Is there a way to really extend the main campaign without getting Long War mod? Because I don't feel like a total conversion mod atm but want some way to keep my XCOM2 games going. My last campaign which is apparently freaking 64th I stretched it as far as I possibly could but due to the doomsday counter there comes a point where you simply run out of alien facilities or wwhatever to demolish and only have the final mission left, and in this case yet again am running the clock with no territories left and all alien facilities leads apparently useless after you found them all and have just about every territory. I even experimented last night with trying to deliberately fail a reduced new facility construction by 2 weeks dark event but it still wasnt enough and got a game over when I ran the clock to see if they'd construct a new one in time to reset the timer.

It'd also actually be quite nice if I could have at least two full squads taken engaged in the final run, since I normally have like 12-18 colonels by then if I survive that long plus often a couple of magi. But then again I'm not even sure if I completed Legendary come to think of it. At least, I don't think I ever did on ironman which I've beat idk how many times on Commander.

What are some other good mods to use? What are some ways to really draw out the clock and provide a challenge? Are there any mods that make the endgame harder and let me use more of my troops?

>>23509
Yeah you know I actually thought about that but still found what mandalore described just too amazingly funny and with such audacity I couldn't bring myself to care much. Like yeah I mean, clearly there's got to be something pretty fucky for this thing to even exist. Was it a couple junkies trying to desperately get some cash together as fast as possible? Was it some genuine autist with anime body pillows living off neetbux? Was this even the same original guy working on it or is the entire 2008 release just a total ripoff of a real game from the 90s?

So many mysteries about this just makes me want to know more. Like was it just some really old guy dying of cancer whose last life goal was finally finishing that freaking game he started? But the odd thing is some parts clearly were worked on, while most of the rest of the game was wholesale ripped off, and supposedly they started the new version in 2003 and had more than one guy working on it. Did they have poor communication and one guy somehow was in charge of the assets and just didnt tell them how badly he half arsed it? It even looks like a labor of really lazy love too at times, with at least the facial expressions really working and conveying, idk at least something? Some mental illness? Loneliness? A guy's quirky sense of humor?

I also found out Cranny Faggot is some weird obscure joke about a mean spirited British cook show woman from the 1970s and 80s named Fanny Craddock. Which means that this guy making it probably actually was someone who seriously was alive as an adult human being by early 90s at the latest to even think to use that kind of a reference, which points to this indeed being the same shitty failed point and click adventure from the 90s.

Honestly I'm just baffled by all of it. Mandalore actually made it look fun but then I tried watching this guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-H4wu30Sks and holy hell does this game look like a steaming piece of shit, but the weird part is it doesn't even just look like it's shit. It looks like some real effort went into parts of it and looks like it resembles an actual game. It's just baffling. The truly mind boggling thing though is when you realize that not only was it probably some guy's labor of love or at least bucket list, but rather than just make a thing from passion the dude seriously tried to sell hard copies of this thing while ripping off literally dozens of well known games and movies. Also now that I think of it just the fact he used the Spawn movie intro makes me think it's more evidence ths guy was a full grown adult whose adult reference points were in the 80s and 90s.

It's like a precious thing and a carnival freakshow that fascinates me.

>>23513
I thought Pathfinder Kingmaker was turn based? Eh, if it's RTwP this considerably lowers my interest. The only game of that sort that wasnt total ass in combat was Tyranny. The rest of the game wasn't as fantastic and could've used richer environments and fewer NPCs annoying the shit out of me (to this day I want to shoot Kana Rua, Barrister or whoever, and the voice actor who played them too) but at least the combat was somehow really well done in a way all the rest failed at, including planescape which only gets a pass because the high level spells were neat and combat was largely irrelevant.

Of course core rules and different splats I don't care about in a vidya so long as the story is good and gameplay isn't ass. I'm never going to play Icewind Dale for that reason but I do love me a good crpg.

>>23223
Characteristics ascribed to God aren't about the nature of God, but about we perceive It. This is called negative theology, and it's the most basic kind of theology. God is indeed far too big and complex for our heads to grasp and our languages to speak of, but we can grasp and speak of his doings in this world, and this is the whole point of Revelation. Lets put it this way, we cannot grasp the godhead, but we can see the consequences of his hands acting in this world. When Jews call God "Father" or "Lord", they aren't saying that he has testicles or is a landed nobleman, they are giving him the highest human authority that our minds and languages can ascribe. Again this is just basic theology, they are very well aware that our minds and languages can't describe such a supreme being, but our minds and languages are all that we have, so we do it anyway, which goes to remember also that we are mere creatures with very limited powers. This way, the problem of ineligibility of God and God's powers lies in our own limitations, not in his.

And you're wrong in many ways saying that this is a problem of Abrahamic religions only. It is a problem of any metaphysical kind of religion (Hinduism has similar problems) as well as natural theology and even rationalistic philosophy. The whole debate between Idealism and Realism lies on this, it's very typical of idealists such as Kant, for example, to deny that we can have real access to the Reality out of our minds, but that we should try anyway, and that our job is to try to build idealistic models of reality that work well enough through science, but that we should always be aware that they are just scientific attempts, and not actually a description of reality.

I don't know norse mythos well, but your idea that abrahamic religions are somehow wholly different from pagan mythos is a typical protestant belief and I find it unsurprising that you're a swedeball (notice how neopaganism is typical only of protestant countries). Take the epic of Gilgamesh for example, it is a pagan text but also something that influenced the bible, the epic is about the greatest of all kings who's basically a super human, but still mortal in the end, and he wants that last upgrade in power, he wants that which belongs to gods only: immortality. These kinds of tales, of humans having to deal with their mortality no matter how powerful they are, are the basis of many religions. Existence of beauty implies existence of ugliness somewhere, existence of mortality implies immortality somewhere. The things that cause us to die were given the names of spirits, and then of gods, and then of God. Religions are about dealing with the awareness that we are very limited beings susceptible to much greater natural powers, this is why strongly atheistic modes of being, such as Marxism, recognizes that an entirely humanistic atheism must do away with any perceptions of limitations of human powers, which they try to do by preaching technological progress.

>>23263

> this is a problem of Abrahamic religions only

Never said that. Most holier then though types on the internet comes from this strain of believers though. So it is easier to argue with.

> swedeball

What does that have to do with anything? Also desert religion isn't anything different then norse mythos. The Abrahamic god is just a god who's inventors won a war, real or cultural. There were a lot of gods running around in the desert, most of them are evil spirits or something nowadays. I was refraining from saying that but there you have it. Your whole life perception is based on some dudes in the desert killing some other dudes and raping their women.

Also

> pagan

Who is the pagan? People who string up horses and slaves in trees or people who believes they drink the blood of their god?

>>23406

>There were a lot of gods running around in the desert, most of them are evil spirits or something nowadays.

That's the point and you still missed it. What I'm saying is that monotheism is just a natural upgrade to polytheism, which is an upgrade to shamanism and animism (and then there are people claiming that rationalistic atheism is an upgrade to monotheism). There's clearly progress in religious belief. Religions are about explaining things that are out of our control but greatly affects us (death being the main thing), advanced forms of polytheism typically have an hierarchy among gods, the higher god typically accumulates a lot of power, specially when it comes to being the creator of things, until other gods lose godhood and become angels, demons, etc. Hierarchy among gods is bound to happen when those believers begin to question what are the relationships among the many gods, because if gods have some kind of absolute authority among humans that we just have to accept (again, death), then it is natural to question which one of them has more authority over the other. Now what some people such as Habermas claim is that enlightened atheism came from christianity/judaism, because worshiping one god only ends up making it so that a lot of earthly things no longer can be explained by the action of gods, spirits, demons and so on; these things are now free to be explained by human reason. During the middle ages catholicism reintroduced ways of attributing earthly things to transcendental powers (Saints, dead people, etc), but protestantism banished all of that. I read this theory through Habermas, but I have an impression that it's Weberian in origin (never bothered to look for it).

You're complaining that an all-powerful God wouldn't bother about us (and if you read the Book of Job, this is basically what God says to Job in the end), and what I remarked is that we indeed have no direct access to God (except through revelation in judaism and christianity), but that we can see the effects of his hands acting on creation. But then came protestantism and its sola-fide sola-scripture theology and changed that: miracles no longer existed, our dead ancestors no longer were a link between us and the transcendental, god no longer could also be found outside the bible (through natural theology) but instead only through Revelation as it was registered in the bible. So we get to this god that looks more like an imposition, a god who revealed himself once and then vanished forever, instead of a god which is still necessary to explain phenomena in the world around us. Religion in this case becomes something completely other from the natural world around us.

Your objections are objections about how we think of god, and what I'm saying is that traditionally we didn't think of god directly, but rather we tried to think of him through things in this world that we thought needed god to be explained, god was an a posteriori thought. You're basically claiming that because time paradoxes can't be solved, then time has got to be an illusion, and Einstein's answer to that was that we shouldn't think of time as something apart from the rest, and this keeps the time paradox problems from arising, and the theist answer to your objections are of the same kind.

>>23471
The problem is we just have too few people, which has always been a sort of tension within the chan communities. At the extreme opposite end you have the 4kanker: incredible amounts of posters to the point of boards being almost unusable, and almost every single last one of those posters are garbage. It's like explosive diarrhea in text form, with never a single thought out response.

Here we have the opposite problem, where there's so few of us that one thread will take literally months to even hit autosage and we still have threads up from early 2018, as opposed to the cancer where a thread dies in literally hours even if it's popular, and 15 minutes if it isn't. KC2017 was largely the result of US politics shitposting but it had been a long time coming and by the end was indistinguishable from vierkanal. I had completely stopped even using anything other than vidya threads by then.

All that being stated yeah you're right and one big problem I noticed is it often feels more like people talking past each other rather than having an actual discussion. Like in vidya it often feels like Russia will be talking about some obscure game or Magic again, while Australia is talking about flight sims.

But this lack of engagement is really just because it's so niche. Like i don't even play either of their interests, and a good number of people here don't play mine. This can be a good thing however as it exposes you to lots of new material.

The main problem is trying to get it so we don't have the absolute most mouth breather bydlo and retarded fucking boomers from 4kanker invading us. I haven't seen a problem with Slav bydlo but really the problem is the worst sort of shit is now endemic to the internet thanks to combination of phones and everything else. Vierkanal is quite literally mainstream normies and everyone worth hating you'd normally want off the internet and our biggest problem is the moment more than a few people find out about us they're the first to try and ruin this place. I wouldnt mind if we got a lot more people here but the moment it turns into another 4cancerous shitclone it's dead.