I challenge you: SEIZMIC

[P-51]

Either you know very little or you are living in intentional ignorance. I couldn't find another explanation for why you would make the following statement:

What works on paper doesn't neccessarily work in practice, take communism for instance.

Assuming you are being serious, what leads you to believe that communism can theoretically succeed? I am talking about a decent sized country here, not a tribal sized commune. Marx created this theory with the intent of it being used among the Great Powers of the world and although Marx seemed to be a good writer and intelligent individual, he overlooked basic traits of the world that would never allow communism to become a practicing ideology at this level.

Defend yourself. Try to prove me wrong. State why you think communism is good on paper. To the majority of educated people there are many flaws in communist theory, so either see something in a truly unique way or you are overlooking something very obvious. If you cannot respond adequately then I believe you shall become our new

token forum retard

.

And since no country has ever achieved communism and according to you it could theoretically work, where did countries of the last century go wrong when attempting communism? What could they have changed to make their attempts successful?

[seizmic]

You've already explained why communism works on paper but not in reality, I don't know what you're going on about imo, this was the whole point of my post, just because btd works on paper doesn't mean it'll work in practice, just like communism, on paper it works, in practice it doesn't because as you said, Marx missed a lot of important traits, the biggest one coming to mind being: human nature.

[P-51]

just like communism, on paper it works, in practice it doesn't because as you said, Marx missed a lot of important traits

You're contradicting yourself.

[Omega]

Seizmic must be using 'works on paper' to mean 'it works unless you actually think about it analytically and rigorously to determine the feasibility'. Which would make what he's saying entirely consistent with regard to Marx and communism (assuming of course, that we accept his generalizations about Marx's ideas as representative of Marx's ideas... Which isn't exactly the case, but it's pretty much totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand).

Of course, if he's using 'works on paper' to mean 'it works unless you actually think about it analytically and rigorously to determine the feasibility' then there is an issue. That would mean he could easily make a cogent argument in favor of his assertions regarding BTD on CA, as per the other thread, but he hasn't done that.

Hmm...

[[-Ts-] Tricky]

lol wtf im confused omega your always confusing me :O

[lightnessking.]

lol wtf im confused omega your always confusing me :O

A conversation with omega requires an IQ level above 80. O__________O

[[-Ts-] Tricky]

ill just keep my convo`s with fred and legends

[sporaTiK]

LOL Trix

[P-51]

By "works on paper", perhaps one can say that if they are referring to the fact that communism inverts class interests while retaining the injustices and weighted values of society. Perhaps some would enjoy that, but not most. I've never read one of Marx's books but I do not believe that those were his intentions.

[StatsZero]

My philosophy on the best way of living consists of forever trying to find the best way to live, instead of having it.
In that way we keep chasing a dream which is something everyone needs to feel a little lucky and happy in life.
Like that fine holiday you're living up to in June. Or that great payment you will be getting after 700 years of bookworming!
I mean to say that if we live a certain TYPE of way everyone is fairly okay with we would fight over alot of different stuff. People fight/discuss everything, because everyone has a different opinion on everything.
I hope we will always be dicussing on how we SHOULD live, that way we won't recognize the SHITTONS Of replacements we should really care about, which will blow you're mind and is out of you're league most of the times.

[seizmic]

just like communism, on paper it works, in practice it doesn't because as you said, Marx missed a lot of important traits

You're contradicting yourself.

No, I'm not. Something can seem perfectly logical and sound in theory but when put to practice other variables that weren't considered in the theory come into effect and completely ruin it. This is exactly the same as the BTD Cav argument, in theory it seems legit because "herp derp I'll make cavs faster than someone without BTD" but in practice it's a lot different because your building production isn't limited solely by speed but by economy aswell, to put it simply, you won't have enough eco to fully utilize BTD in the first 10 minutes of the game (which is when it's supposed to shine because allegedly this is supposed to be the best strategy vs a sword rush) in comparison to not having BTD. You also have to sacrifice gold mining or wood cutting to fit BTD into an expan cav civ, further slowing down your production rate.

@Omega, that's basically what I was saying, yes and the reason I didn't explain why earlier was because as I said in the other thread, I'm just too lazy to do so but hey, 4-5 days on and I finally got the motivation to slightly delve into it etc.

[Arntzen]

This is exactly the same as the BTD Cav argument, in theory it seems legit because "herp derp I'll make cavs faster than someone without BTD" but in practice it's a lot different because your building production isn't limited solely by speed but by economy aswell, to put it simply, you won't have enough eco to fully utilize BTD in the first 10 minutes of the game (which is when it's supposed to shine because allegedly this is supposed to be the best strategy vs a sword rush) in comparison to not having BTD.

What the F&*% are you talking about? Not enough economy? Jesus christ.

You also have to sacrifice gold mining or wood cutting to fit BTD into an expan cav civ, further slowing down your production rate.

As I've said earlier, dont go expan cav if you know you're vsing swordrusher. If I need to expain why lets just start with you're civ is weaker (have to take away either something important) and you have to start out useing many citz on forage/hunt for the expencive power Expansionism to be worth the Civilization points. -> Less CA early on.

[Geroge]

Christ, please dont argue command economies through an EE metaphor

[seizmic]

What the F&*% are you talking about? Not enough economy? Jesus christ.

Are you thick or something? Yes, when it comes to expansionism cavs you simply won't have enough economy to keep up with the BTD production in the first 10 minutes of the game. Hence why, no btd is better on expan cavs than btd. Now if we're talking no expansionism then obviously you're going to go BTD on cavs because the general idea and strategy of that is a lot different to expansionism cavs. You'll double gold mine and hit wood instead of doing a 6 forage, 6 gold, 4 wood strat, with this you can obviously keep up production, I took the time to test this ages ago however and you'll end up with around 8 cavs more at 10f11 than no expan no btd cavs, honestly not a huge difference considering once 10f11 hits the expan cavs will literally explode ahead of the no expan cavs in terms of production.

Do you want to know what makes expan cavs so effective vs slut rushes though? the fact you can get slut rushed and recover extremely quickly due to expansionism early in the game. If you get slutted w/o expansionism in the first 10 mins and they take out around 50% of your cits? you're severely fucked. If that happens w/ expan cavs? Not so much.

I'm not going to explain anymore because imo, teaching retards is fucking annoying and stressful etc.

[P-51]

just like communism, on paper it works, in practice it doesn't because as you said, Marx missed a lot of important traits

You're contradicting yourself.

No, I'm not. Something can seem perfectly logical and sound in theory but when put to practice other variables that weren't considered in the theory come into effect and completely ruin it. This is exactly the same as the BTD Cav argument, in theory it seems legit because "herp derp I'll make cavs faster than someone without BTD" but in practice it's a lot different because your building production isn't limited solely by speed but by economy aswell, to put it simply, you won't have enough eco to fully utilize BTD in the first 10 minutes of the game (which is when it's supposed to shine because allegedly this is supposed to be the best strategy vs a sword rush) in comparison to not having BTD. You also have to sacrifice gold mining or wood cutting to fit BTD into an expan cav civ, further slowing down your production rate.

Then that is not being good on paper. Being good on paper means it accounts for those variables and has the ability to overcome them or use them as an advantage. Just because the variables were ignored or not though of does not mean that a theory is good on paper. That would be like saying going all pikes as a wing in mid sh is a good on paper stating that it will counter the other wing that goes all swords, and the theory happens to neglect the fact that they will get roflstomped by the enemy pocket's cav archers. That doesn't make it good on paper; it makes the theory flawed. Just like communism.