QuoteWilhelm von Bismark level conservative?

More like Charlemagne, Justinian, King David and Cyrus the Great level conservative.

QuoteFascism and values it purports and lauds like strength, capability, strong men, etc are the direct opposite of anything on TBP.  That is late stage communism, the other side of the bent-too-far horseshoe.

I'd say it's neither that simple.
If anything it's cancerous outgrowth of Western liberalism, that tried to embrace various kind of quasi-communist, socialist aspects as response to percieved contradiction of liberalism (and I can kinda sympathize with this) - but since they were unable to really ditch liberalism, they also failed to embrace really leftist idea - become epitomes of narcisstic whiny attention-whoring individualism, absolutely childish ones.
TBH they have little of this fascist hero worship - see all those RPGs and works where various DIVERSE INDIVIDUALS are shown as brave empathetic heroes who PUNCH NAZIS to the ground.

One could say it's toxic synthesis of all worst sides of ideologies borne from XVIII-XIX century revolutions.

QuoteCommunism and Fascism are both far left, statist ideologies. They were widely recognized as such by proponents at the time.  It was only later that fascism was retconned into a far right ideology so that the far left could distance themselves from it.  National Socialism and International Socialism were two sides of the same coin not opposite extremes bent together by some horseshoe.

Statism does not count as far left, except in more derangedly libertarian classifications.
And while fascism is openly statist - in fact it's it most crucial element, it definitely is not such with communism.

And national socialism was no fascism, and they seen as synonyms mostly through derogatory commie propaganda, and well because history kinda make them ally at one point (but we should remember there was lot of mutual disdain especially when Germans started to really push into internal affairs of Italy).

That also show nicely how all one-axis or two-axis political compasses are generally useless, unless you want to fakely put all people you dislike in one bucket for promotion of own ideals.

QuoteAs an off topic question for the more politically science educated among you folks...what is an example of an explicitly right wing form of government as it functions on a state scale?

None. Because left-right division is bogus.
It serves only those who want really put themselves as true-left or true-right and condemn all others as other side - united group of enemies. That's why nationally minded populists gonna deemed far-right by socialists, but far-left by libertarians or minarchist trying to show themselves as true RIGHT.

You need bigger multi-dimensional scheme to put various ideologies around. I'd say at least 3 dimensions, probably more. Usual political compass use left-right for economical axis, which is let's say bit less controversial, but then you have Authoritarian-Libertarian axis - and what's now. Is authoritarian power right wing - sure say monarchists. Of course not gonna say libertarians. Same on the other side where anarchists and ancaps compete.

Historically left and right were used so incoherently there is nothing even close to OBJECTIVE commonly accepted definition. It's a bogus. If anything only OBJECTIVE left and right is defined as original left and right - by places taken in actual Parliament by various factions (That's how those terms first arise - from Jacobines sitting on left of early French Parliament).

I hope to see a dc heroes 40th anniversary edition role-playing game in 2025.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on Today at 09:10:50 AM

Quote from: NotFromAroundHere on Today at 01:11:09 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 22, 2024, 12:02:01 PMGURPS was good at this, but too complex to the point of becoming unrealistic: a 10-second fight between two people has 20 or more sword blows, most being parried.

There's nothing unrealistic in this, ten seconds are an eternity in a close combat fight. Same goes for the parries, the absolute majority of fighting styles emphasize defense for a reason; what's totally unrealistic, instead, is being hit (good hit, not a glancing blow) more than once or twice by a sword and not dying.

I disagree.

No 10-second fight has 20 blows. Maybe you can find a 10-second period in a 5-minute fight with such a frantic pace, or a fight that ended in 10 seconds with a single punch, but I never seem such a frantic pace of attacking in fencing, UFC, larping, or medieval fighting simulations. If you have, send me the YouTube link

10-second combats only make sense if weapons are present and armor absent, but then they'll probably be finished before 20 blows.

