site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   2408 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for December 20, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The hotly anticipated Civilization VII continues to unveil its leaders, and they’re raising a few eyebrows. Full list - https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Leaders_(Civ7)

There are some classic heavy hitters: Augustus, Charlamagne, Xerxes, Napoleon, Hatshepsut, Queen Isabelle of Spain.

Then there some fairly obscure figures that even most history buffs probably don’t recognize: Trung Trac, Pachacuti, Queen Amina.

Then there are some odd choices that seem to indicate the series is being a bit more abstract as to what constitutes a civilizational “leader,” like Confucious and Benjamin Franklin. They were never heads-of-state, but they were extremely influential figures on states and societies.

But some of the leaders are real stretches: Machiavelli? Ibn Batutta? And most controversially of all… Harriet Tubman? She did great stuff, but she was nowhere close to being a national leader or a major cultural force. If they wanted a black American, why not go with MLK? Or at least Frederick Douglas?

It’s hard not to see woke forces at play. Back in the CIV 4 days, the vast majority of leaders were men and disproportionately white or Asian, and the game was politically insensitive enough to let you play as Stalin. Since then, the leader options have become far more diverse, especially in Civ VI. For instance, if you were to try to think of French leaders who embody the nation, who would come to mind? Probably Napoleon, Charles De Gaulle, Louis XIV, maybe Henri IV, Napoleon III, or if you wanted to stretch what “France” is, you could say Vercingetorix or one of the Merovingians. Instead, Civ 6’s French leaders were… Catherine De Medici and Eleanor of Aquitaine.

Who are some leaders that should be included in Civ VII that haven’t been in any previous games?

..hotly anticipated.. by whom?

These games have gone to shit. Civ 5 was only so,so. They're not even trying. You should have a fricking globe. You should have good AI. None of that is present.

Sometimes it feels like Alpha Centauri was the last time they tried anything truly revolutionary with the formula. I should really play it again and refresh my memory. I remember it was the singular instance of being able to design my own units, do any sort of serious geo engineering, have floating cities, seriously need to worry about the local flora or fauna, etc. Many of those features haven't been seen again. I can't recall the last Sid Meier 4X game that let you create custom units. Even the spiritual successor, Beyond Earth, didn't.

Unfortunately, the AI in Alpha Centauri is still kind of bad. It will forward-settle 5 tiles away from your cities like a complete imbecile and all the AIs band up together if the player ever gets strong.
Plus, you don't really get to choose between econ/tech/military. If you do, the ginger bitch will declare war and invade you with 50 units as soon as mathematically possible.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats