blah the Prussian

How do I justify it? Well, the colonists were British citizens, who came there to extend British sovereignty, who were protected by British troops. Then, some taxes were passed, you know, to pay for the 7 years war, which had been to defend the colonists against the French (in America at least) and the colonists got pissy and decided to commit large scale tax evasion. Thus, the USA was born. Britain absolutely had control of the colonies, essentially.

Uh... what? The UAE isn't moderate. Better example: Jordan. They have legalized homosexual relationships (although marriage isn't recognized yet), women have the right to vote and indeed there are some women in parliament, the government is cracking down on honor killings, and women are not the property of their husbands. It's not perfect by any means, but the king is working on further liberalizing the country, and doing a pretty good job at it too despite all the other problems Jordan has to deal with. I assume that by most moderate Islamic country you mean countries with Sharia law, but Sharia law by definition is not moderate. Now, to be entirely fair a hugely disproportionate number of Islamic countries have Sharia, but Jordan shows that it is possible to be Muslim majority while having a relatively functioning democracy and rights for women and gays.

One big idea I have is to make Spearmen di effective damage to horsemen. In actual military tactics, pikes were used to counter cavalry charges, so I think it would be a good addition; it would also make the Soldier class line less underpowered, which is good. Another mechanic I think would be cool is giving the enemy a strategy. For example, on one map they could try to get you in a pincer movement, and use guerrilla tactics on the others. Having the enemy play defensively like in some maps in Conquest would be welcome as well. Other than that, fire Fate's writers, keep whoever designed Conquest's maps (and give him a raise for good measure) and I think you have the makings of a great game. As for the story, I think that they should remove MU definitely, but also do a generic FE story but with a twist. For example, have the ambitious King completely play the Dark Cult and only use them to get more power, and then throw them aside. But really, as long as the story isn't Neo Nazi propaganda or something it can be as bad as it wants if the gameplay's good.

Mario and Luigi: Paper Jam: This one was hit or miss. The story felt a bit too generic, especially compared to BiS and Dream Team, both of which had, IMO, pretty good stories. The humor was still top notch, though. I liked most of the trio attacks. The regular enemies were a bit meh, generally. I was dissapointed that there wasn't a unique world like BiS and Dream Team had. On the other hand, the bosses were fantastic. They were definitely a step up in terms of difficulty, but most of them were difficult in a fair way.

I think that, firstly, the final boss should be the main antagonist through most of the game. Beating the guy that was built up all this time only to have the final boss be a generic evil God is totally lame. That said, a Monster is acceptable provided it's because of a One Winged Angel transformation.

Ugh, I really wish you didn't bring up the whole no one died thing, that was the first point in Conquest when I put my DS down and slammed my head against the wall for roughly ten minutes. It would not be the last.

Well midway through I realized that the story had too many analogues, so I decided to do a few original things. This is one of them, as is Fundamentalist Christian China.

This is a splendid idea, my good man. No, seriously, this would fix a lot of the problems I have with the plot. I would suggest giving Ashnard far more screen time; maybe have him attack the party instead of the BK in a few instances, and give him more characterization. But yeah, I'm eager to see where this goes as I've always thought the story should have done this. Edit: Another suggestion: have Elincia fighting Bertram as a big plot development.

So speaking of casualties: how would you have handled Xander dying in Chapter 20?

