The people have spoken...

[Stefan]

Ehm no i got RTW

Gates of Troy looks a bit childish the graphics u have it?

did u like it?


I agree those graphics are ugly.

[lurking horror]

Gates of Troy looks a bit childish the graphics u have it?

I agree those graphics are ugly.

The graphics look fine to me. Not top of the line, but I have yet to see 3d ingame graphics that look like anything other than a bunch of odd mutant freaks with flat faces and strangely distorted limbs.

Ultimatly, what practical difference do the graphics make? It's an odd thing to criticize exclusivly. What is of much greater importance is the gameplay.

So, any word on the gameplay, Anguille2?

[Anguille2]

Ehm no i got RTW

Gates of Troy looks a bit childish the graphics u have it?

did u like it?

I discovered the game this summer and just can't have enough of it.
Gates of Troy/Spartan is a great strategy game and it's turn-based. The AI is very challenging. The game is oriented towards Empire Strategy like Knights of Honor where Rome: Total War puts the focus on Battles.
I find the strategy map very nice. For battles, you can choose 2D or 3D. I am currently playing on 2D as i like it like that. Don't expect the same controls as in R:TW. You can plan the battle and this can be tricky. Once the battle is launched you have only 3 controls left: retreat, charge and "Morale" (to boost). I wasn't sure at the beginning but it works fine.
I tested the updated demo of Spartan (goes now to turn 100) and it gives a much better feeling of the game. For Hector i'd recommend the stand-alone expansion Gates of Troy as it has a Troy campaign. I had ordered Spartan and Gates of Troy together as there are so many scenarios...lots of replayability. Depending on the nation you take in a scenario, you have different goals and that's also refreshing. I am currently playing the Grand Campaign as Rhodos and my goal is to build the Colossus. Sparta's goal is 24 cities i think and some defined cities, like Mycène.

I recommend you try the Spartan demo.

http://www.slitherine.co.uk/spartan/SpartanIndex.htm

PS if you were only graphics oriented, you wouldn't play Knights of Honor, would you? :)

[Hector]

yeah your right the graphics arent that bad last time i looked it didnt look very good but now it seems fine

i will give it a try:)

[Stefan]

I discovered the game this summer and just can't have enough of it.
Gates of Troy/Spartan is a great strategy game and it's turn-based. The AI is very challenging. The game is oriented towards Empire Strategy like Knights of Honor where Rome: Total War puts the focus on Battles.
I find the strategy map very nice. For battles, you can choose 2D or 3D. I am currently playing on 2D as i like it like that. Don't expect the same controls as in R:TW. You can plan the battle and this can be tricky. Once the battle is launched you have only 3 controls left: retreat, charge and "Morale" (to boost). I wasn't sure at the beginning but it works fine.
I tested the updated demo of Spartan (goes now to turn 100) and it gives a much better feeling of the game. For Hector i'd recommend the stand-alone expansion Gates of Troy as it has a Troy campaign. I had ordered Spartan and Gates of Troy together as there are so many scenarios...lots of replayability. Depending on the nation you take in a scenario, you have different goals and that's also refreshing. I am currently playing the Grand Campaign as Rhodos and my goal is to build the Colossus. Sparta's goal is 24 cities i think and some defined cities, like Mycène.

I recommend you try the Spartan demo.

http://www.slitherine.co.uk/spartan/SpartanIndex.htm

PS if you were only graphics oriented, you wouldn't play Knights of Honor, would you? :)

Well i myself do not play KOH, i play RTW instead.


WE are talking about the same game here right? the one with the pathetic 2d figures? graphics arent everything but games should try and avoid hurting the eyes.

[Anguille2]

Well i myself do not play KOH, i play RTW instead.


WE are talking about the same game here right? the one with the pathetic 2d figures? graphics arent everything but games should try and avoid hurting the eyes.

I haven't tried the game with 3D as shown in the screenshots as i don't like that much. In 2D the combat screen is simple but nice, also colors are better to me. Their next game, Legion 2, will have much better looking battles.

There are many RTW players who enjoy Spartan, saying that they like the AI on the strategic level better there.

PS: what do you do on these boards if you don't play KoH? just wondering.

