An intellectual's review

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by wodan11
Uhh... is this what you just said Kuci?

Large metropolises required multiple farms

but

Multiple farms did not necessarily mean a large metropolis would arise there.



Wodan

Yes. If you don't understand basic logical syllogisms, then... I can't really help you, sorry.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Yes. If you don't understand basic logical syllogisms, then... I can't really help you, sorry.

No... you're the one who doesn't understand.

You said that A leads to B, but that B does not imply A.

That has some implications, some pretty serious ones, that you are totally ignoring in your blithe statements.

Wodan

[Krill]

Er, no...

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Krill
Er, no...

Explain, please, or suffer a -1 riposte penalty.

Wodan

[Adam Weishaupt]

My bad on the compound. Being German perhaps you can clarify . . . should I have made it Volkgeist or Geistvolk (with the intent being "spirit of the people?")

As far as Europa Universalis goes, I have played the original, as well as Hearts of Iron 2, and perhaps some others (though those are the only two I really got past dabbling with.) The thing is, those are historical simulations. They do a great job of getting all sorts of little details of history right, but their economic model is another matter. Economics is what it is independently of historical context. If we we focus on quirks of history more and general concepts and relationships less, then we wander away from economics. That said, those models aren't necessarily bad either -- but as I understand it those games do inject all sorts of "events" for the sake of anchoring the experience more rigidly in historical context. I wouldn't say that the macroeconomic models operating in those games are poor, but I would say that they feature a kind of distortion that is not present in Civ when playing a standard game (as opposed to a special scenario -- some of those have fudge factors just like I've seen in EU and HoI2.)

Regards,
Adam Weishaupt

[Krill]

So because the Egyptian flood plains produced a ****load of food the Eygptian floodplains had to be home to massive metropoli?

[Unimatrix11]

just say "spirit of the people" or "mentality" - this way everyone will get what you mean (or at least the chances are higher). In germany we kinda got away from using terms like that, since past assumptions of germans about the "spirit" of other peoples lead us to doubt the political correctness of such terms... also the "spirit" of the german people became somehwat of an annoying topic during the last century... the correct compound btw would be Volksgeist - beware tho, since this is a vocab, that "a german dictator" (to quote the german Civ IV) would have been delighted to use (and probably did use a lot)...

[Unimatrix11]

BTW EU3 got away pretty much from the scripted events (which of course are not simmy at all).

[Unimatrix11]

Originally posted by Krill
So because the Egyptian flood plains produced a ****load of food the Eygptian floodplains had to be home to massive metropoli?

No, it doesnt, but in this case it did (Alexandria was had a million people living in it, when rome was just a dirty town woth baracks and not much else (around 30.000 inhabitants). Later on tho, after the romans were in control of egypt - what did they actually do ? Move there, or rather ship of any surplus to rome ?

[Krill]

ssh, I want to see if the troll thread can stay alive...

[Unimatrix11]

Originally posted by wodan11

No... you're the one who doesn't understand.

You said that A leads to B, but that B does not imply A.

That has some implications, some pretty serious ones, that you are totally ignoring in your blithe statements.

Wodan

If A leads to B, it doesnt mean that A has to be the cause of B - B can also have cause C,D or ZGHGW.
If i walk down the road, i will eventually arrive at its end. That doesnt mean i have to WALK tho, i can also use the car or the bus... But IF i do walk and keep on doing it, I WILL get to the end of the road. But when you meet me only there, i could also tell you that i took the bus...

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11
If A leads to B, it doesnt mean that A has to be the cause of B - B can also have cause C,D or ZGHGW.

Right.

If i walk down the road, i will eventually arrive at its end. That doesnt mean i have to WALK tho, i can also use the car or the bus... But IF i do walk and keep on doing it, I WILL get to the end of the road. But when you meet me only there, i could also tell you that i took the bus...

Right. But Kuci was talking about the perspective of having arrived.

I'm at the end of the road. Does that mandate that I walked there?

Wodan

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by wodan11
No... you're the one who doesn't understand.

You said that A leads to B, but that B does not imply A.

Oh, I understand that perfectly. That's what I intended to say.

That has some implications, some pretty serious ones, that you are totally ignoring in your blithe statements.

Only if you don't understand syllogisms.

[Unimatrix11]

Originally posted by wodan11

Right. But Kuci was talking about the perspective of having arrived.

I'm at the end of the road. Does that mandate that I walked there?

Wodan

(I am oblivious right now to the actual subject of the discussion between you and kuci right now, i just do logic here - regardless of the point i may be supporting by it)

So i meet you at the end of the road. I do not know how you got there. You might have walked, or taken the bus, or even flown or teleported there (tho the later two could be excluded for being too inprobable). I just dont know. I know that you COULD have walked. But i cant tell for sure...

Now if i saw you walking down the road earlier and your speed was enough to get you to the end by now, it´s a bit safer to assume you walked the rest also, but still i do not know - you could have stepped on the bus later and been waiting around for a couple of minutes...

I dont know if this analogy takes anyone anywhere, but for further info on this, i´d have to check the bus-schedules (assuming i couldnt trust you on an honest reply on how you got there). Now if i do look it up, and find that a bus did go down the street during the time in question, i still do not know more. In the end i need that info that tells me: No bus ! in order to be sure you walked (i am considering now only these two options). I can only get there by exclusion, if i have no way of direct observation (eg WATCHING you walk there).

Quite a ramble - hope it helped...

[Unimatrix11]

Oh, Adam: Please no more P.S.s - i found your text altered and kinda replying to my post, after i had, umm, already replied to it... you see how confusing that is ? Please make new posts instead of PS...