Reveilled

Woah. That blows my mind dude. Trippy.

I wish it never came up regardless of who posted. Once a developer has posted in a thread, it becomes much more difficult to tell whether there have been new posts in a thread.

Duvet (accoustic version) - boa Useless Trivia: The non-accoustic version of this song was used as the theme tune for the anime Serial Experiments Lain, despite being in English. Other Useless Trivia: boa is the band of Paul Rogers' (of Bad Company fame) children.

Y'know, with all these fed-ex missions in games, they really should make a game where your character is a professional courier. Instead of classes like "Wizard" and "Fighter", have ones like "Postman" and "Mail Sorter". Ooo, they could even do like in PS:T and have a faction sort of thing, so you can be affilated with UPS, FedEx, the US Postal Service, Royal Mail, etc. And then, one day, your character delivers a very special parcel...*cue intro music* :D

This game is like Mornington Crescent, isn't it? "

I've no idea what the hell this is, but it sounds fun. I'm in, as long as I can work out what the hell Ender is talking about. "

All done now.

The main course for today is Roast Turkey, followed by Turkish Delight for dessert. ^_^ <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, it was more like Chicken Nuggets and Fries. Okay, I'll get it all done now.

Today's adjudication will take a little longer on account of me having lunch right now.

Basically, Trieste is split into two provinces, one in the north bordering Ven, Tyr, Vie, and (I think) Bud called Croatia, and one in the south, a supply centre province bordering Alb, Ser and Bud called Split. The idea being that by seperating the only two adjacent differently-owned home supply centres on the board, the poor records of Austria and Italy will be improved. Adding Albania as a supply centre might also be another change I would like to play with, though this would mean removing a newtral supply centre from somewhere else, or adding one more and upping the win criteria to 19. This being wih the intention that placing a third possible neutral centre within the reach of Italy might mean that Italy has the possibility of getting 2 neutral builds (Austria taking Albania and supporting Italy into Greece something that is not likely to happen presently while Austria can support himself in and gains nothing from Albania, while Italy picks up Tunisin 1902). I suppose the third change I might like is the Fleet Rome variant. Italy gets two fleets in this version. I'm not sure all three at once would be such a good idea, but maybe they wouldn't unbalance th game in the wrong direction.

If two sets of seismic orders would force a province to split into two pieces, then neither is valid. Take the example given, and look at a standard diplomact map: Austria: Bul & Gre separate; Ser & AEG connect. Turkey: Bul & AEG separate; Gre & Con connect. So, let's say the first move goes ahead. Serbia now borders the Agean, between Greece and Bulgaria. With that in mind, let's try and put the second move into effect. However, in order for Greece and Constantinople to connect, we would not only need to cut the connection between the Agean and Bulgaria, we would now need to cut the connection between Serbia and the Agean. The only other way to do this would be to split the Agean into two, with the province still having all its present connections, but being on both sides of a landbridge between Greece and Constantinople. Since a province cannot be split into two, and because you cannot seperate more than two provinces, Turkey's move is impossible, given Austria's. Because Austria's move made Turkey's impossible, Austria's move is invalidated. I too think we should wait quite a lot more games before trying this, but I also happen to think we should wait a lot more games before playing a variant. I don't really see what's so wrong with the original map, though I wouldn't mind playing the Croatia veriant, as that's just a small change.

No no, it'd be lots of fun. Just take a look at this Game Report.

What about Seismic Diplomacy? I think I brought it up before, but no one said anything. You start on the basic map, but twice a year, each player can make one change to the map, for example splitting TYS and ION and connecting Nap and Tun.

For Europa Universallis 2: The AGCEEP A huge and comprehensive mod that makes the game far more historical and fun. I love it.

You mentioned the rules, and I wasn't talking about them. If it was in the rules, it would be a rule, not a convention. You also assume that I voted against restarting.

When a player comes in as a replacement, they come in at the point the other player dropped out. They don't get to start all over again. Whether or not I've seen Turkey hold completely in the first turn is here nor there. There's plenty of opening strategies I've never seen played in Diplomacy. There's an opening for England where all three units are ordered to Yorkshire (which is equivalent to ordering every unit to hold), and it has been used. So, I've seen a game where England effectively ordered to completely hold on the firs turn. Why not Turkey? I didn't say Unanimity was the rule. I said it was the convention. As far as I know, there's no rule that says North goes at the top of a map, but by convention, that's where you usually find it. I can't find you a place in the rules where something is decided by unanimity, but it is conventionally accepted in the hobby that all changes to the rules after the game has started have to be decided unanimously. If you want evidence of this, look at turn length changes and how draws are decided. Show me a single place in the whole hobby where after the game starts the rule changes are decided by majority rule.

