Messages

I've been meaning to try the Hospitality Mod. You can make a Visitor suite with that, can't you? I've been wondering if traders would automatically go to your visitor suite...

No, they don't. Only visitors do.

Thieving is only part of the problem. Yesterday I had this situation:

A trader came to my mountain base. As usual, the whole caravan chilled in front of my vault. Everything was fine until a raid came.

The raiders were friendly with the caravan. When they came to my doorstep they mixed with the caravan! The caravan just stood there chilling as if nothing was happening, while my guys were shooting the tribals that stood between them (using modded embrasures, from inside the vault). Then the tribals set my forest on fire (I'm growing trees for use in the fueled generators), and some caravaneers got burned due to the fire. Thankfully my guys didn't hit anyone from the caravan, so they were not hostile, but little did I know the worst was yet to come.

A burning caravaneer run through my door opening it for the raiders! The doors were made of stone, so they took a long time to close. 3 tribals got inside. This shouldn't have happened.

A good enough solution for me would be a trading post which would mark the place we want the caravans to stay at.

-edit- I tried to reproduce it, but I can't. Strange.

Has anyone checked what happens if you call your allies for help and they 'accidentally' happen to be enemies of the caravan sitting in your front yard? 

FlayedOne, this is not one of the points in here.

The biggest problem to manage is the "Fake Transgenders" going into the opposite sex bathroom and comitting harassment and rape. Right now you can be a Fake Transgender just by saying that you are a Transgender or dressing up as the opposite sex.

Since there is no "Sign" saying that you are a transgender, people may take advantage of it and commit crimes. But, independent of the transgenderism, a crime is a crime, should be treated as such.

I believe this is solved by my take on the bathrooms dilemma, which is why I didn't make any specific comments on it, or is there some specific situation I didn't notice?

I 100% agree on the crime part of course.

I like the general idea, but how would it work? If a pawn was close to a source of food would he eat for the whole scheduled time? Would the pawn go to get a second meal if he finished the first one before the end of the scheduled time?

I know I'm a bit late to the party, but I'd like to voice my opinion.

In my opinion it's all a matter of a freedom of choice. Anyone should be able to choose to change whatever they want in their body - it's their body and their life - they can do with it what they want to.

Having said that, I'm also a strong opponent to any laws trying to regulate against the so called 'discrimination' in any voluntary interactions. First of all, they become a kind of 'go to' excuse / accusation for any rejection that happens to those 'protected minorities' (in my opinion they should be called state-privileged minorities instead) and so the said minorities lack the incentives to get better. And secondly, but more importantly IMO, it's simply immoral to force others to act a certain way to enforce well being of the minority! If some guy saved a million bucks, starts an enterprise and doesn't want to hire transsexual people based on his own preference it's his prerogative - it's his own money! If such hire would have made his enterprise less efficient - then this was a right choice and the transsexual person will have an incentive to become better (make better impression, become a better employee), if it would have made it more efficient - it's the owners loss and some other company will hire this transsexual person and will be better off, also making general opinion about transsexual people better.

In other words - I believe such laws are not only immoral, but also harmful to everyone in the long run.

And when it comes to the bathroom argument - IMO they are split by sexual organs and not some "perceived sexual/social role". If you have a penis - go to the men's room, if you have a vagina - go to the women's room. If you underwent some "sex change operation" IMO you have neither, so go somewhere else, or wherever you want provided only a single person can enter at once. Majority does not have any duty to provide for every "wish" that minorities have.

I don't use traps precisely because of the micromanagement I need to engage in to keep my pawns from triggering them. I don't think it adds anything to the game.

Wouldn't it be better to make the relevant tiles impassable for allied pawns (and tamed animals)?

It's even worse! Do you know everyone who drank it either already died or are going to?!

It depends on a lot of things.

Do you live in a house or a flat? In the center of a city, suburbs, small town, country? Is there a lot of green space(parks, unused fields, forests) nearby?

How much time are you willing to devote to the dog? What kind of activities do you want to do together with it?

What kind of personality do you think would fit the best with your family? Do you live together with young kids?

I have a mod that does that called "boomjuice", havent released it yet as I thought I was the only madman who did stuff like this. Ill chuck it up for A14 for those willing to risk it all.

Well, there is at least two of us:D I would greatly appreciate it if you released it:)

How about milking boomalopes for some explosive liquid?

It could be used to manufacture molotov cocktails, grenades, rocket launchers and artillery shells.

It would provide some nice incentive to farm those bad boys.

1) There is no formal, legitimized way for a dissatisfied US state to leave.
3) The federal government of US generally has far more centralized authority than anything at the heart of the EU, especially in terms of the military.

