Lurker > LinkMarioSamus

I still maintain not finding Italian or French history to be especially interesting on the whole but I feel like I came across as too uptight when I first said that. Might have just been sore from all I read in Compton's book. To be fair, when I got to Venice's entry I greatly enjoyed reading it and I do find it interesting how this one city became a world power for a time, and I also really liked reading about Charlemagne and his Carolingian dynasty (plus the earlier Merovingian dynasty), so it isn't a complete loss. Also like I said I got in a bit of a cranky mood last time I was in Italy so that might be clouding my judgement. Mostly just trying to think of where in Europe I'd like to visit since I already live in Ireland.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

Putting off playing Age of Empires II for a month because reasons, but I'll probably come back in September. I consider playing it to have gone better for me than playing FFVII two years ago.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

Got my first shot, Pfizer vaccine.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

Updated list of civilizations I've tried in Age of Empires II, in order of how much I liked them:

1) Mongols
2) Indians
3) Japanese
4) Celts
5) Khmer
6) Vikings
7) Bulgarians
8) Goths
9) Incas
10) Britons
11) Chinese
12) Slavs
13) Spanish
14) Turks
15) Persians
16) Mayans
17) Tatars
18) Cumans
19) Teutons
20) Ethiopians
21) Saracens
22) Vietnamese
23) Aztecs
24) Portuguese
25) Lithuanians
26) Magyars
27) Huns
28) Koreans
29) Malians
30) Malay

Only the Berbers, Byzantines, Italians, Franks, and Burmese left to go!

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

Knocked out the Cumans and Vietnamese. Neither civ would rank very high on my favorites but neither would rank especially low either, albeit the latter mostly because of some conveniences and ELEPHANTS (poor Malay). Also I feel like I just find the Central Asian steppe nomads interesting. I liked the Cumans and Tatars about equally which I was not really expecting. They were the two civilizations I've read up the most about since playing the game due to their inclusion in the Definitive Edition. Pretty interesting how the Cumans resided in areas as far apart as Siberia and the Balkans.

I've decided the Burmese will be the last civ I try out, even after the Franks (I feel so sorry for saying I don't find French history especially interesting, it was more in comparison to other European nations though really. I've wanted to elaborate on that for a while but keep putting it off. Maybe when I actually get around to trying out the Franks?). Part of me feels a little disappointed in the Southeast Asian civs since I liked the Khmer so much, but in fairness the four SE Asian factions included in the game were completely different beasts in real life so it's probably not fair to expect. The Khmer were known for building big cities and thus they get bonuses relating to interior development, whereas the Malay are meant to be a seafaring nation and the Vietnamese are a strange kind of defensive civ - their portrayal in AoE2 seems to take mostly after the wars they fought against Chinese and Mongol aggressors AFTER losing their major cities. The official Wiki even posits that the tactics the Vietnamese used much later in history against French and American invasions were essentially projected too far into the past. I think the problem here is that it's easy for me to lump geographically similar civilizations together in terms of the game, especially as all the SE Asian civs were introduced in the same HD expansion and are the only civs that can train Battle Elephants (separate from the Persians' unique unit War Elephant). It used to be worse since they all shared the same building style, but fan demand caused the Vietnamese to change to the same East Asian building style used by the Chinese, Japanese, Mongols, and Koreans to reflect their more Sinicized nature compared to the Indianized nature of the other three SE Asian civs. Alternately maybe I just don't know much about Southeast Asia, even though I've actually been to Kuala Lumpur and Singapore. Noteworthy is that Southeast Asia wasn't covered in much of any capacity in Norman F. Cantor's book.

