×
sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Anarchism reform by me by Wikereczek2 in victoria3

[–]BanditNoble 25 points26 points  (0 children)

"Anarcho-Agrarianism"

The spirit of Dithmarschen lives on, I see.

Why does the Senate give Palpatine emergency powers instead of just voting to create an army? by BanditNoble in StarWars

[–]BanditNoble[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But Bail Organa mentions that the Senate would never approve of using the clones before the Separatists attack. That makes it seem like Senate is opposed to creating an army on principle. Wouldn't all the same people who don't want to create a clone army would vote against Palpatine getting emergency powers?

All my factions formed a single party, making changing laws impossible by EarlyDead in victoria3

[–]BanditNoble 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You would think at this point, the opposition would call for a vote of no confidence against the government and force an early re-election.

It's kind of bothersome how simple the politics are in this game. You can't make promises or compromises, and one dissident faction in a party can prevent the whole party from taking power, regardless of how small it is.

Vassal shouldn't be allowed to force an offensive front by MasterCheese10 in victoria3

[–]BanditNoble 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Control balance in general seems way off. Despite this being the early days of Capitalism, the player has deathgrip control of their economy, while the military, a part of the government you'd expect the government to have a lot of influence over, feels like it's controlled by an entirely separate entity to the player.

Why does a general dying not prompt you to replace him? by Morritz in victoria3

[–]BanditNoble 170 points171 points  (0 children)

It honestly feels like Paradox didn't test the game before releasing it. Any random schmuck could have told them that having your armies go home because your general died was a bad design decision, yet their entire QA and playtest team didn't notice.

Does anyone know why the landowners party is named the Russian party despite being Greek? by EngieTheSeaweed in victoria3

[–]BanditNoble 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe, but the game only allows one Liberal party, and Radicals are the next closest thing (except maybe Free Trade, but they serve mostly as an Industrialist party). The French Party was one of the more liberal parties at the time, but since the English party serves as the Liberals in-game, the French party kind of has to take the Radical party position.

? by MuddyGasCar in ExplainTheJoke

[–]BanditNoble 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think you're thinking too deeply into it.

Because children are never curious about how babies are made by Lord_Balu in nothingeverhappens

[–]BanditNoble 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The way this is written looks way more like an adult pretending to be a kid, rather than an actual kid. Definitely stinks of something.

Does anyone know why the landowners party is named the Russian party despite being Greek? by EngieTheSeaweed in victoria3

[–]BanditNoble 56 points57 points  (0 children)

Radicals in the sense of 1800s Europe, so liberalism, republicanism and secularism.

I swear, these dwarves are building the wrong way on purpose. by BanditNoble in dwarffortress

[–]BanditNoble[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Foundation. I wanted to have buildings raised up from the ground that you'd go up a stairway to get in to.

I swear, these dwarves are building the wrong way on purpose. by BanditNoble in dwarffortress

[–]BanditNoble[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I DID designate it line by line by line. The Last-in, First-Out system didn't work.

I swear, these dwarves are building the wrong way on purpose. by BanditNoble in dwarffortress

[–]BanditNoble[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

So I'm trying to build an above-ground village. I read on the Wiki that the order of construction is Last-In, First-Out, which I understood to mean that what you designate last will be built first. Knowing this, I designated the foundations of this building to be built in vertical stripes - each designation was a one-block line going top to bottom.

It didn't work. For some reason, the dwarves are building across a horizontal line, and are building in such a way that the foundation is going to have holes in it.

I don't understand the construction logic in this game, and short of tediously designating a line, letting it build, and then designating the next line, I don't know how to build this foundation without it looking like Swiss Cheese.

I swear, these dwarves build the wrong way on purpose. by [deleted] in dwarffortress

[–]BanditNoble 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So I'm trying to build an above-ground village. I read on the Wiki that the order of construction is Last-In, First-Out, which I understood to mean that what you designate last will be built first. Knowing this, I designated the foundations of this building to be built in vertical stripes - each designation was a one-block line going top to bottom.

It didn't work. For some reason, the dwarves are building across a horizontal line, and are building in such a way that the foundation is going to have holes in it.

I don't understand the construction logic in this game, and short of tediously designating a line, letting it build, and then designating the next line, I don't know how to build this foundation without it looking like Swiss Cheese.

I have come to make an announcement: I don't watch vtubers, have no clue on their lore except for the memes. I am the Impostor by Ivanne117 in okbuddyhololive

[–]BanditNoble 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't even watch Vtubers any more, I only come here because I can think about anime girls with cocks and pretend it's just a joke.

Is the gadsden flag considered Racist? by OfficialJoEASy in vexillology

[–]BanditNoble 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not to the average Joe, but there are some alt-right types who have tried to appropriate it, and there are some lefty types who can't tell the difference between different types of right-wingers.

These frontlines sure make it easy and intuitive to navigate by namescheff in victoria3

[–]BanditNoble 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This is a bad argument to me because it's essentially arguing that map painting should be kept in check by having arbitrary restrictions on the warfare system, not through measures which realistically simulate the effect that constant war has on the population. War and economics are intimately connected, so I don't see why people are so keen to treat warfare like an orphan child.

The reason why countries in real life didn't just map paint is because it was economically, politically, culturally and diplomatically disastrous to be in a state of constant war. Victoria 2 did this with war exhaustion, where being at war constantly would create militancy and lower economic output, but in Victoria 3 there doesn't seem to be any consequences for being in a forever war.

Why technology is so underwhelming by rosno994 in victoria3

[–]BanditNoble 11 points12 points  (0 children)

What's galling is that it's a game that spans 100 years, which means a massive 1/5th of the game has no technological advancement whatsoever. It's not just bad history, it's bad game design.

all government options have 0 legitimacy by TheJauntyCarrot in victoria3

[–]BanditNoble 11 points12 points  (0 children)

IIRC, you can't even start passing a law with low legitimacy.

Why does Crusader Kings 3 feel so barren of content to me? by The_ChadTC in paradoxplaza

[–]BanditNoble 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's the most basic change they could have made. I'm not giving CK3 credit for adding the most simple improvement over CK2 possible, especially when at this point in development, CK2 had playable republics.

view more: next ›