blah the Prussian

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41461032 What a damn mess, seriously. Basically, the Catalan government wanted an independence referendum that was illegal under the Spanish Constitution, and that Madrid had no obligation to respect. So, they have their referendum, and what does PM Rajoy do? He sends in riot police! I can't put into words how stupid this choice is. This is Corrin in Conquest stupid(Serenes's law). If this referendum is no threat to you(and make no mistake, the referendum is illegitimate; there are, for example, no restrictions on people voting twice) you don't send a bunch of riot police and make everyone pissed off at you! Frankly, I don't know if Catalan independence can be avoided. For now, though, congratulations, Rajoy, you just made me sympathize with secessionists. Never thought I'd see the day.

Any Paradox game but especially Victoria 2. Don't subsidize factories? A lot of unemployed people overthrow your government. Lose a war and with it a lot of territory? Fascists get elected. Subsidize your factories too much? You could go bankrupt.

Lusher, I can tell you quite decisively that Socialism is not what you think it is. It is not giving people free stuff, it is not affirmative action, it is the workers controlling the means of production.

You're not wrong, definitely, but in my mind the root of the problem remains the distrust between Black communities and the police, that is mostly the fault of the police to be honest. Because, ultimately, to actually enact police reform we need a willing general population, which I don't see us as having yet. God, I don't think this country will be around when I die, just too many fundamental structural issues to deal with and a government comically unable or unwilling to deal with them. Ah well, I'm going to bed.

Okay, hold on a second. I agree that it's more difficult to protest what's happening right now because there isn't an easily identifiable law you can point to and say "this is what needs to change". But BLM is absolutely protesting against something specific and tangible: the perceived lack of accountability of police officers who commit abuses, as well as the problem of racism within police departments, particularly urban ones. You can agree or disagree that these are actually problems but they most definitely have a specific goal; they aren't "whining" about racism in general. Edit: and art and entertainment is always political, and there's nothing wrong with that, whether it's Shakespeare showing Macbeth as being wrong for betraying his King, the Empire in Star Wars being strongly inspired by Fascism, Father in Fullmetal Alchemist embracing science to an excessive degree, or Frodo risking corruption by the One Ring(metaphor for power) in LOTR, politics must ultimately be a part of entertainment if we want out entertainment to mean anything. Otherwise all you get is generic, harmless, un controversial crap.

I have actually wanted a map thats sort of like this, where the bad guys conscript villagers who are earnest and do want to kill you, and you get a reward for capturing instead of killing them, or something.

So... what exactly is their plan once their mother dies of natural causes?

Prussian Constitutionalism is superior in cases of extreme instability(see Jordan in the Middle East) whereas a full on Constitutional Monarchy is better for periods of normality. I like the system for the UK, where the monarch technically has some power but in practice would not use it unless, say, the BNP won the election and proposed a bill to kill all Jews and Blacks.

...liberals and conservatives were extremely hard pressed to come up with new slurs to call each other, while the European Union turned into the Glorious European Empire, ruled directly from Vienna. In a world where Zack Snyder was hired to write Fire Emblem...

Well, they commit genocide against the Darscens, who are basically Jews, the Emperor has absolute authority unlike in the Hohenzollern or Hapsburg Empires, which were Comstitutional, and the main antagonist(who's basically Lelouch but if the narrative would stop being so edgy and actually treat him like the villain he is) has a mother who was implied to be murdered by the Emperor. So, genocide, absolutism, performing state sponsored assassinations Putin style. Overall Valkyria is actually quite Monarchist in themes, given that the nation the protagonists are from, Gallia, is a Constitutional Monarchy and the Princess Cordelia is consistently shown to be brave, honest, and an inspiration for her country's resistance in contrast to the cowardly and corrupt politicians, and in that the Empire's main rival, the Republican Atlantic Federation, is implied to be quite corrupt as well, although not quite so much as the Empire. You should check the game out, it's one of the best SRPGs ever, IMO. Great story, great gameplay, great visuals.