For the record, what I said earlier about Italy was due to how last time I spent my winter break there I got tired of spending all day moving around. And with France, as far as medieval history is concerned part of the issue is that what I find most interesting about the low middle ages is the way different peoples would move around and settle everywhere which is really not true for France in comparison to, say, England or Russia. However Charlemagne and his Carolingian dynasty might still be among my favorite medieval figures due to their impact on the rest of Europe. Playing as the Bulgarians and Slavs has also gotten me more interested in Eastern Europe.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

I gave the Persians a try in Age of Empires II. They have only two bonuses, both of which are economic in nature (their team bonus benefits their knights though), however they are designated as a cavalry-oriented civ in-game due to their many options in that category and their infamous unique unit the War Elephant. So naturally I just crushed my opponent with a horde of Light Cavalry after advancing to the Castle Age after an initial Scout Cavalry raid (Scout Cavalry are the only cavalry unit available in the Feudal Age and they upgrade to Light Cavalry in the Castle Age and Hussars in the Imperial Age) with a few Elite Skirmishers on hand to cover against Pikemen. When the game finished I was absolutely shocked this turned out to be such an effective strategy - it was one thing to do this as a civ with a bonus regarding those units like the Mongols or Turks, but the Persians?

Then it dawned on me that both of the Persians' non-team bonuses operated in the background the whole time and contributed massively to my dominance. They start the game with 50 extra food and wood with no concessions whatsoever (contrast the Chinese) and I would not be surprised if this helped me get my economy off the ground nice and early. Second, their town centers and docks have twice the usual amount of hit-points and work incrementally faster from the Feudal Age onwards. That last bonus simply cannot be overstated - the Town Center is where villagers, the main resource-gathering unit, are trained, and I also built a nice fishing armada to help with food too. The Scout Cavalry line of units cost only food but a lot of it, but I was able to leverage my economy to devastating effect in this category. Heck if anything I feel like I should have just trained swordsmen instead of skirmishers to help deal with pikemen since I was putting quite a strain on my wood for reasons not entirely clear to me, but yikes. I think the Persians' main weakness is supposed to be their poor defensive options, but they have strong economy bonuses and lots of military options.

And I'm glad I was able to write so much because nothing really struck me about the game I played until the Light Cavalry decapitation strike. So far here's the order of civs in the game I've tried based on which ones I liked most:

1) Mongols
2) Indians
3) Japanese
4) Celts
5) Khmer
6) Vikings
7) Bulgarians
8) Goths
9) Incas
10) Britons
11) Chinese
12) Slavs
13) Spanish
14) Turks
15) Persians
16) Tatars
17) Teutons
18) Ethiopians
19) Portuguese
20) Magyars
21) Huns
22) Koreans
23) Malians
24) Malay

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

Indoor dining here in Ireland was supposed to start back this Monday but now not anymore because of the Delta variant. I think my country is having some issues getting vaccinated.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

Tried out the Turks, Slavs, and Teutons since. None of them really stood out to me.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

I gave the Magyars a shot a while ago and will try out the Turks tomorrow. The Magyars are kind of similar to the Huns except they get a cost discount on the light cavalry line instead of cavalry archers, with their cavalry archer bonus coming from their Imperial Age unique technology which I didn't get far enough into to use. I just pelted the opponent with light cavalry and archers until they submitted, and there really wasn't much to say. So uh here's my ranking of how much I like the civilizations I've tried out:

1) Mongols
2) Indians
3) Japanese
4) Celts
5) Khmer
6) Vikings
7) Bulgarians
8) Goths
9) Incas
10) Britons
11) Chinese
12) Spanish
13) Tatars
14) Ethiopians
15) Portuguese
16) Magyars
17) Huns
18) Koreans
19) Malians
20) Malay

The most common theme I can think of with some of the civs towards the bottom are that their bonuses are more passive and they might not necessarily be geared towards any one kind of play. For all I know that might change once I get to higher-level play, but for now I'm just trying them out at my leisure. The Malians get wood discounts on all buildings and extra pierce armor on their infantry, which are useful bonuses but are not terribly exciting. Might be a smidge of cultural bias too, for instance my parents are from India.

