Hm. Haven't heard of Travian before. Looking at it now. Thanks for the suggestion.

----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]

Thanks. Oh, and thanks to Nish for his article on dragging windows. I used some knowledge I gained in this article (Creating draggable windows - SDI and dialogs[^]) in the application's code. (Yeah, the game uses MFC for the user-interface.)

----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]

Hey guys. Most of you probably won't recognize me, but I used to comment frequently on codeproject (which is why I have 2900 posts to my name). Years ago, I started a (one person) company to produce my own game. You can check it out here: Empires of Steel[^] I was hoping to show off what I've done, get some more players interested, and get any feedback you have. There's a free demo of the game, and the game is being sold through a publisher. If you download the demo, be sure to get the latest update (just press the "Check for Updates"/"Update Available" button on the main screen). The game automatically downloads and installs the update. Thanks in advance.

----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]

There's some huge problems with this commentary. First of all, it takes one (or two) situations and tries to use it as the model for peace movements and war. We are human beings with brains, and we should think about using our brains to differentiate the situations where peace movements are the most benefitial path from the situations where war is. Of course the only path in World War 2 against the Axis was war. Because of the nature of the Axis and the situation, peace movements would've accomplished nothing. But this commentary wants to use that one situation to argue that all possible situations are like World War 2 - and therefore, the solution is war. This is just brain-dead thinking. Why not do a more comprehensive look at conflicts? Is the author going to argue that Ghandi's peace movement for India's independence accomplished nothing? That it would have been better to lead a violent uprising - despite the deaths that it would have incurred? Is the author going to argue that Martin Luther was misguided in his peaceful attempts for black civil rights and that the Black Panthers and Malcolm X had it right to use violence? Does the author even realize that this paper can be used to urge Muslims towards violence against the US and Israel - they shouldn't work for a peaceful solution because peace movements accomplish nothing. Similarly with the Black civil rights movements of the 1950s. Similarly with Pakistani terrorist attacks against India. One of the problems I have with all this pro-war commentary is the fact that it always ends up being extremely self-centered and self-interested. If you took a step back and said, "What if everyone acted this way? What if everyone accepted this logic?" then you'd quickly realize that the whole world would be engulfed in war. I'm not a believer in Christianity any more, but sometimes when I read these pro-war commentaries, in the back of my mind, I can help but play with the idea that some of these people are agents of the one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - specifically, the one called "war": "Then another horse came out, a fiery red one. Its rider was given power to take peace from the earth and to make men slay each other. To him was given a large sword."

I completely agree with you. It's entirely reasonable to suggest that our US president embodies, in every way, the thoughts and opinions of 150 million American males. In fact, we are all clones.

----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]

espeir wrote:

Do you think the Americans hates Germany or Japan?

Plenty of American WW2 vets were angry at Japan for the rest of their lives. Further, I'm sure that France, Korea, and China maintained a grudge against their invaders for a long, long time. Even today, you can see anti-Japanese protests in China. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/04/10/china.japan.protest/index.html[^]

----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]

Rob Graham wrote:

Only an idiot pokes a dog with a stick repeatedly, then complains when the dog bites him.

:confused: Are the Israelis the idiots because they seek to expand the settlements, imprison and torture Palestinians on suspicion of wrongdoing, and refuse the return of Palestinians - therefore, they shouldn't complain when the Palestinians capture an Israeli soldier? Or are the Palestinians the idiots because they support and encourage suicide bombings, deny Israel's right to existence, and refuse to compromise - therefore, they shouldn't complain when the Israelis retaliate against the Palestinians? Or both simulataneously?

----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]

Google News: "suicide bombing" sri lanka[^] Google: "suicide bombing" sri lanka[^] ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]

The odd thing that I notice about the arguments I've seen on global warming is the number of different positions by people in the anti-global warming camp. For example, I've seen different people argue that: There is no correlation between CO2 and global temperatures. That there is a correlation but we can't say what the causation direction is. That CO2 is causing global warming, but mankind's contribution to the CO2 levels are dwarfed by natural ones. That global warming is occuring and is manmade, but we really can't do anything about it without crippling the economy. It's quite a contrast, and it makes me wonder about the arguments used by the anti-globalwarming camp - it appears that their information is either not persuasive enough to get everyone to a single opinion, or that many of the people aren't widely read on the subject. (Yes, I fully admit not being very well read on the subject, either. But, then, I'm not nearly as confident in my opinion as these guys seem to be.) Sometimes the anti-globalwarming arguments remind me of the types of arguments used by creationists (don't trust the scientists, it's a lie perpetrated by liberals). There is some fearmongering on both sides, but at least the scary scenarios of the global warming camp are consistent with the belief in global warming. Fear mongering on the other side ends up being an attack on liberals, talk of a global socialist/communist conspiracy*, etc, which are essentially extra beliefs on top of the idea that global warming isn't happening. The other one that kind of makes me laugh is that scientists are making up global warming in order to get funding. If we're going to talk money, it's clearly the oil companies that have the most financial incentive to keep the world on oil (I once calculated that something like 80 trillion dollars worth of oil is still in the ground - valuable only if the world stays on oil). *"I think the modern environmental movement is simply the latest refuge for communists and socialists who are opposed to capitalism... a liberal agenda, which is largely an anti-capitalist agenda, a big-government agenda, and they want people to be as concerned about it as they can be because you'll give up some of your freedoms in order to protect the environment." - Rush Limbaugh http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1478398/posts[^<