A while ago I'd agree with those points, but now I am not so sure.

Although Confederates had no formalized way of leaving US, many lawyers and historians believe that they actually had a legal right to do so based on the Constitution not prohibiting it, Federal Government not having been granted the right to deny it, and the very creation of US being a result of secession. It doesn't really matter now, and it didn't then since a war was fought over it and they lost.

Although it wasn't mentioned by Reuters, polish sources mentioned plans to centralize EU military under EU control while at the same time taking away the right of member states to have their own separate army.

Here is a link to the alleged scans of the documents:
http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/736268/publicationFile/217593/160624-BM-AM-FRA-DL.pdf

2) US states never had a long history of independent sovereignty to facilitate (#1). Even the go-to example of Texas was only independent for 10 years and that was dogged with conflict with Mexico.
4) Broadly speaking, major armed conflicts to settle issues of authority and governance was not unusual for the 1800s. I don't think the same could be said of Europe in the 2000s. There's simply too much accrued wealth and infrastructure for that to be in anyone's best interest.

I'm not asserting EU civil war is impossible, but a peaceful (if contentious) dissolution/restructuring seems far more likely than in the US case.

Those are certainly valid points and I do hope you are right.

Why would the "federal" government want to start another civil war? I'm nearly certain that they're smart enough to see that a civil war would be against their best interest as well. And they shouldn't be  too arrogant to ignore this issue, there are plenty of examples of this happening. I'm not certain if having the EU having to decide other peoples tax rates is what they're implying, and you'd still be able to live in any country you want so a civil war sounds far fetched so if you wanted to live in a 'rich' country you'd be free to do so, if they'd still revolt that shouldn't be EU's fault.
And if not having a civil war is in both of our interests we'll probably try everything we can do to avoid it (since they are elected the European civil servants, we can chose who will rule).
Oh and many economies with high tax are actually the economies that are doing fairly well.

I'm not saying they will "want" to start a war. I'm saying that if we lose the right to have an army, intelligence agency, control of our taxes laws and currency, the only way we will be able to ever achieve any real development compared to for instance Germany and France will be if we force advantageous changes by force, since they will be detrimental to Germany's and France's interests.

That's actually one of the reasons our political class pushed to enter EU - we had a huge amount of unemployed people who were unsatisfied
with how they were governing the country. EU served them as a safety valve - instead of their dissatisfaction causing any real changes on the political scene (creation of new parties? inclusion of different points of view in the parliament?) they simply left the country and became content without resolving our country's problems.

Oh, and I disagree. I believe no economy with high tax is doing well. At least when compared with similar economy with lower taxes. Also, you have to understand something: imagine gross taxation is 75% (it's fairly close actually). If you live in Germany and make 6000 EUR a month, you are still left with 1500 EUR after taxation, which is enough to live comfortably. If you live in Poland and make 1000 EUR a month, you are left with 250 EUR which is barely enough. The difference in living costs is not that big. Where are you going to have it easier to gather capital necessary to start an enterprise?

Many rules/regulations also help to encourage product diversity, yes it will increase the cost to make the product but because of a greater diversity there will be more competition, more competition ==> lower pricer(for the customer), more research, ...

I'm not saying you're wrong, but can you name a few of such regulations?

I'm almost certain that in todays world market a totally unregulated market would create even more monopolies that already exist today, and monopolies are really bad for the customer, they're great for the company holding the monopoly. And if many regulations would be removed the quality of the product will go down, but will they actually decrease the price? Of course not people are willing to pay the price as it currently stands so why reduce it? Of course making unreasonable standards is stupid but slowly increasing them is useful it will encourage research and we both know that that is a good thing.

I'm not sure myself what would happen in a completely unregulated market. My point is simply that the amount of regulations should be minimized to the bare minimum needed to do a decent job.

I know for a fact though, that in the late nineties we had a much better quality of food than we do now. The food was also much cheaper compared to our wages. We had lots of food markets in my city where the farmers came to sell their produce. They are all gone now since the law requires them to sell most of their produce through wholesalers. Healthy food is very expansive now - and what you call eco was our normal food back then. I also know that now, people in the east go to Belarus to shop for good and cheap food.

Fun fact - people also go to Belarus and smuggle mercury thermometers into EU:P

You can also still buy normal light bulbs in pretty much every shop because a lot of people like them better than the other - legal ones.