[Stefan]

I haven't tried the game with 3D as shown in the screenshots as i don't like that much. In 2D the combat screen is simple but nice, also colors are better to me. Their next game, Legion 2, will have much better looking battles.

There are many RTW players who enjoy Spartan, saying that they like the AI on the strategic level better there.

PS: what do you do on these boards if you don't play KoH? just wondering.


I came to these boards due to the large number of people who were bashing Lords of the Realm 3 when it was released and were claiming that KOH would be the ultimate game. I wanted to see what all the fuss was about and I had a few questions. The only reason im here now is this thread.

[lurking horror]

I came to these boards due to the large number of people who were bashing Lords of the Realm 3 when it was released and were claiming that KOH would be the ultimate game. I wanted to see what all the fuss was about and I had a few questions. The only reason im here now is this thread.

I remember that. There was one forumer on the LoTR3 board who repeatedly assured us all tha KOH was everything we had been promised in LoTR3. I actually just went back looking for that thread the other day (ironic that you bring it up now) to see who it was that was making those claims. But I could not seem to find where older threads were stored.

[Stefan]

I remember that. There was one forumer on the LoTR3 board who repeatedly assured us all tha KOH was everything we had been promised in LoTR3. I actually just went back looking for that thread the other day (ironic that you bring it up now) to see who it was that was making those claims. But I could not seem to find where older threads were stored.


Older threads are deleted on that board.

[lurking horror]

That's unfortunate. I was hoping to reread some of the explanations for aspects of the game. Not to mention reread some reactions and complaints from when the game first came out. I recently reinstalled LoTR3 (and 2, for that matter), and was curious to give it another stab.

[Sir Turylon]

back to off-topic main topic...

Dr Hovine is hilarious Stefan. I love his explaination of the evolution of the spork. :rofl:

To believers in evolution: Could yall post why you believe in it.

[lurking horror]

To believers in evolution: Could yall post why you believe in it.

With all due respect, and only because you asked:

Because I do not believe that God (or any other higher power) exists. Without some form of god, creation theory falls apart.

[Anguille2]

I believe in evolution cos if the world was created like in the Bible, we wouldn't have to **** and piss like the animals, would we?

[Noldy]

@Sir Turylon:
Now I have time to react on you salvation/purgatory issue, but I dont really feel like it after 3 weeks; do you?
Anyway, it wont have much sense as I can give you as many scripture quotes as I want, but youll just have to come with another interpretation, and my argument is useless.
So I guess nobody wins; were equal. OK?
:cheers:

[Sir Turylon]

I believe in evolution cos if the world was created like in the Bible, we wouldn't have to **** and piss like the animals, would we?

have you read the story of creation? seriously... have you read through Genesis?

never heard of.. fall of man into sin.. or that whole thing about how sin entereed the world... ???

gastro-intestinal systems have nothing to do with origin. Adam was not created to be an angelic being. He was created from the clay and given a spirit. Our bodily systems function in perfect unison with each other, as long as we take care of them.


@Lurk.
no offense taken. So, you base your beliefs on a denial of a higher power. Many people do. I am just amazed at how people can deny the existence of God when His creation is the best evidence of His existence. I geuss that once you deny He exists, it makes it easier for you to deny anything was created.

just a quick question. Would you deny the existence of a watchmaker, if you never saw the watchmaker make the watch?

[lurking horror]

just a quick question. Would you deny the existence of a watchmaker, if you never saw the watchmaker make the watch?

Of course not. But I do not equate the world to a watch. We know, unequivocallay, that a watch is made by a human hand. If I see a rock, do I instinctively assume that a rockmaker must have existed? Or a cat, is there definitively a cat maker beyond the parent cats? I do not agree with the belief that a creator of all must exist.

But on a related note, you believe in God. What watchmaker is responsible for him? The logic of the watchmaker analogy is weak. If anything, it undermines the belief in a single supreme being. Because if we follow the logic to it's inevitable conclusion, we are left with a creator for the creator of the creator and so on into eternity.

[jnewl]

Of course not. But I do not equate the world to a watch. We know, unequivocallay, that a watch is made by a human hand.

No you don't. You reason from the effect to a cause in order to come to that conclusion. You don't just magically wake up one day and know this. Besides, on your principles, there's no way to say for certain that the watch didn't just miraculously fall together by itself...