I could have elaborated on the Chinese but I chose not to earlier. As you can imagine their specialties are in population booming and technology, making it easy to build up an effective economy with them but with the tradeoff that they lack much in the way of direct military bonuses, making it a little on the difficult side to actually finish an enemy off. They start with six villagers and no food (also less wood) vs. most other civilizations starting with three villagers and 200 food in random map games, which has given the civ as a whole a bit of a learning curve in the competitive community since they can kickstart their immediate economy faster at the expense of not being able to train more villagers right from the beginning, and then their Town Centers provide 10 population slots instead of 5 to further the population boom theme. And as I mentioned they get a discount on every technology they have access to, which can result in a roaring economy. The Chinese are specified in-game as an archer civilization, but that's probably mostly due to their unique unit (repeating crossbow, what else?), Imperial Age unique technology (named Rocketry, increases the attack of their unique unit and Scorpions), and full Archery Range roster aside from Hand Cannoneers. That last part is a bit of a joke within the Age of Empires community for supposedly being a blatant historical inaccuracy due to the Chinese inventing gunpowder IRL, but to be fair I'm not entirely sure if the Chinese really used gunpowder like that. Also possibly for game balance reasons.

Speaking of historical accuracy issues, the Bohemians and Poles will be their own playable civilizations as of the next expansion pack. Nice discussion we had there about them. Might elaborate on some thoughts I have on the Huns and Franks later.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

I tried the Chinese out in AoE2. Not one of my favorite factions so far but their start is interesting and they're very flexible. I relied primarily on archers, with some infantry in the mix to deal with pesky skirmishers and knights. I completely forgot that they a discount on the cost of EVERY technology when I started writing this, so they're a bit of a background Civ bonus, but not to the extent of the Portuguese.

I could elaborate more on the Huns and Franks, but I don't feel like doing so now.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

Tried the Portuguese out. They feel kind of bland TBH, with mostly economic bonuses. That being said, it's at least clear to me which civilizations are more geared towards the late game. Also IIRC the last three civilizations I tried out coincidentally get all Blacksmith techs. The same is true of the Chinese who I will be trying out next.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

Tried the Spanish out, not one of the factions I liked playing as the most. BTW I'm playing the Definitive Edition.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

I gave the Bulgarians a try and I liked using them even more than the Goths who were already one of the factions I liked more. Honestly what I most wanted was a classical strategy game, and Age of Empires is delivering so hard on that regardless of my misgivings. Maybe it just feels so good to be back playing after those weeks of exams! I also gave the booming tutorial a shot and tried the third Genghis Khan mission again, with the latter attempt aborted when I made a stupid mistake and found out my last save was too far back.

In general I seem to like attacking with swordsmen in the early Castle Age after some possible raids earlier, often also with swordsmen. I'd still prefer to give every civilization a try before attempting Moderate difficulty again, but it'll be nice to experience some of these civs' other bonuses. With the Bulgarians I never even built any Kreposts (a special fortress only the Bulgarians can build, cheaper than castles but with less utility) or utilized any of their cavalry bonuses - instead I effectively leveraged their free swordsman upgrades and powerful blacksmith (they work faster and food costs for technologies there and the siege workshop are halved) to keep pressure on my opponent. I played as the Goths fairly similarly but it felt more effective here. I think the problem is that the Goths don't have any particularly good economic bonuses early game so they rely on their infantry discounts to keep pressure on their opponents - their poor defenses not helping matters!

Also, this was my first time using an Eastern European civ and the building art is magnificent! I'll have Exdeath know that according to a leak, Age of Empires IV has the Rus as one of the eight playable factions instead of grouping a bunch of Eastern Europeans together as "Slavs".


---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

I tried out the Goths yesterday and really liked using them. Honestly I could say quite a bit but I don't even know where to start.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

Forgot to address this earlier, but in AoE2 the Tatars are basically an amalgamation of a number of Turkic steppe peoples from Central Asia and some of the Mongol successor states. Their campaign is about Tamerlane.