That's what overregulation does - makes people do illegal stuff to achieve the product variety they really want. (In case you are not from EU - yes, normal light bulbs and mercury thermometers are illegal in EU)

First of all, a problem that hasn't yet been discussed is the fact that going out of the EU will cost BILLIONS in lost revenue, look at the pound it dropped massively after the results where announced, think about it, it doesn't even cost that much per year per person to be in the EU. I thought it cost around 100 euro per person per year for Britain to stay in the EU(for you polish people it should be less), but losing 10% of your wage (let's say  you make 30K per year that's 3K lost per year, you can see where I'm going, this is more than an order of magnitude, it's not worth getting out, it's not worth even saying that you have a chance of going out, because it will cost a fortune).
And do you really care about that 1% of your tax, shouldn't the majority/99% be spent better?

As is in the case of Britain - it's not even about the money. It's about the control. I'd rather even make 20% less than have our country lose control of our military, taxes and currency. Not to mention EU forcing us to "take in" so called refugees, who not only are simply illegal immigrants, are a safety hazard, and what's more don't even want to stay in Poland. What are we supposed to do? Reopen German death camps and put them inside, so they don't run west? We never agreed to this shape of EU. It's simply becoming a different organization than it was when we entered. ("We" as in "the people" - as evidenced by the rising euroscepticism across the various countries of EU)

Slow changes are a good thing it creates stability, this is what companies, banks, rich people, industry like, they'll be assured that they'll still have their money tomorrow but if something drastic will change that they almost always lose money, look at the pound, it fell a lot, people don't like that, businesses don't like that.

No one likes their money to be worthless, no one likes to be watching something in fear that it will make them lose their job, why create change, when it's really expensive, costly, and probably going to be a downside to you, (different trading laws , etc) will they(companies, rich people) focus on the massive EU market or on the tiny Polish/British/other one? The EU simplifies things, it makes our tiny counties larger, so people will be more interested in us, it causes businesses not to have to learn every countries trading laws, if we have many that have similar laws, it simplifies things for the industry, where will they create jobs where it's special(and new), but a little bit cheaper, or where it's simple(and known) but (maybe a little bit) more expensive?

I disagree again - every export oriented enterprise likes when it's currency gets cheaper - the production gets cheaper and the profits get bigger. It also makes countries more attractive to foreign investments. Cheaper currencies make people and governments unhappy but at the same time they stimulate growth since production is cheaper. Currency going down is not as bad as you make it out to be.

You guys didn't enter the EU in 2001, you did so in 2004 http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/index_en.htm, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_enlargement_of_the_European_Union#Poland,
if you indeed compare it to the wrong date, you did indeed grow a bit, but if you compare it to the right date, it has almost doubled!

You're right. My memory compressed the timeline. 2001 was the year the SLD (socialist) party won the elections and then EU became the primary focus of our politics.

It actually grew 65% between 2004 and 2014 - from 2290 PLN to 3783 PLN.
It also grew from 533 PLN in 1994 to 2290 in 2004 which is an increase of 330%.

Sources:
http://wynagrodzenia.pl/gus/dane-roczne
http://www.zus.pl/default.asp?p=4&id=3381

Since this fails to account for inflation and purchasing ability of the currency  it is worthless though so let me relate that to USD.
USD in 1994 was the cheapest in the beginning (2,10 PLN). In 2004 it costed at most 4,05 PLN. In 2014 OTOH it costed 3,50 PLN.

Source: http://www.finanse.egospodarka.pl/kursy-walut/USD?s=1994-03-24&e=1994-05-11

Polish average wage was worth:
253,8 USD in 1994
565,5 USD in 2004
1080,9 USD in 2014

Now if we take into account USD inflation we get (by "current USD" I mean USD from 2014):
405,45 current USD in 1994
708,70 current USD in 2004
1080,9 current USD in 2014

source: http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

This gives us an increase of ~75% between 1994 and 2004, and ~52,5% between 2004 and 2014.

Not as bad as I though, but still worse than before.

I know comparing currencies makes for a somewhat flawed comparison, so if anyone has an idea how to do it otherwise, please suggest it. We went through a devaluation of our currency during that time, so it's difficult to compare in a "straight" manner.

We'll you went down before you entered the EU and up doubled shortly afterwards, so, the EU must have done something right?
It has indeed stagnated a bit, I must admit that, but that indicated that you could have joined earlier and get this large growth then.

Frankly I don't know why the first chart I showed you looked like that. Official data looks different. That's on me for not checking my source. Sorry.

Again before joining the EU you GDP was going down, afterwards it almost doubled, that is a huge change to me.

Wait, I'm confused - our GDP pretty much never went down since 1990?
source:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?end=2014&locations=PL&start=1960&view=chart
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?end=2014&locations=PL&start=1960&view=chart

OMG. That literally is the biggest post I ever made. Hopefully it goes through .