If I see a rock, do I instinctively assume that a rockmaker must have existed? Or a cat, is there definitively a cat maker beyond the parent cats? I do not agree with the belief that a creator of all must exist.

The argument is not that anyone instinctively assumes a rockmaker exists. The argument is that the supposition of a rockmaker is necessary in order to explain the existence of the rock. You may think you disagree with this, but your inability to even understand the argument involved shows that you're ill-equipped to even be having this discussion.

But on a related note, you believe in God. What watchmaker is responsible for him? The logic of the watchmaker analogy is weak. If anything, it undermines the belief in a single supreme being. Because if we follow the logic to it's inevitable conclusion, we are left with a creator for the creator of the creator and so on into eternity.

Well, of course, if you knew even the first thing about philosophy and theology, you'd know that God is held to be the Unmoved Mover. It is precisely because there cannot be an infinite regress in causes that we know God must exist. There must be a cause which is itself uncaused, and this we call God.

[Sir Turylon]

:scratch: okay... I think I agree with that.

The fact that you tried to say the anaolgy must be expanded and expanded until you end up in an never ceasing creation->creator loop shows you do not understand the basic premise that God exists outside of time. Ever notice how your evolution theory has expanded and expanded in time, whenever a new challenge came up in science. Some theoretical concept was proven to be false by some evidence, evolutionists expand the timeline to make it easier to fit the concept in. This has happened since the beginning of evolution. The "age of earth" has gone from 100,000 to 2 billion, to 4 billion.... when will it stop?

Another question. Why do you degrade your existence to that of a rock? Since, according to evolution, we evolved from a rock. Kinda makes your whole existence... meaningless. (but we won't draw this concept out and how it's effected the course of history)

Btw, a watch does not just form from an explosion in an electronics store. The universe did not just form from a massive explosion of matter.... (how'd the matter get there?) universe contracted? I think not... this has been disproved in past 4 years. Perhaps the only thing that prevents evolutionists from accepting the truth is their fanatical resistance to accept there just could be a higher power them humanity...

backtracking just a bit.

Without some form of god, creation theory falls apart.
interesting that you say that, when the theory you believe in falls apart when there isn't some form of god...

[lurking horror]

No you don't.

Yes we do. Unequivocally. I can produce solid and conclusive evidence to prove this. When looked upon literally, the answer is quite tangible.

The point being that the analogy is unworkable.

You reason from the effect to a cause in order to come to that conclusion. You don't just magically wake up one day and know this. Besides, on your principles, there's no way to say for certain that the watch didn't just miraculously fall together by itself...

Interesting that you assign the terminology of the miracle to my side of the argument.

The argument is not that anyone instinctively assumes a rockmaker exists. The argument is that the supposition of a rockmaker is necessary in order to explain the existence of the rock. You may think you disagree with this, but your inability to even understand the argument involved shows that you're ill-equipped to even be having this discussion.

Your complete inability to understand that I am arguing against the simplistic analogy is baffling in the extreme. I understand the philosophical undercurrents and non-literal applications of the argument quite well, so spare me your presumptous and somewhat arrogant judgement (lest ye be judged, and all).

And in case you somehow failed to glean the intent of my last post. I disagee that a rock maker is required to produce a rock. Show me some indisputable proof otherwise. By all means, do what has never been done, prove (beyond the slimmest shadow of a doubt) that God exists.

Fact: You cannot. Your arrogant assertion that a rockmaker is necessary in order to explain the existence of the rock is a testament to your own inability to properly discuss this issue.

Well, of course, if you knew even the first thing about philosophy and theology,

Again, spare me your righteous judgement.

you'd know that God is held to be the Unmoved Mover. It is precisely because there cannot be an infinite regress in causes that we know God must exist. There must be a cause which is itself uncaused, and this we call God.

Congratulations. You have unravelled the riddle of the universe. You have succesfully proven that the Christian God exists with your indisputable logic.

Oh wait. No you haven't.

So tell me why exactly there cannot be an infinite regress in causes? Then explain to me why evolution is impossible. Then explain to me how you understand the meaning of every word of the bible perfectly and absolutely. Then explain to me how you, as a fallible creation, understand the subtle mechanics of God in every permutation.

