game realism

[heroetkiki]

I don't think my general will order his men to abandon war booty that they cannot carry. I believe he will find as many carts as he can from the enemy side to carry them back. This is reasonable.

[reni]

ofc i read them, as i said children arguing with fancy words

Can you quote it in message, and give an explanation what's wrong? I thought i gave the explanation about my sentence about "irony"... 

[k_mihai]

Can you quote it in message, and give an explanation what's wrong? I thought i gave the explanation about my sentence about "irony"... 

oki, if u really have difficulties to understand:

Why your nickname is cicson?

Properly... don't you think your nickname had to be more realistic? 

you got aproblem with my nickname?...what about yours?....why don't you think my nickname isn't realistic?..... it's just a nickname tho..it doesn't have to be realistic

yeah... well....still i don't understand what bothers you about my nickname and i sincerly don't give a .....

but i think you're just plain stupid and didn't understand what the topic is all about.... i don't want those things i asked about to be changed.... i just want to make the peeople in IO management that we arn't idiots and they shouldn't feed us crap like "we-re removeing some featurese because we're trying to make the game more realistic"
 the game will never be realistic because is jsut a game....
and you'll never make something realistic by making it featureless
and please..... don't be a dumb redneck and judge or say anithing about someone elses name or nickname coz francly.... reni sounds g_y... i'd beat my parrents if they'd named me that

dude... you have difficulties getting irony... 

Looking that you still didn't understood why i mentioned your nickname, i'm explaining it to you in a fair way. Your nickname is your choice. You name yourself with that, and you does not need to have an explanation at all. The others call you with your nickname and they never ask you why you choose that or to give explanation about. What i did to you, is the same with what you did with game owners (creators). You asked for reasons that don't exist (or at least explanation don't exist) or for future improvements that can't be completed without creating mess somewhere else.
I understand pretty well what you want to say. And i'm saying that there is no logic behind that. A game can't be real life, because we'll not call it a game any more. Number of features has nothing to do with entertainment. If you have doubts, look at chess for example.

Look at your improvements:Firstly why they should? Secondly, this will make army save not possible anymore.
Of course is better like it is. If the fortress effect will be removed after it is destroyed, then it will be possible prosecute someone to death.
Why not? The rule is like this. If you want a stupid explanation i can give you one: The horseman can't walk without his horse and he want to come back, but he dies during the trip. 
because they are lazy... 
Do you want for explanation? Ok, because they are afraid from the attacker. Only when you go there, and tell them to come back and work again, they believe you as a governor.
This rule is good, because you should not have the possibility to send 1000 soldiers and 25k sieges minimizing your looses. The opposite is also bad, because will ask you to have a huge army just to take a mere fortress.

Explanation?
The soldiers are needed to help during the transport. To fight they don't need them, because those 75 peasants are already trained for that function. But those 75 peasants can't transport a trebuche alone... 
How do you know how much wood is needed? Are you just looking in other games... and you think they are realistic?
Was properly this question who gave me the idea to ask you about your nickname. The question is totally senseless. The game owners choose this way to give you the possibility to defend. You are asking, why is like this... what to say... Do you want me to ask you again you you choose your nickname again? 
This is another senseless question. Game designers decided this and the right answer to your question is again like the previous one.
Anyway, if you want an explanation, let's say that population does not have weapons and they are not even inside fortress where only the army and treasury can stay... 


P.S.
You should try not to offend when you don't understand something, because is not fair... 

i`m lazy, i won`t quote the whole topic

[reni]

Whats wrong there? 

[k_mihai]

Whats wrong there? 

the way you 2 argued

[Decimus]

just smth to say inhere..cause is a game doesnt mean to be based on real(istic) chess isnt. bingoo isnt.starcraft isnt.
all are rational-logical.but not realistic.

[reni]

the way you 2 argued

Don't delude me Mihai! I hope you just had not enough patience to read the whole thread! I close my thread here.

P.S.
Decimus message tells everything i wanted to tell with a small irony that you are condemning.

