搜索结果: *

I understand why it's not here, but the full helm/great helm was the best

if i make my horse my heir, then i get mad and kill him, i can use its hide to make armor or a blanket. or turn him into a comb or a brush made out of my horse heir's horse hair

rowyerboat 说:

So I have a healing companion who I have made my surgeon, but her role is constantly reverting back to "none." Not sure exactly when it's happening, but very often. Anyone else seeing this?

点击展开...

Guys, select their role from the dropdown menu, instead of using the arrows to cycle through. Using the arrows will reset their roles and you'll have to hit them all exactly right like a puzzle if you want them all correct. But if you select them from the dropdown menu, they should no longer reset.

EDIT: Yeah, what duchuy said

Staal 说:

Could you restate what the other criteria is then that would result in IR being bad? Other than the environment. I am genuinely not understanding.

点击展开...

Expounding more on this...

There are people today who don’t think we are better off than we were in the past. They will say that today we have overcrowding and pollution. We are growing up in an era where people tend to increasingly display selfish and narcissistic tendencies. They might say they’d prefer to live with the World War II generation of people, because they prefer, on balance, some of the societal values they had. But then someone else might say, “But there were less comforts back then, and less technology. Our cars didn't go as fast, and we didn't have solar energy. There was more racism too!"

Do you see what I’m getting at? You may take it for granted that “progress” is clear as night and day, but to many people it is not. They measure "progress" in a myriad of ways -- and many of these ways have nothing to do with technology.

There are good things about the present, and there are bad things about the present, just as there were good things about the past, and bad things about the past.

Now, the disagreement here isn’t like one person saying 1+1=2, and the other one saying no, 1+1=3. It is different because in mathematics, for example, there is a normative criteria that is objective and, for the most part, mutually agreed upon, that we can appeal to in order to iron out disagreements. We can show the person, who says 1+1=3, why they are wrong. So the answers are matters of FACT. Our present disagreement, however, is more like one person saying, “Chocolate ice cream,” and the other saying, “No, vanilla!” Ordinarily we call these kinds of disagreements matters of opinion.

Staal 说:

I apologise if you feel I created a strawman. I genuinely thought that is what you meant.

To my mind you were proposing that it could be good; for health, wealth etc. Or it could be bad; destructive powers. I disagree that there is comparative normative criteria in this instance. I was trying to explain why, i.e. because the destructive is only a potential, not actual. Therefore we are only left with the good.

Could you restate what the other criteria is then that would result in IR being bad? Other than the environment. I am genuinely not understanding.

点击展开...

You disagree that there is "comparative normative criteria" in this case? The fact that there is disagreement, between you and Yakubog is sufficient to show that there exists other normative/moral criteria other than your own. Now, you may disagree with those criteria, but it is quite another thing to say that they don't exist. Yakubog is rendering to you his opinion about IR being bad from within the normative parameters that he accepts or subscribes to. You are doing the same from within the parameters that you find agreeable. To you it seems clear as day that "progress" was made possible by the industrial revolution. I am actually inclined to agree. However, that conclusion only follows given that we accept certain normative criteria in the first place -- which we evidently don't, as shown in your disagreement with Yakubog. In order to adjudicate between two competing moral intuitions, we would require some objective criteria to appeal to. The closest thing we have, to my apprehension, is the Aristotelian concept of flourishing, or eudaimonia, based on human function; but even charitably granting such a system, it isn't at all clear how the totality of goodness/productiveness or badness/destructiveness would even be measured without granting some kind of utilitarian-type metric -- which brings us back to the original problem; that is, that there is no unassailable, objective, criteria we can appeal to in order to adjudicate between competing moral intuitions (which is what the war between eudaimonism vs. utilitarianism vs. deontology vs. any other ethical normative system of judgment, represents, and is ultimately based on).

Staal 说:

We will have to disagree with that. That the risk of destruction exists has no bearing. If a greater % of people today lived in wartorn areas than they did 200 years ago, sure, but they don't. We might have the capability of being more destructive, less restraint then before, but we aren't.

As for environment, temporary issue. It will be resolve or we will go extinct. An intelligent species, given the required material resources, will progress. There is no stopping it.

点击展开...

