+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 159

Thread: PI, now that you've broken up Germany, could you consider breaking up Byzantium too?

  1. #41
    Field Marshal Avernite's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the ThroneVictoria 2
    Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of Darkness500k clubEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Enschede, the Netherlands
    Posts
    5,229
    I'd think maybe a three-way split could be good given crusade mechanics:

    1) a Byzantine core, containing Constantinople/ greater Thrace and the Anatolian coast
    2) an Anatolian kingdom, roughly corresponding to what a Seljuk crusade into Anatolia should take if it won (though, I know, historically they took basically ALL of Anatolia before being kicked back from the coast). Maybe we could call it Rum?
    3) a Greece kingdom that would make an excellent target for Norman Sicily, could be Epirus/Thessalonica/whatever depending on how big greater Thrace is.

    These, IMO, would be logical(-ish) crusade/jihad targets while hopefuly retaining some semblance of realism. Maybe make all three uncreatable for Byzantine Emperors, while allowing them to continue to create other kingdoms? (that is, no Emperor would create a despot to rule so close to home, but might for far-flung Egypt/Armenia/Sicily)
    ICQ #331727773
    canonized on 11/08/2007

    Overall Best WW player is Avernite with 7 wins overall (Dec 2006-sometime 2007)

    jonti-h:No-one's perfect
    General Jac: Except Avernite , that's why I kill him every game

    Jopi: I'll vote Avernite. He's a hard player to read, and therefore always dangerous.
    Avernite: Avernite is a very mean person because he always comes up with great ideas

  2. #42
    Committed Anti-P'doxian Sleight of Hand's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDarkest HourFor The GloryHearts of Iron IIIMarch of the Eagles
    Victoria 2CK2: Holy Knight500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-orderEUIV: Call to arms event

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    A Forest
    Posts
    7,540
    In my mod I have divided Byzantium into the kingdoms of Epirus, Nicaea and Trebizond. Seems to work quite well.
    For awesome CK II graphical stuff please click here and here.

    I'm currently working on my own set of semi-historical scenarios for CK II. ETA: Q1 '15.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by tranquilium View Post
    The problem with Jewish culture is that it just isn't very relevent as far as European history goes. Sure it is probably one of the better known culture groups today, but comparing to Franks, Germans, Greeks and all the other cultures in the game, the Jewish culture just isn't all that important. It has no independent territory between 63BC and 1948 and generally has little bearing on major political decisions of the nations. It was one of the persecuted culture groups, but then again there were a lot of culture groups that were persecuted throughout the history.
    Erm ...

    Khazaria, 9th century-1048
    Semien, 325-1627

    As to the main topic: I think the restriction that the whole map have to be covered in de iure duchies and kingdoms has to go. It's silly, ahistorical, and leads to strange results.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Sleight of Hand View Post
    In my mod I have divided Byzantium into the kingdoms of Epirus, Nicaea and Trebizond. Seems to work quite well.
    That seems good. Basically it's historical (see the aftermath of the 4th crusade) and it's got a good balance for the game.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Avernite View Post
    I'd think maybe a three-way split could be good given crusade mechanics:

    1) a Byzantine core, containing Constantinople/ greater Thrace and the Anatolian coast
    2) an Anatolian kingdom, roughly corresponding to what a Seljuk crusade into Anatolia should take if it won (though, I know, historically they took basically ALL of Anatolia before being kicked back from the coast). Maybe we could call it Rum?
    3) a Greece kingdom that would make an excellent target for Norman Sicily, could be Epirus/Thessalonica/whatever depending on how big greater Thrace is.

    These, IMO, would be logical(-ish) crusade/jihad targets while hopefuly retaining some semblance of realism. Maybe make all three uncreatable for Byzantine Emperors, while allowing them to continue to create other kingdoms? (that is, no Emperor would create a despot to rule so close to home, but might for far-flung Egypt/Armenia/Sicily)
    Yeah, but where you draw the lines, especially between #1 and #3, could engender hours of debate.