[k_mihai]

Don't delude me Mihai! I hope you just had not enough patience to read the whole thread! I close my thread here.

P.S.
Decimus message tells everything i wanted to tell with a small irony that you are condemning.

that`s ur impression. my impression was that ur whole argument was childish and a little snobish. i`m condemning both ur attitudes, who were silly, especially when you started to say very smart thing like "you don`t understand my irony, sarcasm" whatever.

btw, the topic probably started because the carrying capacity was justified by realism, so, you kind of missed the point here.

 

[reni]

that`s ur impression. my impression was that ur whole argument was childish and a little snobish. i`m condemning both ur attitudes, who were silly, especially when you started to say very smart thing like "you don`t understand my irony, sarcasm" whatever.

btw, the topic probably started because the carrying capacity was justified by realism, so, you kind of missed the point here.

1. I didn't start the thread
2. I didn't miss carrying capacity feature. If one of admins gave an explanation as a "more realistic", that was just his way to notify this new feature. That's all. What was the need to write xx lines message with new proposals (as a kind of irony), when you have difficulties to get it when is against you?
3. I wrote 3-4 messages kidding a little bit with his proposals (and that was deserved, because proposals and their justification were really questionable, if not ridiculous)
4. If you ask me many times "whats wrong with my nickname", without understanding that i wanted to tell properly that: "that nothing is wrong", then i feel to give you a detailed explanation what you are missing. Frankly speaking everyone, besides him, understood what i was talking about. So it was not a smart as* message.
5. Your messages generally are like this (a little bit ironic). I even told you that once, so you are not the one who can condemn that way of speaking. That is not a problem for me, if you don't exaggerate (i didn't in this thread, and that's why i'm surprised with your message).

Anyway... that's not a problem.
Regards!

[k_mihai]

1. I didn't start the thread
2. I didn't miss carrying capacity feature. If one of admins gave an explanation as a "more realistic", that was just his way to notify this new feature. That's all. What was the need to write xx lines message with new proposals (as a kind of irony), when you have difficulties to get it when is against you?
3. I wrote 3-4 messages kidding a little bit with his proposals (and that was deserved, because proposals and their justification were really questionable, if not ridiculous)
4. If you ask me many times "whats wrong with my nickname", without understanding that i wanted to tell properly that: "that nothing is wrong", then i feel to give you a detailed explanation what you are missing. Frankly speaking everyone, besides him, understood what i was talking about. So it was not a smart as* message.
5. Your messages generally are like this (a little bit ironic). I even told you that once, so you are not the one who can condemn that way of speaking. That is not a problem for me, if you don't exaggerate (i didn't in this thread, and that's why i'm surprised with your message).

Anyway... that's not a problem.
Regards!

for 1+2, ask the one who posted. the silly part, i tell you for the 3rd time, since, as in many occasions, you have problems understanding what others have written, is when you both started to brame each other for not understanding the so-called ironies or sarcasm. and you were somehow close to flaming with ur first post.

[reni]

you have problems understanding what others have written

Quote it

and you were somehow close to flaming with ur first post.

Thats how you like to understand it.

P.S.
If this is the way to counter a small irony, then ok... fair enough.

[k_mihai]

Quote it
Thats how you like to understand it.

P.S.
If this is the way to counter a small irony, then ok... fair enough.

i won`t quote again you previous posts, you can read it for yourself, if you forgot what have you asked.

[reni]

i won`t quote again you previous posts, you can read it for yourself, if you forgot what have you asked.

I'm creating the impression that is you who have difficulties understand what the others are talking about. Anyway... this is going to be boring for the rest of the players...

[k_mihai]

I'm creating the impression that is you who have difficulties understand what the others are talking about. Anyway... this is going to be boring for the rest of the players...

sure, coming from someone who asked the same question for 3 times in the last hours, hmm, perceptive

[reni]

sure, coming from someone who asked the same question for 3 times in the last hours, hmm, perceptive

Why, you did differently? You stated the same sentence without arguments 3 times in a row... so what do you expect?