Only one nation was "denied" a turn, and we aren't even sure about that, as we don't know the circumstances of Nart's disappearance. For all we know, he just decided not to come back to the forum. Both France and Turkey deliberately decided they were going to hold in position that turn, as they told us in previous pages. They weren't denied a turn, they conciously chose not to play. Changing the rules of the game should require the agreement of all players. It's not fair to the players if a group of them can get together and just change how the game is played on the basis of a majority vote. Everyone signed up for this game on the understanding that after Spring 01 is played, Fall 01 is played, and also on the understanding that if you drop out, you stop playing and someone takes over from where you dropped out. Diplomacy isn't a democracy. It's a game. And as such, the game has to be fair to all participants, not just most of them. Unanimity is the convention of Diplomacy, as well. Unanimous agreement is required to end the game in a draw. If even one player with one centre votes against it, there's no draw. Similarly, unanimous agreement is required to change turn length. Unanimous agreement should be required to change turn order and unit positions.

You don't just replace a text-based hyperlink system with speech. Something has to propel the speech to happen, unless they are suggesting everyone just talks without the player activating dialogue. Last I heard from a Bethesda developer, it was hinted that an approach to dialogue trees was being pursued. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think that's what they mean. The distinction I think they're making is whether the responses are "lifeless [and] text-based", or speech-based. Obviously, the Player has to make text-based comments, but one might argue that that goes without saying. Talking about the swtich from the keyword system to a dialogue tree perhaps isn't quite as interesting as mentioning that the new system will have over 50 hours of speech. ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't like speech for speech's sake. It just doesn't make me more interested, doesn't make me feel more immersed, doesn't add significant depth to the game, in short: it doesn't do it for me. I can read faster than any actor's speech, create the necessary intonations mentally, and imagine better than any developers programme. Speech for text is not the problem. That is froth and bubble. It's what the characters are saying that's important, not their accents. Focusing on the addition of speech makes be think the characters have nothing worthwhile to say ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I, on the other hand find speech to be greatly immersive. I too can read faster then any actor's speech, but in games that have it, like KotOR, I deliberately don't read the subtitles (the first time through, anyway). I suppose that's a case of different strokes. As to whether there'd be anything worthwhile to say, well, I don't think that assessment is really fair. What could have been said about the new system that would persuade you that the characters have something worthwhile to say? A system involving significant amounts of speech implies to me a dialogue-tree system, and other than saying that explicitly, I can't really think of anything that could be said about the dialogue that wouldn't involve spoiling some part of the plot, or be completely subjective (like saying the dialogue is interesting and engaging).

You don't just replace a text-based hyperlink system with speech. Something has to propel the speech to happen, unless they are suggesting everyone just talks without the player activating dialogue. Last I heard from a Bethesda developer, it was hinted that an approach to dialogue trees was being pursued. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think that's what they mean. The distinction I think they're making is whether the responses are "lifeless [and] text-based", or speech-based. Obviously, the Player has to make text-based comments, but one might argue that that goes without saying. Talking about the swtich from the keyword system to a dialogue tree perhaps isn't quite as interesting as mentioning that the new system will have over 50 hours of speech. I must confess that this sounds intriguing. Of course, so did Morrowind, and I hated that. Nevertheless, I'll probably be a damn fool and buy it, play it for a few hours, hate it, leave it for a few months and come to the conclusion that I didn't give it a fair chance, play it for a few hours, hate it, etc. etc. Just like Morrowind.

I remembered another one: Up Pompeii! :D We never really learned anything in my Higher Classics class, we just watched Up Pompeii a lot. It may explain why I got a C, but it was still worth it.

Wow. What a mess. This game seems almost surreal.

I thought the League of Gentlemen was just as bad as Little Britain. "I made a little brown fish"?

I'd honestly preferred you just listed the moves. Better still, convert the moves to notation and don't list the results. If I'm the only one who can understand it, so much the better. "

Come on! The suspense is killing me.

Well, I put religion in quotes for that reason when referring to Confucianism as a state religion. Are Taoism and Confucianism similar enough to be consered a single relgion? I've never done a great deal of reading on either, but I was always under the impression that Confucianism stressed Stability, Authoritarianism and Altruism, while Taoism was a religion that emphasised Individualism and Minarchism. As to how communism will work, I would guess that because Government in CivIV will be more like SMAC than other civs, there will be a governmental option regarding your State's relation to religion, probably with the options "Religious", "Secular", and "Atheist". Probably also "Theocratic" and possibly "Plural". As you go progressively down the list toward Atheism, you are less affected by religions penalties and effects. A Theocratic society gets more bonuses from citizens that share the state religion, and those that don't are more likely to be unhappy, while a Secular one is more likely to dissatisfy citizens of the Majority religion, and an Atheist one (which a typical communist state would have) dissatisfies every religious citizen, but makes your civ immune to the effects nearby religious states create (e.g., while your Muslim citizens are dissatisfied with your Atheist government, a neighbouring Muslim state is unable to convert more of your citizens to its state religion). That's my guess, anyhow,