What part of what I said, exactly, are you disagreeing with? I said technology could be used for destructive purposes too. From this you formed a strawman and attributed to me the non sequitur conclusion that because technology can be used for destructive purposes, it is therefore bad or undesirable or something along those lines. But I didn't make that leap. To the contrary I said good or bad, in this case, depends on what normative criteria you subscribe to.

Staal 说:

Let us make your reference to the industrial revolution a new point. How can the IR be a disaster when it has ushered in the greatest revolution in life outcomes on a scale that is incomparable to anything that has come before? The benefits have been simply staggering. Yours is a pointless position to take because the IR is not a moral choice. It is the inevitable progress of humankind. Certainly there are some challenges and damages, but they will be overcome by protecting the individual (as opposed to special interest groups) and letting human ingenuity flourish.

点击展开...

Whether the industrial revolution was a "disaster," or one of the greatest revolutions in life, is a matter of opinion. The IR, like some of the technologies it helped usher in, can be viewed as a two-edged sword. Was the IR better for us? It depends what criteria one is using to measure "success." If it's better that we tend to live longer, more healthful lives, and have access to better technologies that let us, on balance, live more comfortable lives, then one might say yes. But that same technology could be used for destructive purposes too. And never mind being better or worse for us; what about being better for the earth, or the ecosystem we live in? Probably not. But industry and technology have a way of taking off and having lives of their own. Whether it was good or bad depends on what normative criteria you subscribe to -- and because there is no unassailable criteria we can appeal to in order to adjudicate between competing normative/moral intuitions, the question admits no real answer and remains open-ended.

Silent_but_violent 说:

Just saying. I want to see constant patches to fix issues in multiplayer just like there is for single player. Otherwise, refund. That is all.

点击展开...

You can't refund this game. They will not give you a refund. Why do you think you can get a refund?

MegaYama 说:

Well, there is still a lot of unused space on the existing map. I would welcome another faction, which could be inspired by african cultures. Even native american like the Maya could be a welcome change. I just want more factions in the world, since the hand full of those, are pretty boring to see. More settlements, more possibilities to conquer, defend or lose. It would also be enough, if the existing factions would split up and create their own ones.

点击展开...

Yeah, I could be on board with a Mesoamerican inspired faction also. Some people say that we shouldn't necessarily look to real life cultures to get inspirations for a new faction, but it seems exceedingly difficult, to my apprehension, to create a new faction without drawing from some real-life inspiration -- otherwise you risk the faction seeming too "alien," or out of place, and that ruins the continuity of the game.

I don't think a fictional world has to be accurate in terms of corresponding to a set of real world cultures, but having another faction that is too culturally similar to an existing faction wouldn't be so great. So the point isn't that another faction has to be historically accurate, it's that the new faction should be quite a bit different than the existing factions. And since the existing factions are loosely based on an assemblage of different cultures that existed during the Dark Ages, it isn't a logical stretch that we could look for another set of cultures to draw from that existed during this time. That's why I suggested a black African faction in addition to another East Asian faction. Those two would be more unique and interesting than adding a Bulgarian or Armenian inspired faction, for example, in my mind (for starters because their armors and weapons wouldn't be too dissimilar from some of the ones already existing in the game). I think we have Europe pretty well covered, but that is my opinion.

Cèsar de Quart 说:

Well, you did say "amalgamate Chinese and Japanese", where I think there's no need because both have very rich, unique aesthetic cultures of their own.

I wouldn't feel it's "right" to group Vlandians, Battanians and Romans in the same faction, because I recognise that there's room to develop each one into its own visually unique faction. Same with other Eastern cultures I'd like to see represented individually.

点击展开...

Yes, I said that. However, if any new factions are to be added to this game, it will probably only be one or two more (if any). So while I agree that both Chinese and Japanese cultures have "very rich, unique aesthetic cultures" of their own, they aren't as separate from each other as say, the Chinese and the Songhai Empire, or the Empire of Ghana. I am not suggesting that Chinese and Japanese cultures are not separate and distinct; I am rather suggesting that they aren't separate and distinct from each other as Chinese culture and one of those African cultures. This game isn't built like the Total War series, where many more cultures (fictional or not) can be represented. Therefore, a certain degree of generalization is warranted, in my mind. Given that "black" Africans aren't represented in this game AT ALL, it makes more sense to me to have one black African faction and one East Asian faction (or as someone else suggested, Meso-American or something like that), instead of two East Asian factions. It would be nice if we could represent Bulgarians and Armenians too, and a whole host of other cultures, but we can't (just due to how the game is setup). Something has got to give, as the saying goes.

