Chilloutman

Hello all, After playing few hours of beta I find out that weapons doesnt add to deflection rating. It seems strange as for sure one defend himself much better with weapon than with bare hands. I think that Obs should think about adding deflection rating to weapons as well. I think that best deflection should have swords, then reach weapons and on other end should be axes and maces. Of course it should not affect damage threshold Good idea? Bad Idea? discuss

Its from EE for sure. It was not in original game

Wow dont even remember that mace in BG1

I am little sorry that you dont pick forum members as party members as Tigranes done but as long as you having fun I am happy! Looks like its going well for you so far. And good RP as well.

Ha-ha, noway, in modern world Russian everywhere. Especially in East Europe. For example i planned buy home in Czech republic and.... Oh, how so? Russia is not nice enough?

Nope, they were satelites, regardless of their importance in the eastern bloc they were still satelites and not a part of the Soviet Union, and as Oby said, Uzbekistan became quite industrialized, thanks to the Soviet Union. Well belive in what you want, as long as russians stay as far as possible from where I live I am happy and I am sure that rest of 'satelites' share same point of view.

You really need to chillout, man. If you're admitting that you can make a fairly extensive list of places that benefited from being in the USSR/ soviet bloc then your 90% claim is already cooked, and you're just agreeing that it is. Best not to over egg the pudding in the first place, certainly best not to keep cracking them. Ok I have to state tha I am talking about european states, not asian ones. I am chilled out on many things but not about crimes commited against whole states.

Err, no. Nostalgia for the Soviet Union amongst the former Soviet states (and satellites) is pretty common knowledge so I picked from the first article I found. It'd be nice if it did also show the opinions those 4 countries had on the dissolution of the Soviet Union however that was by no means necessary to disprove your point. You said 90% of people will tell you it was worse then now. This is evidently wrong. Now for those countries not mentioned East-Germany, and to a much lesser extent Poland, have a concept known as Ostalgie which refers to the cultural phenomenon of missing the late Soviet system and Yugoslavia is quite well known for its continued reverence for Tito. Now because I get the feeling some are being a little thick, this is not support for the late Soviet style system nor its leaders, I'm merely pointing out your historical and cultural ignorance. No you just pick states which actualy gain something during soviet reign, those which suffered are out. Not to mention that those states have high russian population

None of those states were a part of the Soviet Union, they were merely satelites, asking how the people of those lands felt about being a part of the Soviet Union is like asking South Vietnam how it felt being a part of USA. If you want to call the survey on selective bias it'd be far better to focus on the baltic states, who generally hate Russia, and to be fair, the survey also left out Uzbekistan, a country that's generally quite friendly with Russia. WHAT? these states were main part of soviet union, there was all manufacturing Soviet union needed to survive. Those were economical powerhouses of soviet union. What do you have in uzbekistan? goats? lool

Yeah european colonisation haha, nothing about Russian imperialism? Its funny how in soviet era west was called imperialist, while ironicaly soviet union was imperium rather than federation

Despite the "economic stagnation" of the Brezhnev years and the imperialist relationship between Russia and many of the Republics most people today actually miss the union or at the very least perceive the break-up to have been negative. E.g. With that said this is irrelevant to the original argument. You incorrectly stated the Soviet republics did not want to be part of the union and were occupied. I assert the much more sensible claim that relationships between Russia and the other Soviet states varied but in general their was popular support and collaboration between the regimes. Amusing how what is deemed correct is not based on facts but on whether or not what is stated fits with pre-existing notions. If a Westerner acknowledges there existed popular support this shows their ignorance; if someone from the East acknowledges support this shows their "indoctrination". These are states which were in bad state before becoming part of soviet union, where is Polad? where is Czechoslovakia? where is East Germany in that, where is Jugoslavia? Skipped to not ruin your statistics? xD

That's 2, and no not initially. Poland was liberated by a joint Polish-Soviet effort, which was followed by a series of agricultural reforms wherein land was redistributed to the peasants which proved to be extremely popular. Furthermore Poland also received “15,000 tons of petroleum products, 2 million tons of iron ore, 569,000 tons of aluminium, 250,000 tons of manganese ore, and 155,000 tons of cotton which naturally encouraged Soviet support and helped redevelop the nation. Of course as we all know relations eventually soured. Haha, no. You post a Wikipedia link of a single event and assert this is proof that every state was in a permanent state of occupation and wanted no part of it. I assert relations between the Soviet states were dynamic and gradually changed. I am exhausted by this disscusion. Final word on that - ask people in post soviet block how they feel about them - 90% of people will tell you how much they sux, how they have to hide their own opinions, how families were persecuted because some member was in english/american/french army. How there secret police control your every move. How shops got empty shelfs. How Soviets destroy economies of working countries. How you were unnable to travel. How everyone was poor. How commies stole property from farmers. Its hard to argue with someone who cant see it. But yeah we got petroleum. Huzah

You do realise how fallacious it is suggesting this invasion means ALL STATES WERE OCCUPIED AND DID NOT WANT TO BE PART OF THE UNION. I'm by no means condoning the Soviet's aggression here, I'm just pointing out the silliness of your assertion. (for some extra historical wankery) The shift right-ward in Czech politics was largely thanks to Khrushchev's expulsion of the "dogmatic" Stalinist hardliners in favour of promoting more lenient market friendly leaders such as Dubček. It's only natural leaders such as this would shift their alliances west-ward. I dont know if all, but Poland definetely didnt want to as well. I put before you fact and you counter it with assumption. I dont even mention political processes which put most other political leaders into death sentences.

