One thing that always bothered me a little in those kind of game, is the absolute power of sensors. The only thing that matters is "range", anything within is automaticly detected. So there is no advantage in having small fleets trying to sneak. There is no possible strategy of using asteroid belts for cover to hide from your ennemy. You are as much detectable with 30 Warshiphs with escort complement than with 1 scout fighters. The only thing remotely close to this kind of feat
Cikomyr
I was wondering.. It would be nice to have more random tech-trees. Giving civs advantage over techs "X" and others over techs "Y" (decided at random during game progression). Or maybe have random events give the opportunity to the race that benefits it to research an exclusive tech. I have also to say that I loved Alpha Centauri's idea of setting "blind research" on/off, where you cannot choose your line of exploring. Off course, since in GalCiv2, some techs are absolutely necessary to
Why not try something tha thas been proven to work? What's funny is there was 2 shootings, that day. the first one in the dormitory, the second one in the main buildings (or so I remember). The 1st shooting wasn't really reported because policemen though it was a domestic problem, and would not get out of control. Now, if you have more gun on the market, and everybody has them, you just invite to more domestic "problem" ending with gun
If tha were true then they would easily put together a veto proof bill that the President could not stop. I think you exagerate too much. Now you're saying that the opinion of 54% (I don't remember the real % of 04 election) of the people 3 years ago is more important than the actual opinion of 60% right now?
And at each and every one, he has to play by their rules correction. It wasn't Bell's policy, it was the US Army's And the whole work was made in Canadian ground. So I'd consider the US Army out of their juridiction about picking employers.
Very doubtful. Sort of like assimilating the metric system? You saw how well that went over in the US. and ONLY in the US is the Metric system not assimilated. I think that if you exclude the US, it worked damn well for the world to have a commont metric system.. so be it? 2 currencies, 1 will be the US's and the other will be worldwide?
I think currencies are slowly becoming irrelevant. I rarely deal with cash now. In another 10 or 20 years, I imagine everything will be just a label. Yhea.. but will there still be multiple labels, or should the world agree on a single one? (like BCs? ) And what about poor countries - they still have to use currency until get catch up with us
You might also consider if we spent a little more on Stem Cell Research that enabled us to find cures for some diseases, we could end up spending LESS from both Medicare and Medicaid and REDUCE spending on medical as the Boomers retire! you'll never convince them of those arguments. "Spending more to spend less" is rarely accept by anyone. Off course, since many of it is bullcrap, I understand why... And your opinion is based on assumpt
Some months ago, I started an argument on this forum about America's actual witch-hunt of any people who could remotely not be on their side, and I compared it with McCarthy's commi hunt. People argued back that nobody has lossed their job over it, but I pointed them many cases of people working in Canadian business who have contract with the American Army who could not work, and lossed their job because they have dual-citizenship with Venezuela, Iran, Syria, etc... (in the Article I ci
if Canada doesn't have this law itself, then it should. Immediately under what moral bases? It's not like we are at war with France. Or even potentialy rival on a National Security point of view. I mean, the whole "people should renounce on their dual citizenship" argument is stupid. Simply stupid, to quote Dr Freeman in M*A*S*H: "Flagg: Dr Freeman, I can blow the whistle about you. You never signed your oath of allegiance
Those children could be implanted in a childless woman. but they won't, you know it very well.. And even if stem cell research made on those collected on adults is promising, there is a lot more availabilty (thu, more research opportunity) of the embryos, since the % of stem cell within an embryo is sky-higher than those on an adult. Personnaly, between using those embryo or flushing them down the toilet in a few years, I'd say try to d
no laws were broken in firing the people. I wasn't arguing that point. But the general opinion about the people fired, they were doing an excellent job. They just didn't obeyed the White House's orders. Back on topic...maybe you should go read this instead of relying on "The Economist". From USA Today: I've read it.. It just made my point. The whole law about forbidding the White House staf
That would help, but would the leaders go for it? The question should be more "Would the Americans accept it?" They haven't been able to accept the coin-dollar.. I don't know how you would react if you changed the whole currency altogether? (by the way, has there been any paper-currency reform recently? (recently = last 10 years) you know.. to prevent fraud for example)
Vilifying Imus is like doing the happy dance when you no longer have open Herpes lessions. It does nothing for the fact you are still infected. Thanks to racists like Jackson and Sharpton, the infection is still there - and very potent. For all you said about, I will use South Park's quote: "You don't get it. The point is all about the fact that you don't get it." It's easy to preach the cessation of the anti-racist witch-hunt commited by the
within the law of the land then why did the White House deleted email logs about this topic, when the law asks that every emails are filed for the archives? I mean, they did try some kind of cover up, or so it seems? If it's just a fluke, why did I've read it in The Economist's opening editorial?