If Fire Emblem was historically accurate lances would do effective damage to mounted units like bows destroy fliers. Historically Spearmen were invaluable for protecting one's flanks from cavalry charges; in an era dominated by heavy cavalry, having a wall of pikes that horses would physically refuse to charge into was very useful. They were easy to make, too; a horse doesn't want to charge into a wooden pike any more than a steel one. They were used well into the Renniasance to protect musketeers from enemy cavalry. Swords, meanwhile, would be reserved for elite infantry, if they were used at all, as well as the go to weapon for cavalry on infantry combat; if you want to cut a bloody swathe through some filthy Peasent rabble you want a weapon that can slash, not one that can poke at most one guy, and that's if you're accurate. Lances for cavalry were mostly used in intercavalry conflict, and in the 1700s a type of soldier called the Lancer was introduced that specialized in lances; however that was at the time when cavalry was quickly becoming relegated to a scouting/skirmished role. Now, what I really want to know is: how did the use of spears in the Middle Ages come up in a thread about the availibility of Azura in Warriors? Edit: Well, it seems the thread has moved beyond this discussion. Sorry for the derail.

Yeah, I also honestly hope each character has a basically unconnected story. Not every RPG needs to be about stopping the Evil Emperor who wants to conquer the world, or the Evil God who hates humans, or whatever.

Well no, not just in the sense of actions, but in the sense of actual religious doctrine.

I don't disagree with any of this, really. I will emphasize that holding up Jesus et al as true Christians while the rest were corrupted is potentially dangerous as by this logic no one right now is a true Christian; the religion has changed so much and not just after Constantine's conversion.

I'm just clicking on Quote this on my laptop. Not the case, though. All Roman Emperors were only deified after their deaths. The ones that tried to be worshipped as Gods while living, such as Elagabulus, tended to not last long. Again, the Romans were relatively tolerant of other religions in that you could worship your gods basically as long as you acknowledged the existence of theirs, which, while not ideal, was better than the Jews and, yes, the Christians. What makes worshipping dead Emperors worse than worshipping other Gods, anyway? See, that's the case with a good deal of religion, though. Zoroastrianism survives today despite persecution by Islam, for example. Judaism has survived much longer than Christianity. However Christians were still very much a minority in Europe before, during, and after Constantine. I don't think Christianity would have been completely eradicated, but it would not have spread without state sponsorship.

I had typed a thing here but it got eaten. The long and short is that while you are not technically wrong the Roman Emperors were among the thousands of minor gods and so not important to the religion. Christianity was not doing just fine without him; only a few years before Constantine they were undergoing their worst persecution since at least Nero and it wasn't until much later that the common people adopted Christianity. The fact is, what allowed Christianity to spread so far in the West was the prominence of the Church under Theodosius and that prominence continuing even after the fall of Rome making it expedient for Kings like Clovis of the Franks to convert. You can talk all you want about humans corrupting the religion but the fact is that without those humans Christianity would not have spread as far as it did. Look, I actually like Constantine(he ended Diocletian's asinine Tetrarchy) but to claim that Christianity spread without violence is absurd. Politics impact religion much more than religion impacts politics; the political powers of the land MUST adopt a religion for it to have a chance at real prominence. It's what separates religions from cults, and why Catharism never caught on while Protestantism did.

The Romans did not believe that Caesar was a divine being. Their pantheon was actually special in that it incorporated the Gods of people they conquered, so for example when the Romans conquered the Guals Celtic Gods were simply incorporated into the Roman pantheon. Christianity(and Judaism in the same period) was opposed to the Roman pantheon explicitly due to its assertion that there was more than one God, period. I'd also question the assertion that Christianity spread without violence. Remember, Constantine, the Emperor who converted Rome to Christianity, didn't inherit the throne, he took it by force, in a rejection of the previous Emperor Diocletian's Tetrarchy. Then, after he conquered Rome, he marched on his former ally Licinius precisely because Licinius did not convert to Christianity. Additionally during and after the reign of Theodosius I the Roman government actively persecuted Pagans, so no, Christianity did not spread peacefully in Rome.