Incorrect. Red Army forces operated alongside national communist parties (whom were quite popular as they were often the dominant resistance against the fascists) and were democratically elected either fully into power or as part of coalition governments. The Red Army itself, contrary to what many believed, evacuated the areas quite quickly and were basically entirely gone by the early 50's. ehm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia Some of you guys were not paying attention in history class (if you are not from Russia, otherwise I understand that they dont teach that there)

But Ukraine is just rebelled province of our Empire and we have moral right to make reconquista and punish these traitors. :3 because people like you Russian people have bad reputation in world. Why we most worried about this? Sucessful people are most hated people, losers hate everyone who greatest than they, it's normal. Everyone hate Jews, Russians, Chinese - but these nations rule the world. Go on, show us in which way you are successfull oby? I think I seen some of you 'models' from 3DSmax, and they were awefull so in which way you are successful?

Eh what why? States in soviet union didnt want to be its part, they where occupied. I dont understand why yhey have to be part of it again because of infallibility of territorial sovereignity. Also i agree that coup was kind of undemocratic, however president was elected because he promise that he will sign EU treaty but then he rejected it so he didnt follow part of his deal with his own people. I dont understand why soveriegnity would be silly there were states before Soviets occupy them. No comment on NATO, states are not forced to be part of it Eastern Ukraine also doesn't want to be a part of modern Ukraine, the coup and the violence during the election sorta removed their ability to have a say in the matter. Because, if borders have a magic right to never be altered despite what the people living along said borders feel, then despite the fact that people wanted out of the Soviet Union, they have to stay in it. I don't personally believe this should be the case, but I do consider consistency important. You're right in that there were states before the Soviet Union came to be, but the borders of those states were still quite different from what we have now, and if you argue that those borders are the borders that should exist because they existed at some point and borders shouldn't change, then Crimea becomes a part of Russia, which is something I doubt you consider just. The way I see it either large regions of a nation should be allowed to seceede if a massive majority of the populace seeks to do so, and if (provided the region recieved more state benefits than they payed in taxes in the last decade) any benifits the greater government payed them during the last decade should be given back. But we could return to the earliest borders defined in the history of mankind despite how little sense they make in the current situation. And sure you can say, if you want to be a part of Russia go join Russia, but the Russian speaking majority in the East lived in Ukraine before Ukraine even became a state, it's not like they migrated there and then decided they'd claim the land for themselves. Obama also didn't exactly follow through on a lot of his promises either, doesn't mean a tiny minority of USA would have the right to force him to resign and set up their own government until the next elections. And in regards to NATO, sure states aren't forced to be a part of it, but still, the one thing Gorbachov demanded when he backed out of Germany was that NATO doesn't expand in his direction, you can't blame Russia for wanting a buffer zone against an organization whose sole purpose was to limit Russias power, especially when the head of NATO (USA) was involved in Georgia. As I stated before, east Ukraine is mostly russian now because Stalin put original population into gulags and moved russian citizens in to force obedience, Milions of people die because of it and yet Russians doesn have enough self-realisation about it. Hack there are still monuments to those dictators and tyrans with blood of milions innocent people on their hands. Can you imagine that there would still be statues of Hitler in germany now? Such hypocrisy.

But Ukraine is just rebelled province of our Empire and we have moral right to make reconquista and punish these traitors. :3 because people like you Russian people have bad reputation in world.

Eh what why? States in soviet union didnt want to be its part, they where occupied. I dont understand why yhey have to be part of it again because of infallibility of territorial sovereignity. Also i agree that coup was kind of undemocratic, however president was elected because he promise that he will sign EU treaty but then he rejected it so he didnt follow part of his deal with his own people. I dont understand why soveriegnity would be silly there were states before Soviets occupy them. No comment on NATO, states are not forced to be part of it

Yep that I understand, but they always can move rather then stole Ukraine teritory. If I want to be part of next state I have to move, not claime my Town be part of that state, its hilariouse.

Not true, Ukraine in first place wanted to get out of Russia influence. Doubt that military intervention will make them sooo happy that they no longer gtfo from Russian influence - actually probably even more.

Exactly, even thou Russia is militaristic powerhorse it doesnt have power to fight NATO and EU at same time. He would never win. And only possible outcome is nuclear holocaust. Even if he 'only' wants Ukraine or part of it, it will throw Russia in such position that they would start droping dead of starvation soon. Not to mention leave of intelectual class really soon

If sanctions were really intended to force deescalation then they have already failed. And the self-embargo shows clearly how effective it would be to strike at common Russians. Honestly I doubt anyone in the west thinks Ukraine can be saved anymore. Now discussion should be about containing Putin before he makes his next move. Well I am not sure how big psycho Putin is. Ukraine is one thing but moving to NATO or EU state would definetely grow into WW3 in few hours. Besides, Russian reputation is already screwed as they dont follow international agreements. Putin acts like its writtne on toilet paper.

haha http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/747574 back to their 'world-famous name' xD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegraph_Agency_of_the_Soviet_Union Yeah we in post-soviet block remember well why it was famous xD

I read that Ella Poljak (Putins advisor) confirms that

Well, today Russia oficially invaded Ukraine by soldiers on vacancy I have to admit those russians are brave and their soldiers must be very happy They are brave enough to go on vacancy into warzone and amry give them few tanks to not die by boredom here