Recent posts

#1

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by Tonitrus - Today at 12:21:24 PM

I find it a bit funny how people are saying the Epstein files are going to be released. Nothing with Trump's name in it will be released. Those will be held due to the newly started investigation into Bill Clinton and other Democrats.

This was mostly known...either "part of ongoing investigation" or "redacted to protect the victims" were always going to be obvious ploys.  But short of a Trump-is-guilty-of-bad-things smoking gun, I think most of the political damage has been done, and it has been a very effective weapon against the GOP/MAGA crowd. 

The only pain for the Democrats is that it will likely now fade into the background and Trump can now fill the headlines with his flying circus again.

#2

Gaming HQ / Re: Europa Universalis V confi...

Last post by Richard Hakluyt - Today at 12:06:31 PM

Yeah, in the game I'm playing France won the 100 years war in 20 years and seemed to have iron control of their vassals. They became the hegemonic power in Europe by about 1360, which is disappointing.

In the real world a united France was a huge threat to just about every other European state (I'm thinking of Louis XIV here), but getting there so incredibly early (hundreds of years early) is very bad for the game.

#3

Gaming HQ / Re: Europa Universalis V confi...

Last post by The Minsky Moment - Today at 11:52:44 AM

Also seems to me making subjects harder to control nerfs France game start which will probably boost England's chances of performing as historically in the 100 YW.  At the same time, it will make it harder for England to hold on to large areas of France, especially away from the coasts.  And that seems right too.

#4

Gaming HQ / Re: Europa Universalis V confi...

Last post by The Minsky Moment - Today at 11:48:16 AM

The midpoint of the EU campaign in 1587.  From that standpoint I don't think it was obvious that centralizing was a superior state building strategy. The two western European countries with a centralizing drive - England and France - seemed trapped in endless cycles where they would thrive under strong monarchs, only to collapse back into confusion and civil strife during the reigns of weak monarchs or long regencies. And of course that pattern would continue into the mid-1600s.   On the flip side, city states like Venice or city leagues like the Hanse seemed a viable alternative model.  The HRE and the Habsburg agglomeration had all sorts of problems but managed to project resilience and exert power pretty consistently.  The Ottomans were at their height despite granting significant degrees of regional autonomy horizontally and within regions through the millet system.

The proposed changes to centralization do not appear to me to take centralization less preferable. As I understand, the centralization bonuses for crown power and proximity cost remain, and those remain two of the best bonuses in the game.  Decentralization is going to be boosted by basically making it harder to maintain subject loyalty without it.  That doesn't really change the balance in the sense that going centralized will help you project control so that you don't need to rely on subjects as much for expansion and can just control directly.  What it does do is: (1) open the possibility of drifting decentralized early game until other sources of control and prox reduction make a centralized strategy more effective, (2) making decentralization more useful for AI countries that get stuck with it.

#5

Gaming HQ / Re: Europa Universalis V confi...

Last post by Syt - Today at 11:06:47 AM

 

#6

Gaming HQ / Re: Europa Universalis V confi...

Last post by Tamas - Today at 10:52:24 AM

1.0.7 is out which aimed to undo 1.0.5's breaking of the regular-levy troops balance of 1.0.4 not by reverting the change but by further convoluting the process by which these troops behave and improve over time. I linked Johan's post about it that was immediately torn apart by people.

So apparently now you can get results like this:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/1-0-7-bodies-in-unit-calculations-make-regular-troops-useless-before-age-iv.1877431/

Where a handful of regulars still massacre 15k levies but because of the new... jumble of calculations they still lose the battle because their morale runs out.

#7

Off the Record / Re: The China Thread

Last post by The Minsky Moment - Today at 10:01:03 AM

The classic middle income trap are mid-to-largish countries that are more balanced and pursing import substitution strategies: Brazil, Argentina, South Africa.

Export promotion strategies have been pretty reliable in getting over that hump when pursued vigorously.  The trick is such strategies involve scavenging off of consumer demand overseas. Smaller countries (Singapore, Taiwan, even Korea) can get away with that because net global impact is low. Japan was large enough to encounter push back but just managed to break through advanced status before the backlash hit.  China OTOH is so big that it caused significant global impact while still in middle income territory.

#8

Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...

Last post by The Minsky Moment - Today at 09:51:45 AM

Yeah, the Euro media seems to be freaking out about it much more than the US one. I hope it means they know the plan has little credibility.

1/3 is that the US media knows that Steve Witless is a joke
1/3 is that the US media can't keep track with all the ruinously crazy crap Trump & Co. are up to. Only so many stories can fit front page
1/3 is that the US media knows most of the US public yawns at foreign policy stuff unless we're blowing up shit or getting blown up ourselves.

#9

Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...

Last post by The Minsky Moment - Today at 09:48:30 AM

Every month he travels to Moscow and comes back with a "new peace plan". Every month it's the same plan.

Of course it's the same plan.  It has the same author.  Why would Putin change it?

#10

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by The Minsky Moment - Today at 09:43:22 AM

And Halligan can't go back to the Grand Jury because the statute of limitations has been reached.

This is where it gets interesting.

There is a safety valve for the government in criminal cases where the limitations period has passed.  18 U.S. Code § 3288 provides that if an indictment or information is dismissed, the government has 6 months to secure a new indictment and it will deem to relate back to the return date of the original indictment.  So for example, if the District Judge dismissed the indictment for any number of reasons - e.g. because Halligan made false statements of law or because the sole witness improperly presented privileged information - Halligan would still have six months to try again and fix the mistake (assuming she was still in "office").

But what if the deficiency is the failure to return a valid indictment in the first place? Under the plain language, it seems like § 3288 would not save the case, because it only applies if there is an "indictment [that is] dismissed for any reason."  Technically, the Judge wouldn't be dismissing the indictment, he'd be ruling that there wasn't an indictment returned in the first place that could be subject to a dismissal.