And going back to the Goths, people like to poke fun at how they have access to gunpowder units despite being a Roman-era barbarian tribe while the Chinese don't. And that's all I'm going to say for now.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

I do like Age of Empires II a lot. I have lots of fond memories of playing it when I was younger too, despite being horrendous at the game (and I'm still not that great at it, but I do have some desire to get better). I do, however, think that Civilization IV is a better empire-building game and StarCraft is a better combat game, so to me AoE2 doesn't fully live up to those two and that might be a bit of reason why I might sound negative about the game at times. It's one of the reasons I opted to delay returning to the game - well that and having exams, although those will be done in two days.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

To be fair I played Civ and Age of Empires in the first place because of my interest in history. Also the book is actually called Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages. I guess I was more just pondering something.

I hate the whole concept of city-states so bah to Venice's inclusion in Civ5. Sorry.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

I know Venice and maybe some other Italian city-states were genuine world powers at points, which is why the inclusion of Venice in Civ5 doesn't strike me as completely odd.

Honestly that might just be medieval French history? Like I said, I really hate how I came off in that post. I'm kind of just getting back into history stuff so most of what I said is based on what I'm doing now and past recollections of Civ. And some of it is just the Franks not looking like an interesting civ to use in Age of Empires II. I more meant that I generally don't find French history to be that compelling, but more in the sense I usually wouldn't go out of my way to learn about it. Someday maybe that will change. Half the problem here might be that I'm more of an ancient history guy, which I say pretty much based solely on my most memorable games of Civ being played as Egypt, Greece, and Persia as mentioned before.

The Bulgarians are somewhat justifiable in that they also represent the Turkic Bulgar peoples, but point well-taken! Going by some of the AI player names the Slavs do seem intended to represent Poland. Might also be worth noting is that the Slavs represent Poland in the reworked Genghis Khan and Barbarossa campaigns, which is still an improvement over them being GOTHS in the original campaigns! On that note though, the Goths still stand in for a lot of other cultures in some campaigns and scenarios, such as Austria in the Barbarossa campaign, the Anglo-Saxons in the Hastings scenario (somewhat justifiable because the Goths' infantry focus goes works better than the Britons' archer focus, plus the Goths' unique unit is the Huskarl which Anglo-Saxons did have in reality), Wessex in the York scenario, and the Lombards in the Bari campaign. As far as the Slavs are concerned, the problem might be that they were introduced in the first HD expansion Forgotten Empires which was a fan-made mod originally. Same problem with Indians and Italians. The Bulgarians were introduced later, and your complaint about them being supposedly distinctive enough from "Slavs" is far from uncommon.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

I was afraid to respond regarding Civ because, well, let's put it one way: I don't find Italian history terribly interesting and you already know I feel somewhat negatively of Civ5 (again, it's not a bad game, just an unsatisfying one IMO as a big fan of 4) so I didn't want to sound too angry.

I'm reading Norman F. Cantor's Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages and I swear I dread any time I get to something Italy- or France-related (with the occasional exception like Charlemagne). I'm even saving the Italians and Franks as the last civilizations I'm testing out in Age of Empires II. The stupid thing is that the Franks (yes, they're called Franks in-game, not simply French, even though their campaign is about Joan of Arc instead of, say, Charlemagne) are meant to be a good civ for those new to the game due to their rather basic bonuses (tougher cavalry, faster foragers, free farm upgrades) and the Joan of Arc campaign being numbered first before the Definitive Edition but uh, I just don't find them very interesting in the game.

Sorry if this comes across as Italy- or France-bashing. I've never played as the French in Civ either (and Italy has never been playable, probably for fear of too much overlap with Rome and Italy not really being a political concept until the 19th century) for that matter. Apologies to any Italian or Frenchman out there, I have nothing against either country. I visited Rome back in 2014/2015 (I think I even spent New Year's there!) and enjoyed how the city of Rome is basically a museum to its ancient forebears (there's even one ruin where lots of cats play!). Also basically every meal I had was pasta or pizza which I did not object too in the slightest! I got cranky at times though due to us being out a few days in a row from dawn to dusk without much rest.

Now I feel like apologizing profusely. I have nothing against Italy or France personally, just don't find either country's history particularly interesting even compared to other European countries, let alone a lot of Asian ones. I REALLY hate how lots of Americans act as if China never existed before the pandemic and the Middle East is a breeding ground for terrorists when both have been major centers of culture and civilization for all of history. Might as well throw in Mexico and illegal immigrants into the conversation too.

