstaff(short staff in half-staff grip. And it could have some advantages over regular lightsaber like ability block and bind opponent's saber with one edge and attack with another. But I would say also that it don't have similar reach advantage as staff does as you can't move to grip to quarter of staff grip to give you longer reach and jabs have much shorter distance and don't have similar reach and speed advantage as they have in regular staff fighting. Of course laser edges bring some of their own advantages (and disadvantages) that regular staffs (even edged staffs) don't have. But really there is no logic in lasersabres as if star wars universe would have even close similar physics than our universe lasersaber would be mostly weaker choice than regular sword. But we know that it isn't true and Star Wars universe have its own physics that differ from ones that we are familiar with. And overall lasersaber is very unpractical choice of weaponry especially in context where it is used, but do people really care of that fact? Probably not .

It should remembered that every jedi and sith should make their own lightsabers and current sith didn't really have anybody to show and teach what they should aim towards (like how Luke just copied his father's lightsaber design, who used Obi-Wan Kenobi's design and so on), so its unique look in Star Wars universe could be because of that.(even though in reality it is just because movie's costume designer liked that look)

What is EU4? Europa Universalis IV, it is grand strategy game, that focuses on civilization management, from Paradox Interactive.

It is just like western countries have never killed anybody it is just made look like they have done so by using dummies. And western countries have never enslaved anybody, or occupied lands like Malaysia, all those are acted ruses that didn't really happen.

No. Vailian Republics is like Canada, Australia or New Zealand and Old Vailian is Great Britain. (Or maybe Brasil as Vailian Republics and Portugal as Old Vailian would be better example as Vailian language has it roots in romance languages)

There is a ongoing terrorist attack in Mali where terrorist are holding 170 people in hotel. Media sources say jihadists, no knowledge if they belong ISIS or boko haran or some other group

It was added in Treaty of Lisbon this is fist time it's triggered.

France in war against ISIS/terrorism is at least somewhat understandable after two terrorist attacks in one year, but what I find more troubling is how quietly and bit celebrating at least Finnish media has taken the fact that article 222 from Treaty of Lisbon was triggered by France and EU's Defense ministers accepted it, so whole EU is now effectively in war with ISIS/terrorism at least in sense of giving military assistance and troops for France.

They constantly reminded themselves during development what were the core values they promised in KS pitch and what were the additional promises in stretch goals. You can see that Obsidian has tried to realise every promise that they made, even if they didn't have ability to implement it on such level that it is meaningful addition to the game. So I would say that they would had done different decision during development if they hadn't been so locked by their promises during KS.