Chapter 9 The Great Middle Eastern War On October 20 of 1962, the Turkish and Iraqi Republican Armies marched into the territory of Kurdistan. The Kurdish army was poorly trained, poorly equipped, and poorly led, and melted away in the face of the Iraqis and Turks, who were armed with the latest in American military technology. By November 25, the Iraqis and Turks were besieging the Kurdish capitol of Mosul. Kurdistan was falling. King Hussein of Jordan-Syria, Kurdistan’s protector, was in a bind. He had initially planned to mobilize the Royal Army for a month and then ride to the defense of Kurdistan. Unfortunately for him, it was increasingly looking as if there wouldn't be a Kurdistan to save. He thus decided to change his strategy to one of defense, digging in along the now massive frontier with both Iraq and Turkey, and waiting for the coming onslaught. It was then that Atziz made a very, very stupid decision. Declaring the need to “Reclaim the city of Istanbul from the heathen and inferior Greeks” Atziz ordered the Turkish army to assault Greek positions along the Bosphorus and Dardanelles in early November. The response from King Constantine was immediate, mobilizing the Greek army to defend the Kingdom’s territory in Asia Minor. Unfortunately for the Greeks, they didn't expect that Atziz would be stupid enough to attack Greece while he was still fighting Jordan-Syria, and the Greek army in Asia minor was swept aside by the vastly superior Turkish forces, with all remaining Greek forces surrendering to the Turks in Smyrna on December 1. Fortunately, their heroic resistance had bought the Greeks enough time to reinforce the capitol in Constantinople. Meanwhile, Iraqi President Qasim was understandably angry with his ally. Qasim had planned that Turkey and Iraq would crush the Hashemite Dynasty between them, but now Turkey was getting bogged down in Greece! Indeed, Atziz had only stationed enough troops to repel a Jordan-Syrian assault into southern Turkey; something that clearly was not going to happen. Still, Qasim figured that he had no choice but to launch an offensive; the alternative was to essentially give up his ambitions of a United Arab Republic. Thus, Iraqi troops went on the offensive. Iraqi troops entered Jordan-Syria on December 1, after a few weeks of preparation. They attacked into northern Jordan, with the aim of having their troops reach Lebanon by February. This would cut the Kingdom in half, and theoretically allow the Iraqis to subdue the remaining enemy forces piecemeal. However, Hussein had a plan to turn the tables on the Iraqis using their own strategy against them. As Iraqi forces entered Jordan-Syria, the Hashemite forces withdrew in the face of their advance, generally avoiding combat. Meanwhile, their superior air force, stocked with German Me-500 jets, inflicted a great deal of casualties on the invading Iraqi forces. The Hashemites lured the invaders into a corridor from the Iraqi border to Damascus, the ultimate goal of the Iraqi invasion. Then, on March 2 1963, with Iraqi forces at the gates of Damascus, the defenders dug in. The Battle of Damascus had begun. Meanwhile, the Hashemite forces on the flanks of the corridor began their own assault. Fighting on their home turf, fresh, and supported by a superior air force, Hussein’s troops had closed the corridor by March 10. The Iraqi soldiers in Damascus were now trapped. The defense of Jordan-Syria played out very similarly to the great general Hannibal Barca’s victory over Rome at Cannae, only on a strategic rather than tactical scale. The Hashemite forces, like Hannibal, had intentionally left their center weak to lure the enemy into an encirclement. This time, though, the victory was far more complete. Close to 1/4 of the Iraqi army was trapped in and around Damascus. They would surrender after a lengthly battle involving vicious street fighting by May 3. The rest of the Iraqi army would be pushed out of the country by the end of the month. Meanwhile, the Greeks managed to blunt the Turkish advance at the Battle of Constantinople. Greek naval superiority won the day as they were able to effectively block the Turks from crossing the Bosphorus Straits. They then were able to retake the Asian sector of Constantinople from the Turks by February. The fully mobilized Greek army, with Constantinople as their beachhead, now advanced into Asia, and supported by Russian air strikes; the Russians, under a liberal government, did not want to sent ground troops to attack Turkey, but they had no qualms with lending their