On receiving anonymous hatemail.

[davywavy]

As some of you may have noticed, I seem to have picked myself up an anonymous poster giving me grief on my last post. Evidence is that it’s someone who at least knows me, but heaven knows who it is, as the writing style could match several people.
They signed themselves ‘G’ which is Grims usual signoff, but it isn’t his writing style and the possibility that he has changed his style greatly and then signed the post anyway (presumably as an elaborate double-bluff?) is fairly slim, and the idea just doesn’t sit right. So from there, who might it be?
Well, the implication is that it’s someone trying to get Grim into (yet more) trouble by taking the opportunity to pop at me. So what sort of person might that be? Who would bear an active dislike for both of us?
In some ways, Grim & I have many similar personality traits: we’re both arrogant, self-centred and insufferably self-righteous, with an inability to learn from our mistakes or experience. However, we couldn’t sit further from each other on the political, social, or moral spectra.
So what sort of person would take an active dislike to the pair of us? Someone who hasn’t got any fixed opinions, perhaps, who doesn’t like those who do? Someone who sits in the middle of those aforementioned spectra, unable to decide which way to turn and instead turning with the political and social breeze? Someone, in other words, who lacks any ideas of their own, any confidence to stand by their own beliefs, and will change with the wind.

Just my luck. My stalker is a member of the Liberal Democrats.

When I first started getting anonymous postings, I naturally turned IP logging on, and the posts promptly stopped – no surprises there.
But then I realise that I don’t much care, so I’m gonna turn IP logging off again. If someone really wants to spend their time dissing me from the anonymous safety of their keyboard, who am I to stop them? After all, if I don’t let them then I’m sure that when they lie on their deathbed all those years away, their dying words will whisper…”I wish I’d spent more time posting anonymous hate mail to people…”
So, my anonymous chum, come on them. Fire away. I really don’t care that much.
I’ll offer a deal though – tell me who you are, and I’ll tell you how I dealt with the real stalker I had all those years ago – and she did many more scary things than anonymous mail, believe you me…

In other news, The Ring is the best horror film I’ve seen in a while as it has the confidence to let you use your imagination to fill in the gaps – a confidence that so many filnms lack and lose impact thereby. I still found myself checking behind me this morning, so good and creepy – and with an ending good enough that Jenny & I were unable to agree on the implications, but agreed that they were pretty horrid whichever of our ideas was right.
Heroes of Might & Magic is far too addictive for it’s own good and I ain’t gonna stop until I beat the friggin’ thing.
And, after a week of illness & awayness, I’m off to the gym for the first time in ages tonight, presumably to whimper in pain and frustration as the world goes grey and they have to call me an ambulance.

Comments

Re: Several comments

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

1) I used to rather like the LibDems until I realised their entire election policy was to be as opportunistic as possible, and indeed says so in their internal documentation (I can get the exact quote if you like); basically, at least Lab & Con have to at least pretend to have policies, whereas the LibDems pretend to oppose those policies whatever they are, and never claim to have any of their own...

2) It's a good film, but I went in cold knowing very little about it. I can understand how it would be spoiled with any foreknowledge.

3) Never played that either.

Re: Several comments

[applez.livejournal.com]

1) Principles don't win elections you know. ;-)

2) Well, I'll certainly look for 'Ringuu' ... I should do well finding it here I think.

3) Well, 'King's Bounty' was the format for all subsequent HoM&M ... and I think was a game better for playing than winning. If I do find an old copy hiding away in a shadowy recess of the web, I suggest doing massive virus checks on it (they always seemed to have viruses), then picking the Barbarian character class (they have the shortest XP increases). It's always fun to send a pack of wolves into 'a horde of peasants' ... hehehe. Later on, realise that if you go for Dragons, Demons, and Vampires in your army (it really does pay to go completely evil near game's end) you can fly around your world...without need for ship or your horse-mounted hero.

-----

CivIII ... well, I've found those upper levels only exist for the masochistic! :-) I have to admit, I'm really looking forward to the new Master of Orion due out soon. Incidentally, have you heard anything good/bad about the latest SimCity (4 is it?)?

Civ III: Play the World expansion

[applez.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, amongst the new civs one can play there are the Celts, and they have their 'Gallic Swordsman' which replaces the conventional swordsman. Just as strong, but with an extra move. Given that one can also select a very accurate Europe to play on ...

one can have some awfully fun battles against the Fearless Legions if timed correctly.

:-)

P.S. The Scandanavians are basically pants, but their special unit, the Viking, which replaces Knights is actually terrifying. Essentially, amphibious knights...long before anyone even dreams of Marines. :-)

----

Re: Civ III: Play the World expansion

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I've found that the special units tend not to be game-winning at any point. Some are useful (Mounted Warriors, Immortals, Panzers, Cossacks), but won't win anything for you (except *possibly* cossacks, as they're the worlds premier military unit for a disproportionately long time). More important is the civilisation you choose - the Indians, for my money, are far the best. Religious (for the no anarchy when you change government) and commercial (for the cash bonus which can be shovelled into research, plus the early boost to the great library, whcih *is* a game-winner). Shame their war elephant is shite.