And then deliver your proof for these assertions.

And when you are done with this maybe you will understand that I am not challenging the existance of God, per-se. I am challenging the watchmaker analogy itself. Presenting ourselves or our world as evidence that God must exist simply because we lack the ability to explain it properly is a fallacy. 200 years ago much of what we took for granted in our modern world would be written off as magic. Yet we now understand it not to be so. Ignorance is not evidence. No matter how you attempt to twist it with illogic.

And while we are on the subject infinite regress in causes, what came first, the chicken or the egg? And please, support your answer with some proof while you're at it. I'm sure the millions upon millions of individuals who have asked themselves this question would love to have a definitive and indisputable answer.

Sir Turylon:

The fact that you tried to say the anaolgy must be expanded and expanded until you end up in an never ceasing creation->creator loop shows you do not understand the basic premise that God exists outside of time.

Your evidence in this regard is something that I do not agree exists. Personally, it baffles me that you can take it as a given that a being can exist outside of time, yet a species, given millions of years of breeding, cannot adapt to it's enviorment. You laugh off one theory as ridicoulous, yet you embrace a second theory that is (at best) no stronger.

Ever notice how your evolution theory has expanded and expanded in time, whenever a new challenge came up in science. Some theoretical concept was proven to be false by some evidence, evolutionists expand the timeline to make it easier to fit the concept in. This has happened since the beginning of evolution. The "age of earth" has gone from 100,000 to 2 billion, to 4 billion.... when will it stop?

When we know the truth. Ever notice how it was once belived that we could not break the sound barrier? We learn new things and adjust our beliefs accordingly. It is a hallmark of progress.

Another question. Why do you degrade your existence to that of a rock? Since, according to evolution, we evolved from a rock. Kinda makes your whole existence... meaningless. (but we won't draw this concept out and how it's effected the course of history)

I don't need to feel as if I am part of a larger picture to enjoy my life and go about my day to day buisness. I'm quite content with the life I have, regardless of your perception that life without God is meaningless. I once pulled a friend out of a wrecked car. Was that act meaningless without God? I enjoy spending time with my girlfriend. Is that meaningless without God? Through the work I do I touch and influence the lives of millions. Is that meaningless? I try to do things that make a difference in my community. Is that meaningless without God?

Btw, a watch does not just form from an explosion in an electronics store.

Nor did I suggest that it did.

The universe did not just form from a massive explosion of matter....

Prove it with indisputable evidence.

(how'd the matter get there?) universe contracted? I think not... this has been disproved in past 4 years.

Source of this indisputable proof? Remember, non-biased and impartial only please.

Perhaps the only thing that prevents evolutionists from accepting the truth is their fanatical resistance to accept there just could be a higher power them humanity...

Perhaps the only thing that prevents creationists from accepting the truth is their fanatical resistance to accept there may not be a god waiting for them when they die...

See how that works?

interesting that you say that, when the theory you believe in falls apart when there isn't some form of god...

That would be disputable. My assertation would not be.

[Elvain]

To believers in evolution: Could yall post why you believe in it.
:)
I feel somwhere very deep in myself(there, where you feel love and such things) somehow kin or related(sorry if bad expresion, my vocabulary gave me 6 words to chose from) with animals and I know we are of the same origin and they have the same spirit as we, but most of them are not as smart as most of people(some animals are smarter than some humans I guess).
And also, of course I was educated in society, where it is believed in, most of things I have heard red in books prooved it. Also I don't believe in God, of course.

But, please, Sir Turylon, don't make me laugh saying that YOUR reasons of believing in God and creations are different.

It is question of education and belief, not a question of truth. I concede I may be wrong, but I have given no satisfactory proofs of any other theory. No proofs that were based on more than belief or "no better explanation".
Honestly. Is it on the whole possible to find one absolutely clear proof of the beggining?

Imagine you are the only human in the world(your parents died when you were very very young), you've never seen a single baby born, never seen any woman(if woman, you've never seen a man). And one day you will ask yourself: how did I get to this world?
I am sure that none of your answers would be: my already dead father had sex with my already dead mother and 9 months after I was born.
It would be all like:
somebody like me or maybe like animals all around had created me and gave me life
there was some power I was born from
and so on :)

Peace, love, empathy, Elvain