Orthodox brothers a helping hand from the air. Greece’s original territory was restored by March. Their advance had stalled in Western Anatolia, however, at the time of the Battle of Damascus. These defeats, however, caused the complete collapse of the Iraqi-Turkish alliance. Atziz, desperate to end the war with the Hashemites, signed a peace treaty with Hussein whereby Turkey would cease all combat against Hashemite forces in return for Hashemite recognition of Turkish gains in Kurdistan. Hussein, not particularly caring about northern Kurdistan, (the oil was mostly in the areas occupied by Iraq) and eager to focus all of his armies on Iraq, agreed readily. Atziz, meanwhile, withdrew all his forces to face Greece. Hashemite forces now began their push to liberate Iraqi occupied Kurdistan, starting on May 12. They met fierce resistance from the Iraqis, but gradually advanced towards Mosul, being greeted as liberators by the Kurdish Peshmerga guerrillas, who had been harassing the occupiers ever since the fall of Kurdistan. By June 4, Kurdistan was fully liberated. Meanwhile, the Greeks and Turks were at a stalemate. The Greeks now pushed to take Ankara, the Turkish capitol, but the Turks dug in, making the Greek advance reminiscent of the First World War. Although Greek air superiority of course sped their advance up significantly, they were not advancing fast enough to call the offensive a success. This, as it turned out, was exactly what Huey Long planned. Long had from the beginning been funding Communist cells within Turkey. They were his insurance policy in case his new pet looked like it was about to fall. It had been easy to arm the cells due to the fact that the Americans were already arming the Turkish army; all they had to do was get Communists into the Turkish army. So it was that on July 1, with the Turks continuing to be pushed back and discontent against Atziz at an all time high, the sleeper cells went to work. The Turkish Revolution had begun. By July 5, Atziz and most of his inner circle were dead and the Revolutionaries were in control of Ankara. The Americans almost immediately sent troops in to secure their new ally, also warning the Greeks to stop their offensive against Turkey, or else. Given that the Greeks had taken all of their claimed territory (except Pontus, but that was nothing but a pipe dream) they agreed on the condition that they keep what they occupied. Although this didn't sit well with the new Turkish leadership, Long didn't particularly care what they thought. The Turkish phase of the Great Middle Eastern War was over. Iraq, of course, was losing. Not only did Hashemite troops begin to invade their land in July, the Shah of Persia, Mohammed Hassan Mirza Qajar, invaded Iraq with the aim of taking their Shiite majority provinces; centered around the city of Basra. Qajar Persia had been through some rough spots leading up to the First World War, but when under the Russian sphere of influence Mohammed Hassan had modernized the country. Now, he sought to bring Persia back as a great power, and this war was a splendid opportunity. Faced with an attack on two fronts, the Iraqi military collapsed. Iraq surrendered unconditionally by August. While the area around Basra was ceded to Persia, King Hussein became King of Iraq as well as Jordan and Syria. He then declared that the era of Arab disunity was over, and that a new, united, Hashemite Arabia had arisen. This was a direct challenge to the House of Saud, which still ruled the south of Arabia, as well as their puppets in Dubai, Qatar, Yemen, and Oman. Saudi and Hashemite Arabia would become fierce rivals in later years, especially as the Hashemites secularized while the Saudis doubled down on Wahhabism. The rise of Communism in Turkey, meanwhile, was a huge coup for America. They now had a convenient base for their missiles right next to their chief geopolitical rival, the Russian Empire. It also put them in an excellent position to destabilize both the Balkans and the middle East. This news, however, was also bad for the Saudis; now that America had a Communist ally in the Middle East, they no longer needed Saudi Arabia. Their oil reserves were also taken care of with the rise of the Kurdish Democratic Republic, also called Kurdistan. Thus, by 1964 the Middle East was changed cataclysmically. A new regional power had risen in Hashemite Arabia, while America had a new ally, and Persia was becoming ever more assertive in the region. Meanwhile, though, Europe was entering into its most transformative decade yet.

