kanisatha

As far as I'm concerned, way to go little Lithuania!! Way to show the supposedly big and strong countries (Germany, France, Italy) what it means to have even the tiniest bit of a backbone.

These were assessments of NATO capabilities relative to Russia from before the Ukraine war. Current assessments are that both NATO and the US had continuing Cold War mentalities about Russian capabilities being akin to Soviet capabilities at the height of the Cold War, which is to say we severely overestimated Russian capabilities. Ironically, many experts assess that even as we overestimated Russian capabilities, we are simultaneously underestimating Chinese capabilities (and that's going to seriously bite us on the ass very soon).

Hehe, perhaps you need to think farther than even Iberia and bring those investments all the way across the Atlantic. I promise you they will be safe here.

Same here. And especially since I don't shell out for any streaming services. CBS used to be my go-to network for shows I loved for years. But now, three years in a row, they've canceled one of my beloved shows: first Hawaii 5-0, then SEAL Team (putting it in Paramount+ was the same as canceling for me), and now Magnum P.I. So now I literally have zero hour-long shows carrying over from the 21/22 season to the 22/23 season.

Now if only we could use our tax returns to buy an actual F-14 Tomcat. I'm sure they're cheap at the Boneyard.

No I don't. And I also don't read the same kind of sites on the left.

@Mamoulian War, I've never ever seen this outlet (and I read an axtremely wide range of news and academic sources).

Completely agree. Modular robotic systems are the future of warfare.

Here's a great piece on a Russian angle to the war that the many casual observers and commentators are not seeing: https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/87319

Nah. Biden has made it central to his foreign policy that Russia needs to lose in Ukraine. And he has enough Republican support for this policy. In fact, among both R's and D's in Congress, the demand is for Biden to go even further in supporting Ukraine, such as providing missiles that can hit Russian territory.

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2022/06/us-pledges-more-weapons-ukraine-milley-warns-numbers-clearly-favor-russians/368229/ https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3064765/more-than-50-nations-pledge-to-help-build-ukraines-defense/ https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2022-06-15/nato-defense-ministers-to-discuss-weapons-for-ukraine

Yeah, I like analysts like Michta who think big and can see the big strategic picture. His overall geopolitical conclusion is absolutely correct. The war in Ukraine is ultimately not just about the future of Ukraine. It is very much also about the future of Europe.

Piece from a very highly regarded academic that puts this very issue in great perspective: https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-could-be-an-inflection-point-eu-us-west-war-russia/

I really liked and appreciated the attention and support MS gave to their Stalker 2 Ukrainian colleagues. A very nice tribute.

I went from III to V (still play V a lot) and skipped IV and VI. So I guess it's the odd-numbered ones for me. And ARA apparently has Civ 5 lead designers working on it, so that may be a good sign.

It has a very strong user rating on Steam. But a few folks here were somewhat down on it. I still intend to buy it at some point. And yes, Civ 7 is supposedly soon to be announced: https://www.pcgamesn.com/civilization-vii/narrative-lead-job-posting

This reveal hasn't got any discussion here. Anyone have any thoughts? After people's disappointment with Humankind and Old World, is this the game that tops Civ? I'm cautiously hopeful.

Fair enough. I also did know about the switch to UE5, and Dollarhyde's departure (the job posting for a replacement is still up so I'm guessing the position's not yet been filled). Maybe I can be mollified if part of the development delays involves adding in third-person perspective into the game.

My term for games like this is 'reality RPG.'

Well, for me, that coming together point was two years ago when they released the trailer. That they didn't say anything the first three years of develoment I get and I agree with. But from the moment they released that trailer two years ago, they ought to have been more interactive with their fans about the game. That still doesn't preclude restructurings or changing directions; both Bethesda and Bioware have done exactly that with their big games even while maintaining a line of communication with their fans. That's why I never had any real concern or fear that I was not going to get my Starfield and my DA4. Separately, when was the last time anyone from Obsidian bothered to post in this forum? I feel that interactiveness with us ended right about the time they folded into Xbox. We've not had an active community manager here in years. These things matter to me.

I agree with you here, @BruceVC. And I profoundly disagree with that pcgamer article's pov. In particular: "Without an excess 990 planets or so, Starfield could shroud what it has in mystery. Let me spend hours poring over every tiny detail on a few incredibly detailed planets; let me imagine and speculate about what else is out there. Wondering what's out there is the single greatest thing about space travel and science fiction. The worst is discovering that the answer, 99% of the time, is "another boring rock."" and: "Maybe I'd be less pessimistic if Starfield's aesthetic didn't seem to be a more grounded, far less colorful take on what No Man's Sky has already been doing for years. The montage of planets at the end of Bethesda's footage made me retroactively appreciate No Man's Sky's pulp sci-fi cover (opens in new tab) art style even more." are things I completely disagree with. Todd Howard has repeatedly claimed Starfield is in part a NASA space exploration simulator. That is exactly the huge draw of this game for me. I *want* to play in a NASA "open star system" sandbox. I *want* that realism very much. I want that for every one planet I discover with vibrant life there are a hundred other planets that are empty and dead. And I absolutely do not want that ridiculous pulp sci-fi art style, and love how things look in this game. I want this game to be a space exploration sim, just as much as I want it to be an RPG. And as such, I want it to be as realistic as possible.

Here's the latest I've been able to gather: https://wccftech.com/avowed-has-had-a-reboot-of-sorts-and-may-be-further-away-than-anticipated-rumor/ https://www.aroged.com/2022/06/13/what-happened-to-obsidians-avowed/

Seems conveniently limiting. Why not also look at Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan? And in Somalia, in the elder Bush's initial intervention in 1992, academics agree the intervention saved a minimum of 1 million people from starving to death.

To ease the burden for @Keyrock Also, this game has gone through a restructuring of sorts over the past several months, which you can read about in their recent Steam updates: https://store.steampowered.com/app/919360/Alaloth_Champions_of_The_Four_Kingdoms/

Interesting. But to @Theonlygarby's point, I agree there is no way physically to allow a person to explore the whole of even one small-sized planet let alone 1000. Even a planet like Mercury's surface area is vast enough to make it impossible within an open world game to allow the exploration of every square inch of Mercury's surface. So "go anywhere" on any of these planets, to me, does not literally mean we can explore every square inch of that planet's surface. It will still be about exploring specific discreet locations on that planet. This is why the very term "open world" is something I've always had a huge issue with, because it is obviously a giant exaggeration and a misnomer.