Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[andrea]

A british empire that blobs its way across the world is a safe bet, since that is what actually happened despite losing the 13 colonies. The world stopped being a british blob only in the WW II aftermath.

[RedKing]

I've seen papers showing that when some company decided to implement a good non-cheating AI in it's game the play-testers started crying on devforums telling them that it cheats and is unpredictable.

Casuals ruin Fun D:<
[/derail]


New question: Revolution revolution hardmode; if France didn't support America would its monarchy have survived and what would the consequences be? A native American state? A British Empire that blobs its way across the world? A French Empire still led by aristocrats instead of competent autocrats?

Fire up EUIV and run a Monte Carlo simulation.

Also, now you have me wanting to create a hybrid rhythm/political game called France France Revolution. Where you have to perform complex double-jump steps to avoid the guillotine.

[Elfeater]

On the topic of the States all at war, I hate to say it, but my money would be on Texas. Oil, guns, a militant separatist sentiment.

[Sergarr]

Minor necro, but:
Apparently, I've only now saw the glaring hole in that article:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

The fifth article doesn't actually legally forces the NATO members to help the attacked country with armed forces.

[Helgoland]

That's been discussed extensively in German newspapers.

The mutual defense clause in the EU contracts is more hardcore, though.

[Loud Whispers]

NATO attacks itself and mutually defends itself from itself, who wins?

[Sergarr]

NATO attacks itself and mutually defends itself from itself, who wins?

Turkey.

[Glloyd]

NATO attacks itself and mutually defends itself from itself, who wins?

Russia.

[Baffler]

NATO attacks itself and mutually defends itself from itself, who wins?

NATO.

[Helgoland]

NATO attacks itself and mutually defends itself from itself, who wins?

England. They traditionally win when there's war on the continent.

[Guardian G.I.]

NATO attacks itself and mutually defends itself from itself, who wins?

Everyone who didn't participate in that war.

[Morrigi]

NATO attacks itself and mutually defends itself from itself, who wins?

Everyone else.

[mainiac]

NATO attacks itself and mutually defends itself from itself, who wins?

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

[Sheb]

No one, especially if nukes are fired.

[ggamer]

ggamer's thinking leads to a new topic for AGG!

So whenever the topic would come up between me and my speaking partner, we would agree that, while NATO's actions in the middle east during the Cold War were reprehensible, they might have been the only succesful course available at the time.

Given the knowledge of the time (which precludes knowledge of the societal unrest we know was happening in the USSR at the time), were NATO's actions in the Middle East the right course? Which actions would have been better?

I suppose "leave it the fuck alone" is an option, but remember the knowledge clause!