Other than that, a duel (not to mention a skirmish) of say, people in swords and armor, will definitely last more than 10-seconds - in fact one might take a few seconds just to find an opening before approaching.

Same for people with no weapons and no armor. - even boxing matches do not have two punches per second, and punching is faster than swinging an axe!

GURPS kinda recognized this by publishing the "lull" supplement I mentioned but unfortunately can't find.

Without armor, I agree that taking a couple of sword blows would lead to death.

  This assumption means both parties choose to attack every turn.  Evaluate, all out defense, stepping back to disengage, etc make that stretch out quite a bit IME. Deceptive attacks and feints also cut down greatly on the number of attacks parried.   You can see lots of fights that during a flurry of activity it will approach what you describe, but they are rare as most parties involved in that frenetic pace lack the defense to avoid real damage or the durability to absorb it solely for the sake of throwing a shot. 
 
   I do wish GURPS used a 5 second round/turn as it would make a good deal more sense overall with regard to melee (the 1 second turns make a lot more sense with regard to gunfights) but using the things I mentioned also tends to slow the pace down a good deal and allows characters with a skill disadvantage to take measures to not get overwhelmed.

Quote from: rytrasmi on April 22, 2024, 01:18:09 PMI struggle with this too and the pinnacle of realism AFIAC is a matrix of weapon vs armor with each cell describing initiative, to-hit, and damage. AC, weapon speed, etc are just abstractions that simplify the matrix at the cost of realism. But even that matrix does not account for the defensive capabilities of weapons. So then we need a matrix of kit vs kit. 

This essentially gets you Rolemaster. Each weapon type versus a family of armor. Against an unarmored foe, longswords do slashing criticals; against metal armor, the lesser criticals alternate with crushing criticals. Rolemaster usually simplifies defense to some extent, but various editions have some shield rules tucked in here and there that add a little more rhythm.

AD&D "speed factor," incidentally, doesn't make sense. It says a dagger is faster than a two-handed sword. That's... not true. Setting aside that you have to account for reach first (which AD&D acknowledges, but doesn't give you guidance on), two-handed weapons are generally faster. A two-handed sword attack is fast. What a dagger is fast at is close in work, but you have to get close in, first.

Quote from: SHARK on April 22, 2024, 03:29:35 PM

Quote from: DocJones on April 22, 2024, 02:06:14 PM

Quote from: SHARK on April 22, 2024, 08:58:54 AMVietnam is a member of SEATO...

Huh? SEATO was dissolved in 1977.

Greetings!

Ahh, right right. Well, my mistake. I meant to say that Vietnam has in recent times been included in several diplomatic and military alignments with the United States, and other nations of Asia and the Pacific. I was surprised when I read about such, though apparently, it is a very real thing. US forces have coordinated with Vietnam, as well as the Philippines and India, for example. Vietnam, despite having considerable economic exchange with China, has also made it very clear that they are eager to participate in numerous defense relationships primarily aimed at containing and deterring Chinese expansion.

I think I also saw some news videos by the Times of India and Hindustan Times discussing military arrangements between India and other Pacific nations, such as Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, and of course, the United States. Economically, and diplomatically, Vietnam also seems to be very much involved with India, Japan, and the Philippines, which I found to be interesting.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

The cooperation between the various S.E. Asian nations with the US has been a long developing situation since at least the early 2000s. It has to deal with several factors:

1. The discovery of oil reserves under the Spratley Islands in the South China Sea, which led to...
2. China's military modernization program which kicked off...
3. Japan reconsidering they're place geopolitically, by upping their military budget and being more proactive They have a "multi-purpose destroyer" (let's be real: it's a carrier) named the Kaga. Ring any bells?
4. India making a concerted effort to revamp their entire military (modernization, coming sown on corruption, etc.) in response to the PRC's modernization efforts
5. South Korea now becoming one of the major arms suppliers, now beating out Russia (or close to it)
5. Vietnam's long distrust, if not outright hatred of their "neighbor's" to the north (China): PRC invaded Vietnam in '79 and got their asses handed to them by the Vietnamese. I'd say they're still bitter.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on Today at 09:54:06 AMIIRC the DMG explains this: "AC 2" really means "plate", so a thief in leather and very high dex uses a different column.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on Today at 09:56:34 AMThe AD&D weapon vs armor table is meant to represent base AC by armor type. Dexterity & magic bonuses are not considered for this. The thief wearing leather armor and an 18 DEX has an AC of 4 but for purposes of weapon vs armor uses AC 8.  Not that the system as a whole is worth bothering with IMHO, but that is how it works in theory.

Ahhh okay! That actually makes a lot more sense now! I gotta do some reading later, I haven't really been using that rule. It was the same in 2nd edition: a neat idea, but I always glossed over it.

Good video. I like to keep combat descriptions simple. Since I also like to run sandbox style games I don't bother designing custom built combat arenas because where and when combat takes place are often up to the players unless they get ambushed or something. Part of good tactics for the players is knowing where to arrange a battle to their advantage and proper battlefield preparation. Charging in to a foe's home turf and engaging in combat on their terms is rather foolish and should be avoided when possible. 

Quote from: 1stLevelWizard on April 22, 2024, 09:25:38 PMI think the weapon differences can be fun, but difficult. I always like 3e's method of varying weapons by giving them different abilities. So, for example, the ability to wield a longsword with one or two hands, and the difference is either being able to use your off hand or getting a damage bonus. The only downside is that it might favor some weapons. Then again, there's a reason some weapons were so common in real life. A spear is easy to use, can set against cavalry, and you can support over the guy in front of you.

Another example is the billhook: you can poke, slash, and chop. It can be used to support allies, and you can use it to drag cavalrymen off their mounts. I think having abilities tied into the weapon for this make them unique, but then again it makes stuff like a shortsword look meek in comparison. At the end of the day though if players flock around a handful of weapons it makes it easier to stock magic weapons you know they'll use.

Bonuses vs. specific armors is really cool but really unwieldy. It makes sense that a mace gets +2 vs Plate, but a sword has -2. However, it really can slow down combat. I liked AD&D 1e's approach where weapons get a bonus/penalty vs. a specific AC, but that loses out on some of the realism since a high DEX thief with leather can have a 3. Why would a mace get a bonus against that? Either way, I think it's neat but I will say I think you either gotta go whole hog with realism, or nothing at all.

Either way, if I found a Billhook +1, I'd be a happy Fighter.

The AD&D weapon vs armor table is meant to represent base AC by armor type. Dexterity & magic bonuses are not considered for this. The thief wearing leather armor and an 18 DEX has an AC of 4 but for purposes of weapon vs armor uses AC 8.  Not that the system as a whole is worth bothering with IMHO, but that is how it works in theory.

Quote from: 1stLevelWizard on April 22, 2024, 09:25:38 PMBonuses vs. specific armors is really cool but really unwieldy. It makes sense that a mace gets +2 vs Plate, but a sword has -2. However, it really can slow down combat. I liked AD&D 1e's approach where weapons get a bonus/penalty vs. a specific AC, but that loses out on some of the realism since a high DEX thief with leather can have a 3. Why would a mace get a bonus against that? Either way, I think it's neat but I will say I think you either gotta go whole hog with realism, or nothing at all.

IIRC the DMG explains this: "AC 2" really means "plate", so a thief in leather and very high dex uses a different column.

...which adds to the confusion, of course, since "AC 5" has 3 or more different meanings.

I think "dialing in" is a modern/translated version of the English colloquialism "phoning it in", which means to make the motions of doing something, without putting in actual effort or really taking part or doing it right - maybe even only appearing to do it.

In USA English, "dialing in" usually means the same as "fine tuning" something - making changes to make something etter, more efficient, etc.