Re: Civ III: Play the World expansion

[applez.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I don't know that I would right off special units so quickly. Besides the tactical advantage they may give you, if you have an early special unit, you might be able to grab territory/eliminate enemies earlier on. This is certainly the case of the new Carthaginians who have Numidian Mercenaries (replaces Phalanx/Spearman, but have a 2 attack). Additionally, even if the special unit become obsolete, they retain a special value in the AI, posing fear amongst attackers. I've had Tanks get badly mauled by Elite Babylonian Bowmen.

Generally, I find late special units, like the Panzer or the F-15 not all that useful, since a better military tech is usually very proximate on the horizon. In the tech scale, if it replaces Warrior, it is crap. If it replaces anything before Knight, it can give a serious early game advantage. If it replaces Knight or something later, it needs to have a real advantage against Tank and/or Tank/Cavalry/Bomber/Artillery/Battleship combined arms defence/offence.

Quick list of new civs:

- Arabs, who are Expansionist and Religious (I'm doing quite well with them, surprisingly). Ansar Warrior special unit (replaces Knight, is weaker on defence, but has 1 additional move...surprisingly useful, get the hit-and-run effect of Cavalry at an earlier stage)

- Carthaginians; Commerical, Industrious

- Celts; Militaristic, Religious

- Koreans; Commercial, Scientific; Hwach'a (replaces cannon, is a rocket wagon that has much higher attack rate)

- Mongols; Expansionist, Militaristic; Keshik (rather like CivII scenario horsewarrior, ignores all terrain impediments)

- Ottomans; Industrious, Scientific; Sipahi (replaces Cavalry, has even better attack & possibly defence of Cavalry...is damn good, can even take on Tanks)...I've done well with them.

- Scandanavians; Military, Expansionist; Beserk (sorry, I misnomered before)

- Spanish; Commercial, Religious; Conquistador (replaces Explorer)...I've not played them since I think they're pants. I may be proven incorrect.

There are new city improvements, a couple of new Wonders, and some fun new worker actions...including Outpost, Radar Tower, and Airfield which eliminates that worker.

Re: Civ III: Play the World expansion

[applez.livejournal.com]

apologies for crap misspellings.

Re: Civ III: Play the World expansion

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

How did you find Civ 4? It got a month of play out of me and i haven't played it since.

Re: Civ III: Play the World expansion

[applez.livejournal.com]

Wow! That's digging into the archival comments, innit? ;-)

Now, I play Civ4 almost exclusively. I like its religion balance, and have overlooked its naval bombardment shortcomings. I haven't bought any of the expansion packs though - I don't want more of a time vampire on my hands - I'd rather go cycling.

Re: Civ III: Play the World expansion

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I'm surfing my old LJ looking at it and wondering whether or not to start posting again. My dad died a couple of months ago and I stopped posting for a bit; now things are running more smoothly again I'm considering making a dramatic return.
I ran across this old exchange and wondered what you made of Civ 4 - the critical programming error in the great people killed the game for me.

Re: Civ III: Play the World expansion

[applez.livejournal.com]

Eeek! My condolences.

Great People programming error - that might've been fixed in one of the patches, actually. In any event, the accumulation of useless Great People in the late game became a mere extra management variable. I found that as my cities grew larger, the default inclusion of Priests was something I would have to manually change - but it would at least stay that way...until the next numerical urban increase.

Overall, I like Civ 4's:
- evolved challenges at different eras of development...from animals and difficult siege numeracy at the start; to barbarian cities a bit further on; to terrain limits.
- Some of the compromises produce interesting effects - namely the elimination of zones of control, and making mountains impassable...result in making the game less wargamer, less war/territory focused.
- I rather like how borders are determined by culture and religion ... and the commercial and spy benefits of spreading one's religion - it's a rather nice aspect to Civ4.

...I find the Civ4 ecology algorithm good, but not as good as SMAC's. I would like to see more done with elevation, water flow, energy potential, and forest growth/retraction. It's a shame that reforestation is not an actual possibility in Civ4...but becomes another player value, to decide whether to conserve or not. Late-game uranium deposit discoveries in jungle and forest is one small bonus for long-term conservation.

Re: Civ III: Play the World expansion

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I also liked the religious effects/advantages, but that meant I quickly gave up on any game in which I didn't invent at least one religion (and preferably one of the early ones) as the disadvantage to not doing so could be crippling against aggressive opponents.
I think that aging + responsibilities has made me less susceptible to hefty time-sink games as a whole, and CIV 4 with it's flaws didn't break through my susceptibility-barrier in the way that Civ 3 or Medaeval did. I beat it a few times (it's the first time any Civ game has had the French as my favourite people. It's always been the Indians or Egyptians previously) and didn't feel it was a challenge on any of the levels that didn't involve my opponents cheating outrageously (I hate games which cheat) and that, coupled with my great people being able to build/invent etc as much stuff as I wanted just meant that the interest never really bit.

Civ4 game balance

[applez.livejournal.com]

I also like how they managed to use corruption effectively - to limit the size and scale of a Civ. Often, I'd find it relatively easy to do rapid early expansion, removing as many opponents early as possible...but this can result in gaining a vast empire that is beyond my resources to effectively manage...leading to research retardation.

In other words: the perfect model of real-history Persia. Kindda cool, actually.

Alternately, if I wipe out those opponents and not capture cities early on, I'm left with vast unpopulated areas that become thronging with barbarians and their cities. Woe betide the border-delimited Civ that fails to expand its army after this clearance and instead switches to cultural projects...you will be confronted with centuries of barbarian attack.

The perfect model of real-history Rome. :-)