Also yeah, some of the Civ names in Age of Empires II are a bit silly just for the sake of old-time language, e.g. Britons instead of English (this is not even correct, Britons were Celts who formed the basis for Wales, plus to add insult to injury in some of the campaigns they're addressed as "British"), Franks instead of French, and Saracens instead of Arabs. I think the idea with the original game was supposed to be leading a civilization literally from the fall of Rome to the Renaissance, but that has been less stringently enforced with each new update. Also there have supposedly been edit wars on the Wiki over what the Turks, Cumans, and Tatars are meant to represent - the latter two are also Turkic tribes. The problem there I think is that the Turks were one of the 13 civilizations in the game from the very start and were the designated gunpowder-oriented civ (later joined by the likes of the Spanish and Indians), which leaves the latter two introduced very recently to reflect the more nomadic Turkic tribes, although the Turks do have some cavalry bonuses to reflect their roots. Oh and there's how the "Celts" are a composite of both medieval Scotland and Ireland (units speak Irish, their wonder is the Rock of Cashel, their unique unit is the anachronistic "Woad Raider", they have faster-working lumberjacks, and their campaign is about William Wallace) among many, many other problems. Oh well, I suppose we don't really play the game for historical accuracy!

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

On realizing that the Goths have a hunting bonus in Age of Empires 2, I got a little more excited to play as them since that reminded me of the Mongols. Actually the Goths seem somewhat similar, having a strong Dark Age economic bonus towards hunting (the Mongol hunters work faster while Goth hunters can carry more food and get an attack bonus against aggressive animals that can be hunted for food like boars and rhinos) before kicking into high gear in the Castle Age while their options in the Imperial Age become limited but still powerful. Just the Goths are more of a foot soldier civ and they rely more on raw numbers over the Mongols' faster-firing cavalry archers and more HP on their light cavalry and steppe lancers, which is the part which worries me.

I watch this YouTuber named Hera, who's one of the best AoE2 players, show off how to use the various civilizations in the game through multiplayer matches, with some of those videos even providing an overview of the civ and the best way to use them. In his video on the Goths, the opposing player surrendered the minute Hera got a castle up. The Goths are vulnerable until that point because they don't even get Stone Walls (presumably they're just supposed to spam cheap infantry for defense?) or any Tower upgrades, but once they get there they get so much good stuff. In high-level play, you basically have to eradicate the Goths early on or they'll spam cheap infantry to level your bases - their barracks work faster, their infantry get progressively cheaper through the ages, and their infantry also get an attack bonus against buildings! Sounds like one heck of a barbarian tribe. In real life the Spanish and Portuguese are in part descended from the Goths.

Just to ask Exdeath, what was your favorite civ to use in Civ5?

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

Been saddled with exams.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

In Age of Empires II, the third Genghis Khan scenario continues to frustrate me while I lack the interest in other campaigns (want to try the civilizations first in Skirmish mode). In the meantime I tried out the Koreans, Incas, and Malians, and only the middle one of them really stood out to me due to their houses granted additional population capacity compared to those of other civilizations (yet I didn't enjoy using the Huns' lack of need for houses. Maybe I was just not in the right mood when using them?). In all three test games I just mounted some raids with swordsmen and archers in the Feudal Age before upgrading them in the early Castle Age and building a big enough army to overrun my foes (still just playing 1v1s), with me winning too early to reach the Imperial Age (except as Korea since they're a bit of a late bloomer civ) or make much use of each civilization's unique unit (though I did build a few War Wagons as Korea).