    I think #2 would probably get a fair amount of agreement. It should include Attaleia, Nicea, and Sinope in that kingdom, but not, necessarily those whole duchies, which might split up existing duchy definitions, which I gather is a no-no, so some trade-offs might be necessary. Rum would work fine, as a name, but I'd prefer Anatolia.

    It might be easier to make #3 the larger entity, have it include southern Greece and the islands, but also the Asia Minor Coast, and Trebizond, perhaps even Chersonensus. Call it "Hellas", since it would then correspond to the classical heartland.

    Then #1 would make more historical sense as the smaller entity, just Thessalonike, Adrianople, Thrace, and Epirus. Most of the suggested names work better if it's the smaller entity: Rumelia, Makedonia, Thessalonike, Thrace were all names used for that region during the era, if not as "Kingdoms". If the eastern kingdom (#2) is "Anatolia", though, I'd call this one "Rumelia". If not, I'd avoid the term "Rumelia"; most references to them refer to both.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sleight of Hand View Post
    In my mod I have divided Byzantium into the kingdoms of Epirus, Nicaea and Trebizond. Seems to work quite well.
    Same issue of where you draw the lines, though. Including the Peleponessus and the islands with Epirus? Are Thrace and Thesalonike part of Epirus or Nicea? Are the areas of the Rum Sultanate part of Nicea? Part of Trebizond? Split?

    Smaller kingdoms of Trebizond, Epirus, and Nicea (really just the Aegean coast, no hinterland) would actually work quite well, IMHO, if you're trying to use the Crusade dynamic to make splintering more feasible and model something like the 4th crusade, but you'd still need other de jure entities to realistically represent the bulk of Anatolia, Thessalonike/Thrace, and southern Greece/Isles. Just that three-way split does little to help model the post-Manzikert "jihad", or make the First Crusade situation feasible. But why not six? Given how much they splintered western Europe, splitting Byzantium into six kingdoms shouldn't be an issue, but somehow, I suspect there won't be much appetite for it. Those six divisions would make logical crusade targets, though, making it theoretically possible that Manzikert and/or the 4th crusade could be modeled. Some historical justification for each, too, at least if you're using Pommerania, Mesepotamia, and Finland as your standards.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by KingJH View Post
    People always seem to get upset over the notion of ahistorical kingdoms being added as if it's heresy. Paradox did it with Germany by splitting it into Bavaria and such so they may do it with Byzantium.

    Though you could just use mods. CKPlus splits Byzantium if I remember correctly.
    people dont like mods because mods only change their game.

    they need to force their views on others

  7. #47
    Field Marshal Mad King James's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDeus VultEuropa Universalis 3EU3 CompleteDivine Wind
    Heir to the ThroneCK2: Holy Knight500k clubEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    6,936
    Historically the most accurate division would be Hellas, Macedonia and Anatolia. Macedonia being European Byzantium minus Bulgaria north of Thessaly, Hellas being European Byzantium south of Thessaly
    No good deed goes unpunished.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by NoobRage View Post
    Hmm...there is a problem with that however, as no King of Anatolia or Greece ever existed, and that general area was just, well, Byzantium! That was the very core of the Byzantine Empire, its "base" lands, and as no kingdom (not sultanate!) existed over there, a uncreatable Byzantium is what i would have made.

    But...make Khazaria creatable, Jews exist and playable and fix Armenia`s tech levels.

    EDIT: And kill Pommerania.
    Armenia has been the frontier between the Roman Empire and whatever else there is for the past 1000 years at this point, with particular brutal fighting going on in recent years. Thats why the tech levels are low.