Homicides plateaued between the early 1970s and started decreasing after 1993. It peaked in 1991 (24,703 murders, 9.794 per 100,000), continued it's decline through Clinton's presidency (reaching 15,522 murders in 1999) and showed a slight increase since then: 15,522 murders in 1999 (5.692 per 100,000) 15,586 murders in 2000 (5.538 per 100,000), 16,037 murders in 2001 (5.620 per 100,000), 16,204 murders in 2002 (5.596 per 100,000), 16,528 murders in 2003 (5.685 per 100,000), 16,137 murders in 2004 (5.549 per 100,000), 16,900 murders in 2005. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm[^]

espeir wrote:

the violent crime rate is the lowest it has been since 1965 (thanks to an unheard of continous decrease in the face of a bad economy since Bush took office)

Based on absolute numbers, there's been a slight increase. The homicide rate hasn't really done much since 2000, and Bush's best year (2004) has a slightly higher rate than 2000. Also, nothing like the 1,000-2,000 per year decline in murder numbers that we were seeing during Clinton's presidency. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hmrt.htm[^] http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm[^]

espeir wrote:

Not to mention all of the mayors of the top 5 10 (I wonder what the correlation is there!) cities (by murder rate) are Democrats.

Well, most large cities vote democrat, so that's probably a skewed sample to begin with. Second, minorities do commit more homicides (look up the crime statistics if anyone is looking to attack me for saying that) and they tend to vote for democrats. Hence, cities with more minorities are going to have more crime and are more likely to elect democrats. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[

Stan Shannon wrote:

I do agree with those like Coulter that the theory of evolution is used by the left as yet another means of beating Christianity into submission rather than as a means of understanding the universe.

BTW, in case I need to reiterate, you think that evolution is misused by the Left, but Ann thinks that evolution is entirely false, obviously false, and the only people who could possibly believe it are people trying to deny the existence of God. So, no, you don't agree with Ann. Ann thinks your a self-delusional God-hating idiot based purely on your acceptance of evolution. Don't worry, lots of us are used to being unfairly slandered by hard-right conservatives who ignorantly claim to know exactly why we believe what we believe. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]

Well, Ann says, that evolution is "credible only to those who will find any reason to deny the existence of God." Note the use of the word "only". Heck, she's saying that the Catholic Pope is trying to deny the existence of God. It's just another instance of Coulter's crazy hyperbole.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Besides, the left want's to teach only those aspects of evolutin that support their anti-religious agenda.

I've never heard any of my teachers use evolution as a means for an anti-religious agenda. I understand that evolution can be viewed that way, but I've never had any teacher or professor ever make any link between evolution and religion or try to promote atheism with evolution. Most teachers either don't teach evolution (too controversial, or they don't agree with it), or they tapdance around the religious issues. Most will say something along the lines of 'god used evolution as a means to create life.' Many of the schools that do teach evolution will teach it but leave out human evolution - but human evolution has the most potential for an anti-religious agenda. They're doing pretty much the opposite of what you are saying they're doing.

Stan Shannon wrote:

They would never teach those aspects of evolution that don't support their agenda. For example, if evolution is true, than it stands to reason that non-Africans should be somewhat evolutionarily advanced different in many ways than Africans, as we are the result of 50 to 100 thousands years of separate evolution adapting to more hostile and challanging enviroments.

Evolution doesn't say anything about who should be more "advanced". It could very well be the case that Africans are more "advanced" than the rest of the human race. And while you could argue that evolution somehow plays a role in racial differences in standardized tests, the Left raises the questions of the validity of standardized tests (I don't believe they're on the right track here) or the cultural and socioeconomic factors that play a role in intellectual development (which does have some interesting information). In short, you have to accept a genetic basis for racial differences before you can inject evolution as one of the possible causal mechanisms. If you question the genetic basis and raise questions of culture and socioeconomics, then you aren't in a position to say anything linking evolution and racial differences. Hence, the evolutiona

You can watch the video of her talking to Matt Lauer here: "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much." http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/06/coulter-911/[^] She comes off crazier than Tom Cruise. The saddest thing about Coulter isn't that isn't full of crazy angry lies, but the fact that her books sell so well (it's #3 at Amazon right today). I expect there to be crazy people in the world, but it says something very sad about humanity and humanity's future that people are actually buying her crap. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]

Gee, Stan, I thought you I remember you agreeing with evolution. Ann seems to think that you believe it only because you are morally bankrupt. Coulter devotes the last 80 pages to her full-scale attack on the theory of evolution and the utter dishonesty of what she calls the "Darwiniacs" and their refusal to face the fact that evolution is a patent absurdity, according to Coulter, credible only to those who will find any reason to deny the existence of God. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/6/5/171405.shtml?s=lh[^] ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]

Adnan Siddiqi wrote:

Thats how they work against Muslims.