I would give my right hand for a TWEWY sequel.

Since Conquest's story being shit is already well known, my second least favorite thing about Conquest is that if you lose in the endgame you also have to do Chapter 27 over again. I like difficult games, but I hate punishing games, and that is needlessly punishing.

Uh huh. Evidence that this was specifically the left? For example, while Winston Churchill was a Conservative, so we're Chamberlain and Halifax. I won't deny that people admired Hitler in the early days, but this wasn't something uniquely liberal.

That's one definition, but Mussolini referred to Fascism first as the third way, as an alternative to both the left and the right, because it mixed elements of the two. I generally agree with this; Fascism can't be placed on a left-right axis, thus it is the third way. Then again, different forms of Fascism differ greatly (Mussolini's Fascism was more reactionary while Hitler's was more futurist) but they all share the same general traits. That's what I meant.Edit: Also, Life, you're the one making the absurdly outlandish claim that liberals loved Hitler, source please.

Actual bullshit. Hitler in the traditional definition of the terms was absolutely not far left, and the notion that liberals loved either Hitler or Stalin is objectively false. Even Stalin's fellow Communists hated him, at least in the US; most people left the Communist party after Molotov-Ribbentropp. Also, please for the love of god tell me you don't like Ayn Rand. I don't even care if you agree with her, but at least admit she was a terrible writer. Back on track, I've always hated the left right axis, but if we're to use it Hitler was economically left, socially right, and right in terms of foreign policy. Then again Fascism generally has always been a gray area in terms of where it is, and I think that the only legitimate claim it has is that it is actually the third way. I think it's wrong to call Hitler left or right. Stalin and Pol Pot were most definitely left, though. However, none of them were liberal by any definition; this is complete nonsense.

I'd argue that Islam worldwide is facing the opposite problem as Japan; Japan was faced with a rapid modernization under the Meiji Emperor that left a good deal of its conservative populace discontented. They concentrated their power in the military, which led to Japanese Fascism being basically focused on glorifying the Bushido focused past. Essentially, it was rapid modernization followed by a rapid reaction. Islam stayed in the same place it was for centuries, only to rapidly regress into Sharia after the fall of the Ottomans. The two situations are somewhat similar, but not entirely.

Or it could be the result of an ambulance being delayed because the protesters had to get out of the way. But no, I'm by no means saying its morally equivalent to police shooting people.

Blocking highways is a crime, plain and simple. When BLM protests legally that's fine, but I have no objection to them being detained if they block a highway. Think of the working class people who could lose their jobs.

1. I think it's a little unfair to list grinding as a flaw in an RPG, as many would say it's simply part of the experience. And I don't consider 100%ing a game essential to my enjoyment of it.2. Hey, I actually like Tin Pin! And again, this assumes that you want to evolve a given pin. 3. Now this is fair enough, but I wouldn't call it a flaw. Although a multiplayer mode would be pretty good. 4. I know a lot of people will disagree with me, but I just don't care about 100%ing games. Collecting all the secret reports, beating Lanthera Cantus, and beating the boss Rush is more than enough for me.

Yes, I have: The World Ends With You. Although there are some parts that aren't as good as they could be, there are no bad parts of the game whatsoever. Everything, from the music to the writing to the gameplay, is great. The battle system isn't some deep system that takes forever to master; it's simple and yet enjoyable. The game also has several of my favorite boss fights of all time; Sho Minamimoto and the final boss especially are great. So yeah, I can't find a single flaw with The World Ends With You.

Well actually radical black Christians if you look at people like Joseph Kony and Uganda. But then thats just because those are the places where they're in power.

...huh, now that I think of it, that is a good point about Forrest. Now,cI don't think the writers actually intended for Leo to disapprove of Forrest because it's important for the stability of the country that the royal family maintains its image, because that would be giving the writing too much credit, but it is a good point. Forrest's responsibility as a Prince of Nohr trumps his gender identity.

Who says resting bitch face can't be cute, anyway? And I'd have resting bitch face too if I was in charge of a country as fucked up as Begnion.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL6akIKaXBeU2Grz-eLgC_o7ddAxfYfGQl&params=OAFIAVgB&v=gBQFNUJ8s2A&mode=NORMAL This song is badass. It's so badass that I play it when I'm invading a country in Hearts of Iron. It really,gets that invasion feeling down.

That's not what Libertarians are in favor of, though. Being pro laissez afire pretty much means being anti welfare.