Any reason why nobody here actually talk about that? I mean.. it's pretty huge to see the WH administration to actually proceed in an ideological witch hunt against the prosecutors. Or people here just don't talk about unconvenient truths? (this forum is clearly strongly pro-GOP, except a few nut heads like Col Gene)
*refrain from entering the fray, not being an American* There is a lot of thing I America I would love to see in Canada.. and there are others I will just never accept. Also, I think there are many other things in Canada that would help a lot in America. But anyway.. what about a common currency for the whole North America?
I await with impatience future games from Stardock. I haven't been deceived with the last two, and I don't think a fantasy-TBS will be a deception either. However, when will you launch the appropriate website and forum? if you take player's suggestion...
Hell's bell. I discovered the great game XCOM : Ennemy Unknown (a.k.a. UFO) about 3 weeks ago, played it a lot, and they just have launched another sequel, known as UFO Afterlight. Haven't played it myself, but I intend to buy it soon. Post your comments about this game here.
When I listen about america's politics, I often hear that one of the favorable factors considering a politician's popularity is his tendency on being "tough on crime". Which I find to be a total demagogic opinion.. sadly, in Canada, the conservative party also adopted such approach. I would like to know.. is there an actual alternative proposed in U.S.A. to "being tough on crime"? Even if this approach hasn't actually worked, if you see the recent criminality figures; big punit
I doubt they are true, and since these are only "estimates" with no proof, then they basically not. lol. If the "estimates" would be between 50 000 and 100 000, would you deny that there is 50 000 deaths? The problem about counting the deads in Iraq is, America destroyed pretty much everything looking like an administration or a governement when they got in. So no actual official information regarding the population was left intact. So,
As for your suggestions, I dont know anyone arguing against looking for other energy sources, or reducing pollution. As I said, that is not the issue. The Issue is the whacky crap that is coming out from the greens where we have to stop food production (virtually - go back to all organic), ELIMINATE all polution (which means going back to pre-industrial society), installing mirrors on mountains, etc. etc. etc. Now, these people a just crazy, and I don't
Again you are confusing belief with facts. None of your sources stated or even alleged that Global Warming was a scientific fact. Because it is not (it may prove to be one, yet it has not been to date). My god, you're head's harder than adamantine. I would like to know what event would make you consider global warming a scientific fact? I mean, except graphs and projections, there isn't a goddamn thing to measure climate! <div class="Article_Quo
This is a global problem and instead of the EU going hyper on energy saving light bulbs, they should be preaching to the Africans and their like. Just tell an Ethiopian man not to cook his chicken over an open fire then you'll realise what your up against. you contradict yourself.. you say that they should go to preach to africans, even if it's impossible? they try to save energy because it's about the only thing they can do : stop energy use.
Only in politics - not in science. In science a fact is a very precious thing. And is not open to debate or concensus. So your statement again is a non-sequitar. Show me where any scientist accepts it as fact, and I will show you a charlatan. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 does that count? Oh, sorry, my bad, that was written in 2004... http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009625 t