Huh? Setting up sting operations is common. This is not against Muslims in general, it's against Muslims trying to buy three tons of ammonium nitrate. Further, while we're on the subject of sting operations, there was a case recently in the US[^] where a couple tried to hire a hitman to kill their daughter-in-law and their grandchildren to prevent them from testifying against their son. They were caught when the "hit man" that they attempted to hire turned out to be an undercover cop. Should we interprete that situation as a "wicked game" and that the police were "working against grandparents"? BTW, in many cases, the police need to receive money or deliver some requested item in order to prove that the criminal really had the intention to carry out the crime. That's why, in the hit man case, the payment of $100 is so important, and that's why the delivery of ammonium nitrate was done. If you don't get the money or don't deliver the goods, it's harder to prove that the whole thing wasn't just talk. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]

(sigh) Stan, know what you're talking about before going off.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Besides, this game was probably written by another anti-Christian cretin such as yourself for the express purpose of giving other anti-Chrisitan cretins such as yourself a good reason to spread your sanctimonious, hypocritical outrage around the internet. I would bet that there is not a single authentic religous organization behind it.

Troy Lyndon, co-founder and CEO of Left Behind Games, a developer of Christian-themed games.... Mr. Lyndon has also served many ministries and Christian publishers, including the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Campus Crusade for Christ, Tyndale and Biblesoft, in the development of multimedia presentations, CD-ROMs, DVDs, and retail products. http://www.leftbehindgames.com/pages/management.htm[^] The real story is that the premise of the game has been distorted and blown out of proportion. http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?msg=1515696&forumid=2605#xx1515696xx[^] ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]

It's been interesting seeing this story make the rounds on the internet. I think this is the fourth or fifth time I've seen it now. The first thing to say about it is that the story is blown out of proportion. The basic premise of the game is this: the rapture has occured, and humanity is living in the seven years of tribulation - essentially a seven year-long apocalypse filled with war, famine, and disease. You can play either the good, godly side or the evil demonic side. Unlike most RTS games, you are actually trying to convert people to your side. The city is filled with good, bad, and neutral people. If a human is sufficiently good, the Christian player gets to control them. If a human is sufficiently evil, the evil player gets to control them. There are lots of neutral humans in the game that you are trying to convert to your side. You can even convert people from the opposite side (evil people into good ones and vice-versa). You are penalized for killing neutrals (which, I'm sure includes "moderate, mainstream Christians"). There is a preview of it at Gamespy: http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/left-behind-eternal-forces/700684p1.html[^] [Update:] The game's resource model is interesting in that these buildings aren't used to "produce" units. Rather, the major resource in the game is actually the "neutrals" -- people who haven't yet chosen their side in the great war. Every unit in the game has a name and their own life and faith history (written in text in the unit information), along with a "Spirit Level" rated from 0-100. Spirit levels between 40 and 60 are considered neutral. As a unit's spirit rises, their faith increases until it reaches 60, at which point it becomes a "friend." Friends are basic units who can then be trained in a particular profession at a converted building. A unit whose Spirit falls below 40, however, becomes a member of the enemy camp and can be likewise trained. It's this wrestling back and forth for the souls of the people that makes the gameplay dynamic so interesting. Players aren't competing to kill the enemy army -- rather, they're trying to save them, and each person killed represents a failure rather than a success. "We found that adhering closely to Biblical philosophies made the game more interesting rather than less," Lyndon said. "One of the

Stan Shannon wrote:

The 'people on the right' have been disagreeing with Bush on many things, including the war, for quite a while now.

Stan Shannon wrote:

before this nation ever commits troops to any foriegn combat again, we need to first bomb our own leftist elements into oblivion. No nation as badly divided as this one is politically has any hope of waging an effective military campaign any where for any purpose regardless of how justified.

I'm confused. You say that the left should be bombed into oblivion to avoid the "divided nation" thing, yet you admit that people on the right also disagree with the president? If you're going to claim that you need to destroy the people who disagree with the president before going to war, aren't you essentially admitting that people on the left AND some people on the right need to be "bombed into oblivion"? Here's a new slogan for you: advocate of bombing the left, middle, and some of the Right into oblivion. I'm sure we'll be entirely capable of waging war once we eliminate two-thirds of America! ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]

I don't think crooksandliars likes deep linking. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/31.html#a8518[^] I recall him saying something to that effect a while back - saying that Iraq may have been a tactical error in the war on terror, or something like that. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]

No one said it was "purly a sectarian/ethnic conflict". What he said was that sectarian/ethic violence was a major part ("the Iraqis seem to now mainly be fighting each other"). I completely agree with that. I wouldn't characterize it as a cultural thing, though - more of an internal struggle between Iraqis fighting for a future makeup of the Iraqi nation layered on top of ethnic violence and history. Some religious conservatives in Iraq want laws to enforce a conservative society in Iraq. Some don't want a democracy at all because a democracy is seen as contradicting Islamic law. I really don't know how you could characterize this an an occupation/resistence to occupation thing when so many bombs are going off in mosques and markets in Iraq. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]