Print

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

[alway]

Spam archers to not die. Spam knights and catapults/trebuchets to make the enemies die. Or at least that's how it went in SH:2. SH:C I found to be much more fun, especially with the fun stuff with walls on cliffs you could do in the map editor.

[FuzzyZergling]

Fire ballistas.
Oh, dear sweet Zombie Jesus, I loved those things.

[Micro102]

Are there any RTS games designed specifically around defending (possibly a custom one) or attacking a fort?  I mean, whenever I've walked around castles, I've always thought it'd be pretty fun.

The Stronghold series. Although if you mean are there GOOD rts games based on defending custom forts which can actually look cool, then not that I know of.

Stronghold 3 is coming out with a non-grid castle building. So your wish may just come true.

Truly, DF with a stronghold style gameplay would be awesome. But would require a UI and AI far beyond either game's abilities.

[ChairmanPoo]

cmon all it requires are wall-busting siege weapons and/or make a goblin unit able to construct floors to step over moats

[Leafsnail]

And some way to avoid losing every single one of their soldiers to cage traps?

[ChairmanPoo]

Decrease trap efficiency?

Alternatively: We Have Reserves

[BigJake]

I apologize in advance for posting something on-topic in this thread, but I wanted to share this post and this seemed the most appropriate place to do that. 

Should science journalists take sides? by Ed Yong.  Highly recommended reading.

After all, the word for people who are neutral about truth is ‘liars’.

[Bauglir]

I apologize in advance for posting something on-topic in this thread, but I wanted to share this post and this seemed the most appropriate place to do that. 

Should science journalists take sides? by Ed Yong.  Highly recommended reading.

After all, the word for people who are neutral about truth is ‘liars’.

I'm kind of impressed with how he goes from saying that objective truth in journalism is impossible to ending with a statement about truth that only makes sense in the context of objective truth in journalism (that you quoted above). Not that I don't agree with anything he says, I'm just saying that his argument seems to me to have a bit of dissonance.

[BigJake]

I don't think he is saying objective truth in journalism is impossible.  Isn't that what he is implicitly asking for?  In a blogged reply linked at the bottom of the article, Sean Carroll expands on the kind of "objectivity" Yong is talking about.

[Ampersand]

I think the problem is confusion over two different definitions of 'Objective'.

1. The two sides of the argument are given equal weight. An objective point of view, with no judgement.

2. Arguments are equally assessed to determine which has the facts on it's side, discarding the non-factual argument. Objective analysis and judgement.

Journalism is the first kind of objective. It should be the second.

[Shade-o]

What makes a good man go neutral?
Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

[Jackrabbit]

That episode has some of my favorite lines of any TV show ever.

"If I don't make it through this, tell my wife 'hello'".

[FuzzyZergling]

"I don't know, but my gut says 'maybe'."
(paraphrased)

[Muz]

I apologize in advance for posting something on-topic in this thread, but I wanted to share this post and this seemed the most appropriate place to do that. 

Should science journalists take sides? by Ed Yong.  Highly recommended reading.

After all, the word for people who are neutral about truth is ‘liars’.

What does that have to do with the thread topic? I'd like to see this thread go back on topic. A good religious debate can be quite insightful, but I guess people get frustrated because it's impossible to get a good religious debate if you have a single idiot in the group.

The article seems kinda common sense though.

[KaguroDraven]

Nah the main problem with a good religious debate is many people hold tightly to their beleifs and won't accept things that make more sense to change them. Personily, I like a good debate, they tend to point out things I haven't noticed before, and I change my personal beleifs accordingly to something that makes more sense due to this new information. Though I also enjoy pointing out when people get something wrong when trying to make their case, even people on 'my' side.