This is, of course, my opinion; and there is no right or wrong answer per se -- especially when you're dealing in the realm of fantasy and fiction.

Cèsar de Quart 说:

Uniqueness comes from familiarity. To people in Kamchatka, Japan or Indonesia, most European historical cultures look the same. To most Westerners, Norse, Celtic and Byzantine are distinct because you're used to seeing their trademark elements represented. Middle Eastern cultures are very, very, very diverse, most people here just don't know it. They bundle together something that's very typically Berber with something very typically Syrian with something very typically Yemeni, and go "yup, arab!".

You yourself feel it's fine to amalgamate Chinese and Japanese, maybe even Viet, Thai and Cambodian, into the same faction. Had they done the same with Celts, Romans and Vlandians, would you feel it's "right"?

点击展开...

I agree with your first paragraph, but if it's directed toward me as some kind of counter-argument, then it's a strawman.

I don't know what you mean by "right," as if the implication is that I believe there is some objectively correct answer. But to answer your question, yes, if they did the same with Celts, Romans, and Vlandians, that would be fine by me. However, because those factions are already in the game, it makes little sense to try and change that. The introduction of new factions, on the other hand, is something that could very well happen.

I don't think we need any new Middle Eastern kingdom. The Aserai are good to represent for all of them. I don't think we need an Iberian culture either, because it's not unique enough. With that being said, I think Britannia, Northern Europe, and Continental Europe are all represented well enough. I think if anything, it would make sense to have some kind of (1) African/Nubian faction, and (2) another East Asian inspired faction. This would work well too, since the African-type faction could go under Aserai, and the East Asian faction could go to the east or southeast of the Khuzait faction. For the East Asian faction, I'd have it mostly an amalgamation of Chinese/Japanese/Korean. I wouldn't go for a faction whose main influence is Cambodian, Thai, or Viet, but maybe they could be reflected in some of the units as well.

hello. me and my dad were talking about this today. i ask him and he says yes is ok for new faction but wat kind. i told him why not california since is the state we live in. obv not modern day but medieval calinfornia. what do u guys think? its major area with high population and economy

I don't think Sturgia looks terrible, but they certainly don't look the best. I think the Empire, Khuzait, and Aserai have the best looks. Vlandia is OK, and Battania has some nice looking units but also some weak looking ones.

Brave_Lung 说:

What a nonsense

点击展开...

lol @ you for taking me serious, resident angry gullible foreign dude

durbal 说:

It's funny that they have this as the theme since the Khuzait are primarily based on Turkic tribes around the Black Sea area (i.e. those around the Byzantines) such as the Pechenegs, Cumans, and to a lesser/mixed extent the Khazars that came before them. TW: Attila apparently also did the same thing -- using Mongolian throat singing as the Huns' theme -- even though there's no evidence that Huns performed that kind of music (and they were about 700-800 years apart!)

点击展开...

\\

Yeah, I think a lot of these anachronisms are implemented just for cinematic reasons. I don't personally have a problem with it, but I am cognizant that they are historically inaccurate -- or at least historically ambiguous. Braveheart is my favorite movie, but many of the Scots in the movie wore kilts and painted their faces with woad.

I'm glad TW: Attila portrayed some of the Huns as more East Asiatic looking though (though it probably was a bit too much with some units). Roman historians almost unanimously described them as short, and dark complected, with smaller eyes, and flat noses. By the time Attila invaded the Roman Empire, much of his forces were made up of integrated Germanic tribes, but Attila and the original Huns he brought probably had more [mixed] Asiatic features. One thing is almost certain: Attila and his original Huns did not look strictly European, nor did they look strictly like what we would call Arabic or Middle Eastern (who typically have larger, more prominent noses). They probably looked like the majority of people found in modern day Kazakhstan or Kashgar (in far western China); that is, mixed but with identifiable East Asian features.

Adorno 说:

What if there are different troop trees to choose from?

点击展开...

This might sound kind of strange, but what if there were an option to let the soldier choose for himself?