Pimping Magna Graecia

[HistoryProf]

Has anyone seriously considered a Magna Graecia faction, centered on Southern Italy and Sicily?

Before you decide, please let me make an introductory case (I have more evidence to cite and game-play issues to defend).

It would no doubt be very weak militarily, but that might be a good challenge, and coupled with the smarter MTW2 Diplomatic AI, it might take the game to new heights with a creative player. I imagine a Syracusan Envoy landing in Cyprus begging for Ptolemaic intervention and coming back with the promise of an allied army on his heels. I don't think the development team should discount it due to an unexpected survival rate. The strengths of the new AI are worlds different than what we're all used to in EB1.

Someone's going to say that the city-states didn't get along:

On page 193 and 194 of

The Cambridge Ancient History
By I. E. S. Edwards, John Boardman, John B. Bury, S. A. Cook

Who wants to rumble?

[HistoryProf]

uh, Volume 7, part 1.

I think. (Book is at school.... )

[Bootsiuv]

Barring historical reasons, I do know that another faction in that area would do much to liven things up.

There seems to be a large percentage of current EB players who would like to see Syrakousai be in as a playable faction. Perhaps the EB gods are listening...

[HistoryProf]

Rome didn't subjugate Magna Graecia for quite awhile. A strong leader, some decent diplomacy and novel concepts in warfare could've seen them rise like other great powers in history.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Syracuse could be a faction. Nothing else in the area seems worthy of considering.

One problem with adding factions to the area, as well, is the AI. As we have all seen, since Epirus owns Taras, the Romans don't have it as a priority over rebel settlements to the north. Having a faction in southern Italy would cause additional crazy Roman expansion.

[Zarax]

Unless there is some gallic faction to block their passage...
Pardon my ignorance but is there no chance to have either Aedui or Averni have the northern italian settlements in their starting territory maybe as lvl4 government?
That would make a lot of improvement on the game balance side imho.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Post #1:

Has anyone seriously considered a Magna Graecia faction, centered on Southern Italy and Sicily?

Before you decide, please let me make an introductory case (I have more evidence to cite and game-play issues to defend).

It would no doubt be very weak militarily, but that might be a good challenge, and coupled with the smarter MTW2 Diplomatic AI, it might take the game to new heights with a creative player. I imagine a Syracusan Envoy landing in Cyprus begging for Ptolemaic intervention and coming back with the promise of an allied army on his heels. I don't think the development team should discount it due to an unexpected survival rate. The strengths of the new AI are worlds different than what we're all used to in EB1.

Someone's going to say that the city-states didn't get along:

On page 193 and 194 of

The Cambridge Ancient History
By I. E. S. Edwards, John Boardman, John B. Bury, S. A. Cook

Who wants to rumble?

Correct me if I am wrong. But it does read:

a Magna Graecia faction, centered on Southern Italy and Sicily

Okaaay... so you want either Magna Graecia as a faction; or you want one faction which has the property/properties (p(x) in logic) of the Magna Graecia type/class. Or you don't quite know what you want -given your incoherent reasoning later on that's altogether the most likely option.

But we're not yet there, are we?

Someone's going to say that the city-states didn't get along

City-states... hmm plural is it not? And apparently you foresee the case that someone is going to argue about inclusion of more than one city-state in the faction. Hence property p(x) must refer to the faction as desired by the author of the thread being something plural. So apparently this faction must contain multiple objects which either each on their own; or all together have the property p(x) as noted earlier.

But lo and behold; the author of forementioned quotes (unless of course there are multiple authors writing under the pseudonym of HistoryProf that is - checking: there aren't any are there?) isn't quite consequent:

But all that aside, you're missing the point:

Ah we are missing the point... That, my dear, coupled to the colon you so recklessly use, implies (and if you knew about logic, you'd know that to imply is to yield; and that conclusions are entirely valid if based on implications!) the point will be revealed right at this very moment:

I don't care what you call it, or where you put the capitol, my point was, that in my opinion, a faction needs to be between Rome and Lilybaeum: Oenortii, Croto, Syracuse, whatever...