Come to think of it, the reason I picked those three civilizations specifically was because of a series of Civ4 AI Survivor games run by Sullla on Twitch where all three of them have distinguished themselves in some way - the Incas and Malians for being among the best performers and the Koreans for their tendency to troll other civilizations and even the viewing audience. I made a list of civilizations I want to try out based on a number of factors (for one thing I set a requirement to watch SpiritOfTheLaw's overview videos of each civ, so the Byzantines, Berbers, and Burmese are left out for the time being), so here's the remaining:

1) Goths
2) Bulgarians
3) Spanish
4) Portuguese
5) Chinese
6) Magyars
7) Turks
8) Slavs
9) Teutons
10) Persians
11) Cumans
12) Vietnamese
13) Aztecs
14) Mayans
15) Saracens
16) Lithuanians
17) Italians
18) Franks

And the ranking of the civilizations I have tried out based on how much I liked playing as them:

1) Mongols
2) Indians
3) Japanese
4) Celts
5) Khmer
6) Vikings
7) Incas
8) Britons
9) Tatars
10) Ethiopians
11) Huns
12) Koreans
13) Malians
14) Malay

Somewhat dreading playing as the Goths since I wasn't a big fan of the two "Spammer" factions I tried out so far (Huns and Malay). I think some interest I had in the era of the Fall of Rome was the reason the Huns and Goths ranked as high as they did, with the former initially taking precedence because, uh, the concept of all these horse-riding steppe nomads and their impact on the "civilized" world intrigues me? I think my problem with the Huns is that they just feel like a generic horse nomad civ to me and don't have much of an identity of their own, which I suppose is kind of appropriate given how they sort of just disappeared without much of a trace but doesn't really make them fun to use, at least compared to the Mongols. Also the Huns are a tiny bit out of place in AoE2 given the game's otherwise focus on the middle ages, though the barbarian incursions they caused no doubt played an important part in shaping Europe for the next millennium or so.

Speaking of civilizations I like historically, my all-time favorite games of Civ4 I played were as the Persians, Greeks, and Egyptians, so maybe ancient history appeals more to me? Just to add, the only two games of Civ5 I could bring myself to finish were as the Huns and Zulus, which only the latter being all that enjoyable. Most of the time I try to play Civ5 I just get bored of it, not that it's all that bad of a game or anything. Just one that feels lacking in meaningful choices compared to its predecessor to me.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

I have since tried out the Tatars and the Malay. The former strike me as a different take on a nomadic horse civ compared to the Mongols and the latter is another spamming civilization which I enjoyed so much with the Huns. Not to mention the Malay's only military bonus is cheaper Battle Elephants, yet they lack a lot of cavalry upgrades so their elephants are pretty awful aside from being easy to spam. The Malay unique unit, which I did not use because I won too quickly, is also a cheap Zerg Rush type infantry unit. Fortunately elephant spam is still pretty fun. I tried an elephant rush with the Khmer as well since their elephants are faster (which is good because they're slow as molasses otherwise!), to much more effective results - here by contrast I had to keep trickling in units as the attack commenced whereas with the Khmer I was able to overwhelm even enemy Pikemen in one go.

Also I completed the Battle of Kurikara.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

Tried out the Japanese and Khmer in AoE2, and enjoyed using the former so much I took a peek at both of their standalone historical battles.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

I took the Vikings out for a spin and while I still kept to the standard (aka very much land-dominated) map script and thus didn't get to make much use out of the Vikings' naval bonuses, suffice to say the fight just got increasingly lopsided as the game went on. The Vikings get Wheelbarrow and Hand Cart techs for free on reaching the Feudal and Castle Ages respectively, meaning IMMEDIATE bonuses to villager speed and carry capacity on advancing to both ages. Needless to say, this is a massive economic bonus and it just turned the whole game into a rout. The Vikings also get additional hit points on their infantry, so after sending in 13 Men-At-Arms in for a suicide raiding run and dealing considerable damage to the enemy's economy, I came back with like 20 Longswordsmen and the enemy cried for mercy before a single building went down. Like with the Britons' game, I had JUST put down a castle and thus wasn't able to utilize the civ's unique unit, in this case the Berserk (what else?). That's fine. If I ever want to explore the Vikings more in this game they have two standalone scenarios I can play.