  9. #49
    Field Marshal Wallain's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDeus VultEuropa Universalis 3Divine WindHearts of Iron III
    Europa Universalis III: In NomineMarch of the EaglesEU3 Napoleon's AmbitionRome GoldSengoku
    Victoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedRome: Vae VictisWarlock: Master of the ArcaneCK2: Holy Knight
    500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-orderWarlock 2: The Exiled

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    3,493
    Quote Originally Posted by NoobRage View Post

    EDIT: And kill Pommerania.
    Why kill Pommerania? Adding it was one of the more sensible choices as the area was not - by the start of the game - Danish, German or Polish. Hell they could have become independent Christians. Removing the kingdom makes very little sense from a historical and gameplay perspective.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Jak9090 View Post
    can we atleast find appropriate names, I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe in the medieval ages that someone would call themselves "king of greece" the concept simply did not exist, they were ROMAN not greek, we simply look at them as greeks due to how things are today...the same reason that most people not familiar with history would be surprized to hear Turkey was roman only 500 years ago.
    so as I posted earlier I propose four kingdoms ,Epirius, Nikaea, thessalonika, trebizond, why these kingdoms you ask? because they ALL existed historically within this timeframe as either despots or crusader kingdoms.
    First of all, you've been listening to too many pseudo-Byzantine historians on this board if you think Greeks were always Romans. The concept of Hellas existed before the Roman empire did. I understand that a lot of people are victims of the misinformation spread by Byzantine fanboys, so don't feel bad about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_period

    Okay? Okay! Secondly, the game is already filled with artificially constructed names for countries like Wales, Hungary, Germany, and more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Garak View Post
    Look, I thoroughly disagree with you, both on a gameplay level and a historical level, but I'm trying to be nice about it. There's no call for you to be a jerk about it. Fine, you want my unvarnished opinion? I see no reason to break it up, I think the idea of every random duke becoming king of his own little nothing corner of the world is stupid (see: Pommerania, Frisia, et al), and I don't really care what you think about my reasoning (I agreed it was arbitrary on both sides. You're the one trying to spin it up like you're being reasonable and I'm "confused".) I also never said I liked any ahistorical kingdoms. I said some were easier to write off. I like the game the way it is, and that's my opinion, based on my experience, and that's just as valid as your opinion, whether you like it or not.
    Your argument is still confused. You think our positions are the same when they are not. Your argument is based on double standards where you cling to historicity in one line and throw historicity under the bus in the next line. You're not being nice about it. If you were being nice about it, you wouldn't passive-aggressively throw your non-persuasive argument at me multiple times while intellectually dishonestly pretending that I'm using double standards just like you are. Are you entitled to your opinion? You sure are! Not all opinions are equal though. For example, some opinions are expressed as well written, persuasive arguments, while some other opinions are expressed using double standards and ignoring all uncomfortable facts about the issue discussed. If you want to be "nice" you can cut this out and have a real discussion with me instead of playing the victim card.

  11. #51
    Committed Anti-P'doxian Sleight of Hand's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDarkest HourFor The GloryHearts of Iron IIIMarch of the Eagles
    Victoria 2CK2: Holy Knight500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-orderEUIV: Call to arms event

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    A Forest
    Posts
    7,540
    Quote Originally Posted by RobRoy3 View Post
    Same issue of where you draw the lines, though. Including the Peleponessus and the islands with Epirus? Are Thrace and Thesalonike part of Epirus or Nicea? Are the areas of the Rum Sultanate part of Nicea? Part of Trebizond? Split?

    Smaller kingdoms of Trebizond, Epirus, and Nicea (really just the Aegean coast, no hinterland) would actually work quite well, IMHO, if you're trying to use the Crusade dynamic to make splintering more feasible and model something like the 4th crusade, but you'd still need other de jure entities to realistically represent the bulk of Anatolia, Thessalonike/Thrace, and southern Greece/Isles. Just that three-way split does little to help model the post-Manzikert "jihad", or make the First Crusade situation feasible. But why not six? Given how much they splintered western Europe, splitting Byzantium into six kingdoms shouldn't be an issue, but somehow, I suspect there won't be much appetite for it. Those six divisions would make logical crusade targets, though, making it theoretically possible that Manzikert and/or the 4th crusade could be modeled. Some historical justification for each, too, at least if you're using Pommerania, Mesepotamia, and Finland as your standards.
    Take a look.

    Obviously I have no idea how to best implement an 'accurate' division of what is the kingdom of Byzantium in vanilla; I just dislike it being such a large and unformable realm. The same goes for Khazaria, which I've made formable by Orthodox Cumans. I suppose it would be possible to further split Epirus and Nicaea, but Trebizond is only three duchies anyway so I shall leave that as it is.