And suddenly it becomes all so clear. Property p(x) is implicitly defined to be "between Rome and Lilybaeum and consisting of one single entity".
(For your information: entity is taken to mean an instance of similar properties as formentioned examples: Syracuse, Croto, Oenortii". Syracuse was a city-state, and more importantly it is ONE city state. Same goes for Croto.)

But this contradicts the idea of the plural (mutiple object/entities if you don't get it) which is implied in:

Someone's going to say that the city-states didn't get along

Fail to see it, do you? Well "city-states" is still a plural. And your sentence implies that someone is going to argue what you want over that property u(x).

p(x) is a property of the faction as you propose it; as is u(x). But the two are mutually exclusive!

This implies that the same reasoning yields an impossible result. It also implies that the reasoning somehow has misapplied logic - which implies that the author is not consequent when it comes to applying logic in one and the same case. (This thread, if you didn't realise.) In fact he is contradicting himself (in terminis - no less).

The fact that he replies this way:

The point of this thread is the same as the billions of other threads in the millions of forums on the Internet: discussion.

I'll say it one MORE time: I (me, the writer of this post, and starter of this thread) do (verb, present, singular, 1st person) NOT (adverb) care (verb) how (conjunction) you (informal, plural, pronoun) manifest (verb - to show) it (objective, pronoun re: faction in S. Italy, and/or Sicily).

It'd just be nice to see. This is not written with an audience in mind, per se.

But since this still is a discussion, that's NOT all there is to it.

If you or someone else continues the merits or lack thereof regarding a possible presence of a faction in said area, so be it. I might care to comment again.

You don't get it? I don't get why you want to poop on this thread. It's lead to some interesting discussion.

when confronted with the fact that somebody does not see the point of the derailed reasoning:

In that case (you do not want M. Graecia as one separate faction; you want ONE polis from M. Graecia to be a sperate faction) you should be glad to know that Syrakousai is still in the race; and that's all there is to it, no?

So I don't get this thread.

Strengthens the impression that forementioned author is not familiar with the art of reasoning.

Why?

Well, somebody replies to the discussion at hand --about the inclusion of the faction which the thread creator so desires-- and tells him that a faction with property p(x) is being considered. Property p(x) has been defined by the author himself as being characteristic of the faction he wants.

Look at the following sentence:

I'll say it one MORE time: I (me, the writer of this post, and starter of this thread) do (verb, present, singular, 1st person) NOT (adverb) care (verb) how (conjunction) you (informal, plural, pronoun) manifest (verb - to show) it (objective, pronoun re: faction in S. Italy, and/or Sicily).

This particular sentence is very interesting because if we get rid of all the redundant bits we end up with:

I'll say it one MORE time: I do NOT care how you manifest it.

With "it" being an object of property p(x). Look at the previous statments. It is utterly and completely unconnected to what the author has been arguing; given that he strongly disagrees with a remark that has been made right before his statement (as implied by "I'll say it one MORE time"). Note that in meaningful language the statement "I'll say it one MORE time:" implies that the succeeding part of the sentence must contain the whole point of the authors previous remark/remarks.

Sadly however the author seems completely oblivious to the logic which makes language either meaningful or nonsense:

"I do NOT care how you manifest it"

So what does the author argue then? Well this particular statement would've implied that the previous remark must have disagreed by arguing the point of "how to manifest it". But alas, that's not the case:
"In that case (you do not want M. Graecia as one separate faction; you want ONE polis from M. Graecia to be a sperate faction) you should be glad to know that Syrakousai is still in the race; and that's all there is to it, no?"