Truth be told I would call Naziism more of a Third Way than right wing, but yes, it is a significant difference that Hitler allowed German industrialists to retain, essentially, the means of production. In truth, that does make a difference in everyday life even if it didn't on paper. The Nazis also completely lacked the class warfare aspect of Communism; they didn't have any class enemies like the Kulaks under Stalin.

@Radiant head, my main problem with the idea that Capitalists abetted the Nazis is that the subtext is that the Capitalists had the power in the relationship. Basically, I think the Nazis could have come to power without the help of people like Papen I certainly don't think the Nazis were leftist, but I also wouldn't call them hard Capitalists. In economic policy Hitler was probably most similar to FDR, tbh. Not exactly true. Socialism is the Marxist phase of Dictatorship of the Proletariat where the state prepares society for a classless, stateless utopia. Communism is that utopia. All Communists are Socialists but not all Socialists are Communists; some want to stay in the dictatorship phase indefinitely. Either way the Nazis were by no means whatsoever Communist or Socialist; the Socialist part comes from when the party was more left wing under the Strassers and Ernst Rohm.

That makes no sense, bluntly. There is, uh, a pretty significant overlap between North Korea not having nuclear weapons and America not invading North Korea. Frankly North Korea has given the US, South Korea, and Japan valid cases bellis many times over, the only reason we shouldn't go to war is that it would mean the destruction of Seoul. The second part is foolish, bluntly. I understand you use the Marxist definition of Fascism, but the Marxist definition of Fascism is a) a convenient way of saying "Everyone who is slightly authoritarian and not us is a Fascist, the history of the world as a whole is a giant conspiracy against Marxists" and b) still not, generally, applicable to the Republican Party as the Marxist definition of a Fascism, correct me if I'm wrong, is when Capitalists support the abolition of a country's democracy because if democracy continues Marxists will come to power. This has not happened.

The group of people who will objectively benefit from a Trump Presidency are the historians, so good for me, I guess.

I'd want the Michalis and Camus archetypes to return, but with a twist. Firstly, I want the ambitious King to be dangerously genre savvy, and masterfully manipulate the evil Sorceror to get him access to the dark dragon. Then, have it be revealed that the Dark God is a husk of its former self after millennia of imprisonment, and just want to die. The King grants this wish in exchange for power. I also want the Camus archetype to be a soldier of the nation that got occupied who collaborates with the occupying forces in the hopes of building a new future. He thinks that resistance is pointless and will only lead to more deaths. As the heroes progress he gets more depressed, seeing that resistance was very much viable, but can no longer switch sides because the heroes consider him a traitor. He ultimately makes a last stand as a depressed wreck, a shell of his former self who fights the heroes simply because he has no choice left to him.

The vast majority of people on this forum, and people in general, probably don't know who Stanislav Petrov is. However, I can guarantee that we are only doing all we are doing because of him. In 1983, Petrov, in charge of the nuclear arsenal of the Soviet Union, was ordered to fire said arsenal at the US when Soviet radar detected an American missile fired at the USSR. Petrov refused and demanded further investigation, reasoning that if the US wanted to attack they would have fired more than one missile. As it turned out, the Soviet radar was experiencing issues. Petrov, with his actions, saved perhaps more people than any other single human ever has in history. So, with his recent passing, I'd like to thank him for allowing us all to experience life and civilization.

I'd say based on one of the Exploration Age Islamic Empires(so, the Mughal, Ottoman, and Safavid Empires). It would be an opportunity for some really cool aesthetics. No to the Aztecs, seriously those guys were the most overrated civilization of all time. The only reason we study them is that they had the good luck to happen to be the most prominent Native Empire when the Spanish landed.

I went through the survey with no problem. Weird.