    If you have any sensible ideas and wish to discuss this further (as I certainly do not claim to be an expert in this area) then please do PM me. I am always open to suggestions.
    For awesome CK II graphical stuff please click here and here.

    I'm currently working on my own set of semi-historical scenarios for CK II. ETA: Q1 '15.

  12. #52
    Field Marshal Mad King James's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDeus VultEuropa Universalis 3EU3 CompleteDivine Wind
    Heir to the ThroneCK2: Holy Knight500k clubEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    6,936
    From the point of view of game mechanics, the kingdom setup would be whatever kingdoms had existed in the area for at least 100 years AFTER the Roman Empire period (Roman province divisions or pre-Roman kingdoms don't represent any other kingdoms in a direct way, those align more closely with duchies).

    For Greece, there were no kingdoms in this area south of the Slavic lands and Bulgaria. So perhaps the proper thing to do would actually be to have this area, Greece and Macedonia and Anatolia, be part of NO de-jure kingdoms whatsoever, and be a big blank space. I don't imagine this would be terribly fun though, so we could go far into the distant past. The last time the European Greek areas were under a king, it was one king and it was Macedonia, under the Antipatrids. We could justifiably put the European half of Byzantine areas under the de-Jure kingdom of Macedonia.

    The last time Anatolia was under one king was Mithridates of Pontus, and amongst his conquests included virtually all of Anatolia (minus Cilicia/Armenia Minor) Crimea, the Taman peninsula and parts of Georgia, so we could put the rest of Byzantine de-jure kingdom areas under the Kingdom of Pontus. This would be a reasonably historical division. These names are a bit anachronistic though, Hellas and Anatolia are less anachronistic.
    No good deed goes unpunished.

  13. #53
    Jia Xu: That's just it--Hellas was a concept, a place, but not a realm. It wasn't a kingdom, it was a grouping of peoples with common culture and traditions (I say a grouping, esp. because of the Doric/Ionian split). The Hellenistic kings were following in the Median/Persian tradition of kingship, rather than anything culturally Hellenic--especially since the Hellenistic kings themselves weren't FROM Hellas! They spread the idea of Greek culture and values, but through lands ruled by great kings of largely Macedonian extraction. Their ethos was Alexandrine and Persian, not Hellenic. That's why we call the period the Hellenistic period, and separate it from other periods of Greek history.

    Hellenistic culture was a big deal, of course. It stayed strong during the Roman period, and even while the east Romanized, it stayed Hellenistic. Latin culture and literature did spread far, and the east became truly Greco-Roman (compare the enthusiastic Hellenistic works of the Antiochene Libanios to his contemporary countryman Ammianus Marcellinus, who wrote in Latin). Yet this Hellenistic and Roman fusion was the product of pagan literary culture, the great cities of the Greek east, and the Pax Romana. They were ages and ages ago. In the Byzantine period, a Hellene was a pagan--and while the educated upper classes might still be familiar with Greek learning, and might still write in the purest Attic Greek, that sort of conception of their identity was gone. To be Greek was to be Roman.

    But all this is beside the point. Germany was broken up into fictitious de jure kingdoms in order to help reduce blobbing, even if those kingdoms can't really be de jure in any sense of the term (since they don't represent traditional boundaries at all). I'd be ok with some kingdoms in Asia Minor in order to help encourage Byzantine break up so long as it's not in a deterministic fashion: a strong AI emperor should be able to hold it together, but weak ones should be forced to contend with the Sultanate of Rum or other Islamic states. A new de jure kingdom might help with that, as long as it's unformable by the Byzantines.

    But really, the de jure system is such a bad way of handling this. If anything, there should be a decision that the AI can fire when in possession of certain territories in Anatolia for a certain number of years that will allow them to take de jure status (akin to gaining cores in previous paradox games). Similarly, I think the loss of Constantinople should cause the ERE to lose its empire status (perhaps Greek kingdoms should be localized as empires without being empire tier--thus allowing for both the empire of Nikaia and the empire of Trapezous), but recapturing the city should allow any Greek kingdom to change its tag to the ERE and regain empire status. Flavor things like this would be useful--after all, the only reason that Nikaia is regarded as the successor of the ERE is because it managed to recapture the capital when the other splinter states did not.