Note the words "In that case". If you knew about logic you would have immediately recognised it's particular exclusive properties: it means the same as "if and only if". Note the parentheses: they suggest that any language between them is not strictly neccessary for the purpose of the sentences; and that it is merely added to clarify some preceeding piece of language. This then implies that the piece between parentheses is connected to the preceeding piece of language "In that case". Hence the sentence would logically yield:

"If and only if you do not want M. Graecia as one separate faction; you want ONE polis from M. Graecia to be a sperate faction you should be glad to know that Syrakousai is still in the race; and that's all there is to it, no?"

Note the tag question which reads "no?". This implies a certain degree of uncertainty about the previous statement!

Now consider this:

"If and only if p(x) and not u(x) then statement; statement with certain degree of uncertainty."

(I switched the conditionals for the sake of clarity; it's easier to read that way. Also, note the semi-colon: it implies that the piece before and the piece after it are distinctly stand-alone content and do not depend on each other.)

Then consider the next sentence:

"So I don't get this thread"

It means that based on the previous sentence there must have occured a discrepancy between the thread and the previous sentence (the implication of the word "So" is that the succeeding words must be connected to preceeding words) which is part of said thread.

Okay, let's look at the previous sentence again when it is reduced to it's logic:

"If and only if p(x) and not u(x) then statement must be true; next statement may be true."

Consider the following possibility -the word "So" refers to:

"If and only if p(x) and not u(x) then statment must be true"

And now use or memory: the author of the thread defined his faction to be both p(x) AND u(x); the comment however is about p(x) and NOT u(x).

Then that won't be the issue after all.

Next consider the following possibility -the issue which is adressed by the sentence (that the author does not understand what/why the thread is) is implicated in the statement that must be true:

"you should be glad to know that Syrakousai is still in the race"

That is one faction with property p(x) as defined by the author of the thread - but which lacks the property u(x) which is also defined by the author. And the faction which suffices must have (again by the definitions made by the author) have both property p(x) and u(x). However, p(x) and u(x) are mutually exclusive as pointed out earlier.

Hence the faction desired by the author is plain impossible --or there must have been an oversight.

And this is what yields the logical result: "So I don't get this thread."

----------------

PS: You should learn to be less trollish when you want a discussion. And if you don't want a discussion you should at least put a disclaimer next to your trollish remarks. That is, if you are not serious about it. Because if you do not want a serious discussion (even though you claimed that this thread was written with spawning a discussion in mind:

The point of this thread is the same as the billions of other threads in the millions of forums on the Internet: discussion

)

you genuinely qualify as a full 100% utter and complete troll. In my personal opinion of course- because we have to remain civil with each other.

Note that I find your writing style and your name strikingly similar to one pseudonym over at TWC. And that one shows the exactly same lack of being able to understand the idea of a discussion either. All he seems to be after is proving himself right, even if his reasoning is flawed.

[Foot]

Aw, he busted the logic on your arse. Didn't have time to follow it, though.

Foot

[Bootsiuv]

@TA...



Oh....my....goodness.

Is that a post or a formula for nuclear fission?

Was there math in there?

Nevertheless, it was entertaining.

(I did catch the sarcasm there BTW, thanks for the shits and giggles)

That being said, I don't see this thread as a bad thing per se, as it has raised some interesting discussion....so I don't quite understand why you guys are arguing.

Like I said though, the exploits of others are entertaining at the least, so keep it up.

[Tellos Athenaios]

@TA...



Oh....my....goodness.

Is that a post or a formula for nuclear fission?

Was there math in there?

It's a post alright. And yes, it did include math. But the math is nothing compared to the proof of the statement 1 + 1 = 2. (Which incidentally was delivered for the first time that we know of in the mid 19th century by a famous Mathematician & Historian called Bertrand Russell -- yes the one after whom the Russell square in London was named)

[skuzzy]

And who says historians are too nerdy to be complete dicks? That rhetorical question is not intended for any sole entity as multiple people were cry babies and should be scolded as such :)