Speaking of which, I gave the third mission in the Genghis Khan campaign another try. I'm not really sure how to explain it but, uh, it involves going on a rampage throughout China while I did punch a hole in the Great Wall, one of the Chinese factions built a wonder and the clock is ticking. Oh, and then I discover that there's a waterway separating the wonder from me, so I need to build a bunch of transports and a navy (I do have a lot of wood though!). Joy.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

Moderate difficulty kicked my ass again in AoE2 because I couldn't get my economy up and running fast enough. I resolved to go back to standard difficulty to see what I was doing wrong and I think I'll need a few more tries. That being said, when I do get my economy going I can typically just finish the opponent off with a single push. I played as the Britons this time and won even faster than I did as the Ethiopians (still 1v1 against the AI on a standard map), probably because of their faster-working shepherds providing a substantial economic boost in the early game. While an early raid of 10 archers was picked off by skirmishers one by one, they were still able to kill enough peasants to slow down the opponent's economy and that was all she wrote. No need for England's famous longbows this time!

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

ctesjbuvf posted...

It's a bit hillarious that it will not be a problem in regards to completing this project that you don't have a Wii U.

Just a testament to how pointless it is to own one nowadays.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

Tried out the Ethiopians in AoE2. The only thing notable about this particular game is that I relied mostly on infantry and archers due to the Ethiopians having poor cavalry - other than that I just got my economy up and running and then conducted a bunch of raids with archers and swordsmen to slow down the enemy. Beginning to wonder if I should give Moderate difficulty another chance.

The 3rd Genghis Khan mission overwhelmed me quickly and then I did poorly at the rushing tutorial.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

Even Oliver Harper noted that about Blade Runner - the only especially emotional moment being Batty's ending speech.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

Tried out the Indians today and stuck with Standard out of cowardice. This time I at least reached the Imperial Age and even built a wonder. I did train a Camel Corps for harassment, which was eventually combined with a bunch of Skirmishers to counter Pikemen, but I won before my troops did too much damage because my wonder stood for long enough. It should be noted that the Indians get progressively cheaper villagers (the basic resource gathering unit) in later ages, making it very easy to get my economy established and build my mighty kingdom.

There's also a new set of "advanced" tutorials in the Definitive Edition that teaches stuff like aging fast and rushing. I tried the Fast Feudal Age one and unfortunately couldn't manage better than a bronze medal. Oh well.

Last I continued the Genghis Khan campaign and finished another scenario. Playing as the Mongols and amassing a large horde is just too much fun, and this time I even got to utilize their Cavalry Archers, Steppe Lancers, and unique unit Mangudai.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

Tried out the Huns. Went up to Moderate difficulty but I was always slow to get my economy going, and the first time the AI got to the Imperial Age before I got to the Castle Age. Then I went back down to Standard and was again slow to get my economy going, partially due to poor scouting leaving me in the dark about some animal locations, but once I got it going I trained a troop of Light Cavalry to harass the enemy and then followed it with more Light Cavalry plus a few Knights, and that was all she wrote. I don't think I like the Huns much - they lack much in the way of an economic bonus (the best they have is that they don't need to build houses to expand population capacity) and they just come off as a cavalry spam faction to me (their stables work faster and their Cavalry Archers are cheaper). Maybe the problem is that I find the combat a bit lacklustre compared to something like StarCraft so I find much of the enjoyment of the game to come from managing the economy? I do like this game a lot - played it a ton when I was younger, not that I was any good - but I feel like giving it a break for a while before I try out the Indians.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

With Blade Runner a lot of it is more that if you've taken in a lot of media like that then it probably loses a lot of impact. That being said, I only saw Blade Runner for the first time in 2018 and still loved it.

I got Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition and played two quick 1v1 Random Map games against the AI as the Celts and Mongols. The former was played on the easiest difficulty and I won just by training a few Men-At-Arms and a bunch of Spearmen and sending them to cause as much damage in the enemy base as possible - in the end I basically stymied any attempts by the AI to get out of its base and it surrendered very quickly. Then I bumped up the difficulty to Standard for the latter match and while my initial Scout Cavalry raid was stymied by Spearmen, I just trained a lot of Skirmishers to go along with my Scout Cavalry (upgraded to Light Cavalry since I built up strong economies in both games and advanced to the Castle Age very fast), took them to the enemy base, and ransacked it before they even knew what hit them. This time I felt like I had earned my victory, having solidly out built the AI and crushed it fast, almost like the real-life Mongols! Sadly I only trained two Cavalry Archers (the Mongols' specialty) before I won.

Then I played the first scenario of Genghis Khan's campaign and decided to call it a day.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

That doesn't sound like that uncommon of an opinion. That being said, count me as a big fan of the first Blade Runner.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

All these short games and long games juxtaposed against each other must make for some interesting whiplash!

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

You make the call. Never been particularly interested in those crafting games outside of when Minecraft first blew up.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

Whenever I see Biden I have no problems believing he got 81 million votes.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

Some people think Civil War was propped up by having such a similar premise to the infamously poorly-received Batman v. Superman, so reviewers went like "this is Batman v. Superman done right!"

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

Mac Arrowny posted...

Kamala Khan series. I think Brie Larson's in it too. Kinda feel like Captain Marvel 2 was originally supposed to come out before it though, so I dunno how they accounted for the change.

Brie Larson's quest to play White Woman's Burden and uplift women of color everywhere!

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

Paratroopa1 posted...

Well, I'm going to avoid calling it 'racist' because I don't really feel comfortable making that judgment, but I do think it's sort of lacking imagination in how to more smoothly modernize African aesthetics. I think the argument here is that looking at modernized African cities today, they still have a western influence, even in somewhere like Ethiopia which was never colonized, but even if that weren't true, that doesn't mean they would have modernized to have thatched roofs - that's like the equivalent of depicting a US with skyscraper log cabins. It does feel a little bit like tribal cosplay more than a fully thought out and realized version of a modern African nation. My problem with it is still more that it's all too cgi and never feels lived in at all.

Afrofuturism is a thing, guys.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

I remember the Critical Drinker taking issue with how T'Challa has to prove himself fit to rule Wakanda despite the events of Civil War (I don't remember Civil War very well, but beating up Avengers doesn't make you ruler material methinks), calling it "character development in reverse", and then he also felt like the whole idea of "tribal" Africans with technology was a total mismatch. Okay.

And MauLer did a rage video on BP (his second after The Last Jedi), but in the comments he asked "how does a Stone Age people mine Vibranium?". I don't really understand this complaint, especially considering the ancient Wakandans were probably more like Bronze Age people.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

Honestly I don't even have an opinion regarding Iron Man's presence in Homecoming. Also I don't like most newer blockbuster films to begin with.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

I think people have different expectations for a pre-established character like Spidey. Also people were already getting sick of Iron Man.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

I couldn't get into Guardians 2 or Homecoming at all. Maybe if I re-watched them I would like them more, but I get the feeling not.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

Maniac64 posted...

Conservatives on my Facebook are posting about how Gina being fired by Disney proves her statement was right.

I just dont understand how they think getting fired is the same as getting beaten in the streets by your neighbors.

Not to mention Gina wasn't fired and her contract was merely not renewed. And it wasn't because of her politics, it was because of her rash attitude.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

What floors me about current politics is that so many Americans refuse to even get to know their own new President.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

The best one falls already. This leaves what? Avengers, Winter Soldier, Guardians, Civil War, Guardians 2, Homecoming, Ragnarok, Black Panther, Infinity War, Endgame, Far From Home? I'd say Iron Man is clearly better than all of those except maybe Black Panther which Iron Man is still slightly better than.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

Thinking about it it's honestly astonishing Rise of Skywalker turned out even remotely coherent given how rocky its development was.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

The more I think about it Biden is the perfect presidential candidate for these times.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

The first Portal feels more memorable than the second, not that the second isn't.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?

FFDragon posted...

some would say the badness of RoS is what started the pandemic in the first place

No Cats is the real culprit.

---

Why do people act like the left is the party of social justice crusaders?