    In conclusion: Instead of de jure kingdoms that are ahistorical and will create controversy, a decision bestowing de jure status on foreign states who capture large swaths of Byzantine territory would be preferable.
    "Methought I could discern a pretty Democrat à la mode Françoise, and a sweet little Federalist à la mode Angloise." - John Lambert, French visitor to New York during the Jefferson administration.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist girl View Post
    Jia Xu: That's just it--Hellas was a concept, a place, but not a realm. It wasn't a kingdom, it was a grouping of peoples with common culture and traditions (I say a grouping, esp. because of the Doric/Ionian split).
    You mean like Arabia, a kingdom which currently exists within the game? Really, folks, please read the entire topic before responding.

    Hellenistic culture was a big deal, of course. It stayed strong during the Roman period, and even while the east Romanized, it stayed Hellenistic.
    Wow, did you really just say that there was something Greek in Byzantium? You have just committed the greatest sin of all! I'll ask the church to plead for you at your hanging!


    But all this is beside the point. Germany was broken up into fictitious de jure kingdoms in order to help reduce blobbing
    Excellent, because that's exactly what I'm asking for in regard to Byzantium. Right now the Byzantine kingdom is a giant blob. It's much more tedious to manage for the Byzantines than any other region in the game, in my experience. Why? Since 1.05, Emperors can create kingdoms and thus delegate the administration of an entire kingdom to a single vassal. This was a very good design decision. Before this change, there wasn't really any substantive difference between playing a king and an emperor. Now there is. However, because of the giant Byzantine blob (which can't be created, likely because of how much of a blob it is), this amazing game balance advancement can't be fully taken advantage of. If I want to make those dukes easier to manage, I have to transfer control of those Greek duchies to my vasslas like the Kings of Bulgaria and Armenia.

    Would Greek and Anatolian kingdoms be historically accurate? No, they would not, strictly speaking. But it doesn't matter. The Byzantine experience is already 100% completely ahistorical. The Byzantine experience in Crusader Kings II involves you ruling Byzantium under western Euro-feudalistic rules. If we can accept this, then there's no reason why some extra kingdoms for game play balance should be completely out of the question. Just my opinion.

  15. #55
    Beautiful and Unique Snowflake Raczynski's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteEuropa Universalis: Rome

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    2,292
    It's news to me me that the German Kingdom is a fictional entity

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Germany
    A witty saying proves nothing - Voltaire.

  16. #56
    Committed Anti-P'doxian Sleight of Hand's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDarkest HourFor The GloryHearts of Iron IIIMarch of the Eagles
    Victoria 2CK2: Holy Knight500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-orderEUIV: Call to arms event

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    A Forest
    Posts
    7,540
    Pomerania, Aquitaine, Brittany, Bavaria and Frisia are though. Frisia was an old pre-Frankish kingdom conquered by Charles the Great centuries before the game starts (and was probably pagan anyway, giving it dubious validity as a de jure kingdom); Pomerania is supposed to be a pagan-only kingdom which means it is totally absurd as a de jure constituent kingdom of the Holy Roman Empire.
    For awesome CK II graphical stuff please click here and here.

    I'm currently working on my own set of semi-historical scenarios for CK II. ETA: Q1 '15.

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Raczynski View Post
    It's news to me me that the German Kingdom is a fictional entity
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Germany
    It isn't. It is however a fictional sovereign political entity in 1066~, for obvious reasons having to do with the Empire. But hey, Germany doesn't exist, neither does Greece, or a million other things arbitrarily wiped from the history books by pseudo-Byzantine internet historians on this site. At the beginning of each month we pick kingdoms out of a hat to decide which ones will be re-added to history for a little while. The user base is very scholarly here.