I feel the urge to tell you that you make a lot more in the EU than out of it.
AKA: you spend 4B and you get 16B, you should be able to do the math and see that you are profiting by staying in the EU.
The Czech Republic republic again gains money from the EU: 4B
Hungary also gains 4B. Slovakia only makes 1B though.
Source

You have to understand is is not so simple though. The money member states pay to EU is just money - it's not associated with any further costs since it goes directly from the budget. The money member states get from EU is on the other hand distributed through a costly
bureaucratic system. Independent (as in not financed by the state or EU) organizations estimate the cost of this distribution as between 25% - 50% of the funding received. It's insanely high. A lot of the rest is wasted. EU funding also lead to the creation of many fictional enterprises which do nothing at all for the economy and live solely off of those funds - either by helping others get the funds or simply by making fictional projects to receive the funding themselves. I question whether it's beneficial for our economy at all. It certainly makes for a nice PR though.

This stems from the fact, that we are different than the western nations in some ways. Communism degenerated our society, and you can't simply set a western system here and expect it work as efficiently as in for example France. Most importantly - our officials have no ethos. They work slower, are more corrupt and abuse their power more often.

To be honest I don't understand why someone from a country that has been as successful as Poland want to leave the EU. I mean if I take a look at this graph I can't see anything that looks negatively to me..
And didn't you also have a massive increase in lifestyle over the last ten years or so?
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/graphs/2014-10-06_poland_success_story_en.htm

Just my opinion, but I don't think that Poland would be as successful without the EU..
But I can be wrong, who knows?

Just my 2 cents

GDP is only one measure. Take for instance the average wages:
http://wynagrodzenia.pl/upload/graph/5126.jpg
The red one is Polish compared to the orange EU27.

On this chart you can actually see that are wages pretty much stagnated since we entered EU (2001), at least compared to EU27. They more than doubled between 1991 and 2001, and barely rose 30% since we entered EU. Of course this makes us an attractive country for foreign investments, but it means we barely benefit from it. Also, even when you look at the charts you provided, you can see, that our GDP was pretty much rising at the same rate before we entered EU as well.

Of course I'm not sure if the trends could have continued if we didn't enter the EU, but then again - it's possible they could have.

The view that we had a massive increase in lifestyle in the last 10-15 years is actually wrong. The massive increase occurred earlier. I see no big changes in the last 15 years, although the things are getting slowly but steadily better.

-edit- crap, I prepared a huge reply for all of you and somehow lost the parts where I replied to Haplo and iame6162013 ;/ I can't recreate them now (lack of time), but be sure I will.

First of all, let me say that my worst fears are becoming true:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-germany-france-idUSKCN0ZC0BQ

I'm from Poland, and I really hope we follow GB out of EU along with Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia. We've already been in USSR (not exactly but practically), we don't need to belong to another socialist federation, especially since it's obvious, if the "federal" government will be the one to set taxation rates throughout the EU, they will keep the rates in the satellite countries high enough to keep them as the reservoir of cheap labor and sales market, preventing those nations from accumulating capital and becoming competitive at the same time.

As the US history taught us(South vs North), changing such status quo would probably require a civil war in the future, which would be bad for all of us.

As for the several points made by iame6162013:

Rules and regulations never increase economic growth per se, because they simply make some possible activities illegal. Theoretically it could be possible to forbid people from engaging into less profitable businesses and only work the profitable markets, but in practice you'd have to invest so much into centralized market research and change the regulations so fast (to adapt to market changes) that both the taxation and the unstable law environment would make people unwilling to risk their effort and capital in making any enterprises. Also, due to the nature of politics and bureaucrats having a nasty habit of forming a separate social class, they do inevitably start making regulations that favour themselves in expense of the other classes.

Are you familiar with Laffer curve? The same concept can be utilized regarding regulations. While the effect of regulations on economic growth can't be so easily quantified as a continuous function, and we don't know if a totally unregulated market would grow (no historical evidence, but presumably yes) and even if we assume that the effect of any single regulation can be both positive and negative depending on the regulation, we know for sure that the fully regulated market (everything is forbidden) will stop growing. Since we know that positive growth is possible thus overregulation thwarts growth. The amount of regulations should be minimized if we want to enhance economical growth.

Suggestion:
Give ability to a colonist to bandage himself as long as he has consciousness, and make the process take 4 times as much time.

I concur - allow self treatment at a penalty. This would allow you to survive the situations when only a single colonist is not incapacitated or dead.

My other suggestions:
1) Ability to reject the wanderer (as of now they automatically join the colony)
2) Ability to banish the prisoner if he is a colonist
3) Make mad animal's bites always cause infection (rabies?)