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Jia Xu View Post
    First of all, you've been listening to too many pseudo-Byzantine historians on this board if you think Greeks were always Romans. The concept of Hellas existed before the Roman empire did. I understand that a lot of people are victims of the misinformation spread by Byzantine fanboys, so don't feel bad about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_period

    Okay? Okay! Secondly, the game is already filled with artificially constructed names for countries like Wales, Hungary, Germany, and more.



    Your argument is still confused. You think our positions are the same when they are not. Your argument is based on double standards where you cling to historicity in one line and throw historicity under the bus in the next line. You're not being nice about it. If you were being nice about it, you wouldn't passive-aggressively throw your non-persuasive argument at me multiple times while intellectually dishonestly pretending that I'm using double standards just like you are. Are you entitled to your opinion? You sure are! Not all opinions are equal though. For example, some opinions are expressed as well written, persuasive arguments, while some other opinions are expressed using double standards and ignoring all uncomfortable facts about the issue discussed. If you want to be "nice" you can cut this out and have a real discussion with me instead of playing the victim card.
    are you trying to imply I believe greece has always been Roman? that would be utterly retarded, of course greece was independent from roman rule during the diadochi period, i'm simply pointing out that during the medieval period, the "Greeks" saw themselves as the successors to both rome AND greece, obviously more so rome though, yes they spoke greek and were for the most part a greek culture, but THEY and most of the world recognized them as the Roman empire, because that's what they were, the roman empire. I also don't like to be called a victim, and having you make presumptions about what I do, or do not know.

  19. #59
    yes they spoke greek and were for the most part a greek culture, but THEY and most of the world recognized them as the Roman empire, because that's what they were, the roman empire.
    Yes, and if the empire were to fall, it wouldn't be ridiculous to assume that they could have banded together on the basis, eh, screw it, we're all still here. Kingdom of Greece!

    I think that there's a tendency on these forums, at least in these sorts of debates, from what I've seen, that we all sort of take "Alternate History" as "Things that actually happened, but doing it at a different point."

    It'd be an Alternate History thing, but as someone who does do some Alternate History writing, I think that "Kingdom of Greece" is something I could very easily see arising out of the ashes of a shattered empire. I could also see (assuming we're already in the Alternate History where the Byzantines all use the western feudal system for Celestia-Knows-What reason) that someone who's given this king-ish title could say "I don't want to be part of your country anymore" for one reason or another.

    Does that make sense?

  20. #60
    Field Marshal Garak's Avatar
    A Game of DwarvesCrusader Kings IIDeus VultEuropa Universalis 3Divine Wind
    Hearts of Iron IIIHeir to the ThroneEuropa Universalis III: In NomineEU3 Napoleon's AmbitionVictoria: Revolutions
    Europa Universalis: RomeSemper FiSengokuVictoria 2Victoria II: A House Divided
    Rome: Vae VictisCK2: Holy Knight500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    3,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Jia Xu View Post
    First of all, you've been listening to too many pseudo-Byzantine historians on this board if you think Greeks were always Romans. The concept of Hellas existed before the Roman empire did. I understand that a lot of people are victims of the misinformation spread by Byzantine fanboys, so don't feel bad about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_period

    Okay? Okay! Secondly, the game is already filled with artificially constructed names for countries like Wales, Hungary, Germany, and more.



    Your argument is still confused. You think our positions are the same when they are not. Your argument is based on double standards where you cling to historicity in one line and throw historicity under the bus in the next line. You're not being nice about it. If you were being nice about it, you wouldn't passive-aggressively throw your non-persuasive argument at me multiple times while intellectually dishonestly pretending that I'm using double standards just like you are. Are you entitled to your opinion? You sure are! Not all opinions are equal though. For example, some opinions are expressed as well written, persuasive arguments, while some other opinions are expressed using double standards and ignoring all uncomfortable facts about the issue discussed. If you want to be "nice" you can cut this out and have a real discussion with me instead of playing the victim card.
    I haven't ignored any facts, and I've made my opinion and standards for judging the game content perfectly clear. However, since the tone of this conversation has turned somewhat toxic, I'm going to bow out now.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts