![110143[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/rpWB7Wa.jpg "110143[1].jpg")
What are some games out there that let you feel like Yang Wenli, the hero of El Facil?
It doesn't have to be in space, Advance Wars is a good example
Fuck you /v/
>>263796152
whats your problem leather boycompany of heroes campaign?
>>263796984
My problem is that /v/ has shit taste both in vidya and animu
Infinite Space
Schenkopp and Reuental>Everyone else
Homeworld
>>263795476
Legend of the Galactic Heroes
>>263795476
diaspora
galactica mod for freespace
its fucking hard though
>>263795476
Homeworld
Mechcommander
>>263797516
tell me one good anime and a game that isnt fedora core then
>>263797896
samurai champloo and the samurai champloo game
>>263797685
That game looks like a total clusterfuck, I'd still play it of course but it doesn't really look like it captured the style and feel of LotGH battles.
>>263795476
You could try playing a Total War campaign where you try not to be a dick to anybody, that's always interesting.
>>263797896
My favourite chinese cartoon is Porco Rosse, my favourite game is Pikmin. Am I fedora core?
>>263797685
Whoa mama why did no one tell me there's a LOGH game
Is it any good?
>>263798082
>>263798236
you are alright
>>263798391
>tfw_no_translation.jpg
>>263798671
Are there any translated Lactating Gay Homo's games?
Even one would be plenty.
>>263797896
Mushishi
Grim Fandango
Growlanser is a fun game, although I'm not sure if it'll capture that feeling.
>>263797896
Great Teacher Onizuka
Paper Mario
>>263798391
It's not terrible.
Semi-circles to victory.
>>263795476
Play the LoGH mod for Sins of a Solar Empire.
>>263795476
You mean constantly doing damage control for other people's fuckups? Pretty much any team game.
>>263799313
Imagine if only the FPA had competent people in charge there'd be no Space Reich
Also Mount and Blade, especially the Napoleonic Wars expansions.
I'd reccomend WFaS too if it weren't so shit.
>>263799385
The Space reich had just as many incompetent people in charge before Reinhard took power, were you paying attention at all?
The comparison was two forms of government completely in shambles given their ideal man.
>>263799207
FUCK YES
why I havent think of this before, thanks anon thanks a bunchonly if I could do formations now
>>263799547
>only if I could do formations now
I know anon, it's not quite the same.
>>263799512
The difference is that the Reich got competent people in power like 30 episodes in while the FPA never got them
>>263799825
Blame democracy.
>>263799825
Because Yang never took the chance.
He doomed the FPA, and then he prolonged the war.
Yang was the villian.
![Legend.of.the.Galactic.Heroes.014.[x264.720p.10bit.AAC].mkv_snapshot_23.12_[2014.09.14_08.46.29].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/NS1THZr.jpg "Legend.of.the.Galactic.Heroes.014.[x264.720p.10bit.AAC].mkv_snapshot_23.12_[2014.09.14_08.46.29].jpg")
Are these guys actually germanic pagans or what?
They mention Valhalla and Odin all the time and I can never be sure if they actually believe it or if they're just being poetic.
World of Tanks when your team actually listens gives a very LOGH feel, but they never do, especially if you play in the Asian server
>>263799825
The FPA got them as soon as the coup ended, and the empire got them as soon as the civil war ended. They even say something along these lines in the episode 'the civil war in the alliance weakened the government while the civil war in the empire strengthened it.
You still have people that will damage the political system in charge like Truniht, but that's simply because a democracy is a democracy. Truniht was able to use the situation to his advantage politically and was reelected. An empire does not hold elections.
>>263800117
I think it's something of a cultural thing rather than a genuine one. But in all honesty it totally fits their mantra. Valhalla is a place where the strong can continue to test themselves against all of the great people that came before them.
![Legend.of.the.Galactic.Heroes.026.[x264.720p.10bit.AAC].mkv_snapshot_14.24_[2014.09.15_07.31.16].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/A5pAhc7.jpg "Legend.of.the.Galactic.Heroes.026.[x264.720p.10bit.AAC].mkv_snapshot_14.24_[2014.09.15_07.31.16].jpg")
>>263800117
>>263800212
>>263800031
Truniht was the truenihthero of Legend of the Galactic heroes.Everything he did led to the downfall of their shitty democracy, while sowing the seeds of a parliament in the Empire, which would eventually become a better republic.
True heroes need no recognition.
>>263800387
>remake
Nope
>>263800494
Yeah, I didn't get that at all.
Outside of his opposition to the invasion of the empire and that one line at the end that states he supposedly was working towards a constitutional government. We're never shown any positive actions beyond these as far as I'm aware.
I like to think of Truniht as a person that benefits a society by exploiting its flaws in an effort to make a society that goes without any significant ones. His death at the end marks that he'd found a system he could not exploit. Probably a bit of headcanon, but I like the idea.
![Legend.of.the.Galactic.Heroes.018.[x264.720p.10bit.AAC].mkv_snapshot_12.08_[2014.09.14_21.04.16].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/o2XHkFa.jpg "Legend.of.the.Galactic.Heroes.018.[x264.720p.10bit.AAC].mkv_snapshot_12.08_[2014.09.14_21.04.16].jpg")
>>263800385
That's what I thought until (>>263800387) showed up. That didn't strike me as something you'd say unless you were both serious and you believed in the same religious doctrine.
Which made me go back and try to reevaluate what they were saying and see if it was genuine or just a cultural allusion.
I still can't tell either way. You don't see them with little thor hammer necklaces or seers and holy festivals and other germanic pagan rites yet some of the things they say implies they do believe. So maybe they're mostly non-practicing germanic pagans without a strong organized state-religion?
I don't think Yang fits in with Advance Wars.
Hey fucking niggers use spoilers
god damn
>>263801186
The cat was the moon the entire time.
Daily reminder that Oberstein did nothing wrong
Everything he did was for the good of the Empire
>>263801186
>spoilers
>for a show like 30 years old
![1410851195662[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/LR32EmN.jpg "1410851195662[1].jpg")
>>263801027
Meanwhile this looks like a very Christian ceremony yet they never mention Christ. Maybe the book is more clear on the subject. The only religion the show is concerned with is the earth cult.
>>263801606
>Everything he did was for the good of the Empire
True, but he was incredibly poor at predicting human actions and it led to some serious problems.
No doubt he's one of the best characters in the show though, right next to Reuental.
>>263800783
It's actually a joke, Truniht is a demagogue and an asshole. He was occasionally right though.
I'm pretty sure that opposing the invasion was just covering his ass, if it failed he wouldn't be voted out because he was the one with the sense to oppose it and if it worked he would just be seen as cautious by the five people who didn't get swept up in the victory and were still paying attention to politics.
>>263801665
>The only religion the show is concerned with is the earth cult.
My god did they drop the ball there.
>>263801881
They really felt like an ass-pull most of the time they were doing stuff, their subplot is probably the only thing I'd consider a real problem with the show.
>>263801743
Reuental was a retard
I really liked that one scene where he curses the fuck out of Lang because he entered the High Admiral Council though.
>>263795476
>tfw you will never kill space germans with miracle yang
>>263801881
Most people abandoned religion after nuclear holocaust.
View the history episode.
>>263802101
Reuental was a very proud person who couldn't live without war.
He knew from the start that inviting the Kaiser to Neue land would very likely cause an incident that he was very prepared to respond to with force, and justified this on the gorunds of Lang and Oberstein's influence. This is obviously not true however, as he refuses to open negotiations even after he learns that Lang has been imprisoned.
Selfish and prideful maybe but not stupid.
>>263802345
No, I mean they really dropped the ball with the terraist cult.
They had the opportunity to say something about religious extremism/terrorism/or religion in general and they just threw it away.
>best character
>not Siegfried Kircheis
I wonder how would this thread go if he was still alive
>>263800631
pretty sure thats from a remaster but they are making a remake
>>263802339
>space germans
Space prussians would be more accurate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAW-8eiS7I4
This will never be a thing.
>>263802345
Yeah, its just old traditions at this point.
Its not like anyone is truly trying to invoke the power of god when they say JESUS CHRIST when they stub their toe.
Im sure none of the LoGH guys are truly religious.
>Terraism
>TERRA ISM
>TERRORISM
>>263802657
What was your favorite engrish song in logh, /v/?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRI5eWWZIpo
>>263802803
Yeah, not very subtle.
>>263802918
Is this anybody else's favourite opening?
http://youtu.be/9U8vI0hSRiM
>>263803057
> favourite opening
But anon,they're all terrible
>>263803057
That or the second one.
>>263803057
The second one is the best
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLhK2WQ5-XM
>>263803151
Yeah, but in an endearing kind of way.
>>263802657
this will never be a thing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLInRFmRfvw
>>263802345
Interesting, I reckon that would make people much more religious if anything
>>263803151
M8, it's almost like you WANT to fight.
Lactating Gay Homo's has the best openings, and there are four of them!
Also, the animation that goes with them is nice.
http://youtu.be/RLhK2WQ5-XM
Also, while we've got a LotGH thread going, has anybody ever seen that mythical experimental english dub of the show?
Apparently you could watch it on youtube at one point. I also had a picture which listed the cast saved at one point.
I just realized FPA is France
Fuck am I dumb
Mashengo was the real hero.
>>263803480
How do you figure?
>>263803480
It's definitely got French aspects, but it's also got aspects of the US
>>263803480
FPA is everything but Germany/Prussia.
Also, I can't be the only one that was waiting for Oberstein to reveal some sort of hidden agenda to take over the Empire, right?
>>263803480
Pretty sure they're freedoms, but frogs and freedoms are somewhat similar.
>>263803503
That pic never fails to make me laugh.
>tfw you spoilered yourself Yang's death some 6 years ago
>watched LOGH last year
>tfw Yang's death still hits like a truck
>>263803754
you should have realized he was machiavelli from the start, anon. Loyalty to the state above all else, even its rulers.
>>263803503
So what if LOGH was released as novels in the 1960's which somehow got translated and instead of an anime we got a TV drama starting in 1966.
Do you think we'd still like it?
>>263803880
>The magician did not return
>>263803754
Reich isn't even really German. Rudolph just gave them all German surnames
>>263803754
Jesus christ, Germany/Prussia is obviously the empire.
>>263804004
>>263803754
Woah shit, that means Oberstein is Bismarck
>>263803897
>Loyalty to the state above all else, even its rulers.
Oberstein is only loyal to the rulers as long as they're useful to the state. His priority is a well functioning state. Reinhard was the one to achieve that. As soon as Reinhard would have turned into Rudolf, Oberstein would have cut him out like a tumour though - and I have little doubt that he could have succeeded.
>>263803880
>>263803976
Yang's death isn't nearly as tragic as Reuental's. Didn't have enough buildup.
>>263803328
The episode had a guy say something about how no god or savior came to the people in their darkest hour, and they lost faith.
>>263803880
>read about Yang's death from time to time, even see the picture
>somehow mix him with Dusty
>finally start watching the show some time later
>constantly wait for Dusty tobite the dust
>Yang dies
>"WHAT THE FUCK?!"
>>263803880
I didn't think it was actually real, I kept waiting for him to come back
Worse than Kamina
>>263804237
I disagree. Reuental's death was a fitting conclusion and it's the expected outcome to what Reuental was getting himself into. Yang's death was a true tragedy.
>>263799207
This exists? HHHHHHHHN!
>>263803880
>know about Yang's death
>see him boarding the Leda II
>stop watching forever
This happened like 3 years ago and I still didn't finish watching, I just can't bring myself to
>>263804291
>>263804142
>Oberstein would have cut him out like a tumour though
No, in all honesty, he probably would have failed. One of Oberstein's specialities was choosing good leaders, if he'd failed in that aspect, then he's pretty much fucked. Sure, he could destabilize the empire and make Reinhard publicly hated, but he wouldn't be able to fix things, nor would he try something that would inevitably only worsen the situation.
You remeber how fatalistic he was, right? He was proposing plans that ended in his death left and right by the end of the show. If Reinhard turned into a despot, Oberstein would probably kill himself.
>>263804237
>>263804393
Yang's death was amazing, because it wasn't anything grand like Reuental's. He got shot by some random mook and bled to death in a dark corridor. Hardly the way a hero should die, but that's what made it so good for me.
>>263804142
Oberstein has no loyal followers though, he has absolutely no charisma and before Reinhard brought him into the fold he was unable to achieve anything and was going to get executed or at least imprisoned
He can only function off the back of someone like Reinhard
Also Oberstein was wrong about letting the nobles nuke that farm planet
>>263803976
>that scene where Frederika talks about how Yang should have died, dozing off in his garden after living a life mooching off his veteran's pension
>>263804237
I think Yang's death got all the more tragic because he didn't go out in some big, dramatic confrontation or battle but just got shot by some random Earth Cult moron, bleeding out alone in some empty ship corridor.
>>263804583
Yeah, it was hit home what Yang said about "good people, brave people dying needlessly" or something
It was really rage inducing, how he didn't get to say goodbye, or put up a valiant fight, how it was just so meaningless
Just like death in real life. Not many people get a chance to go out on their own terms.
>>263804523
So, was Dusty seriously a wizard?
>>263804393
On the contrary, Reuental's death was tragic because you knew there was only one way it could end for him and it had all of the buildup and actions to prevent it led led to nothing. Yang's death didn't have enough time to really hit you as hard as Reuental's.
And then Kircheis' death was just fucking awful. I mean it wouldn't have been terrible if they didn't edit in that fucking echo. Completely ruined the mood.
>>263804805
Dusty was truly one of us
>>263804717
That Frederica scene hit me harder than the actual death, I felt so bad for her.
>>263802918
Ending songs are way better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8oeRAMQxp4
Anyone know where i can find more music from this guy? I have already downloaded the ost.
>>263804805
Too much foppery and whim.
>>263804974
>not posting the best ed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9cLuRVJbGY&list=LL16YB2qYAF7BBUAGkow5M0w&index=15
![vlcsnap-409807[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/BHuZYMG.png "vlcsnap-409807[1].png")
How did Bittenfield survive till the end of the series?
>>263795476
Sins of a solar empire
>>263804865
Was just about to post this
>>263801606
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFJ55DQYpO8
>>263805132
He's a big guy.
I honsetly expected more people to die on the Empire's side. Bittenfeldt felt like an obvious contender for me.
Same with Mecklinger. Funny how near the end the show itself spoils that he won't die.
>>263805132
Odin was too amused to let him die.
>>263805132
Because someone was always there to save his ass when another one of his brillaint "CHARGE" tactics inevitably failed.
>>263804805
Probably a gay
>>263795476
rai 7
>>263805129
This one's my favourite too, pure feels with the visuals.
http://youtu.be/lJUnvEKzVHc
>>263805251
truly the most ethical character on the show
Alec will grow up without a father.
>>263804865
>Bucock dies a valiant death
>Reinhardt sits there fiddling with his locket IF ONLY KIRCHEIS WERE HERE
Fucking Reinhardt
>>263805628
But he's going to have his own Kircheis.
>>263803480
FPA is Japan. The political system, the political thugs, the taking off of shoes in doors for slippers and the insides of Yangs home all show it.
When they're criticizing democracy in LoGH they're criticizing Asian democracy, which is kinda gay, not necessarily Western
Ultimate General: Gettysburg
>>263805251
Good god I forgot how autistic Oberstein was.
>>263805479
Julian is just a gayer Wesley
>you will never conquer the sea of the stars
>you will never sieg kaiser reinhardo
>>263805780
>saves millions of lives
>autistic
Bittenfeld pls go.
>>263805743
That makes sense, democracy in Japan in the 60's when this was written was still a bit fresh and not too appreciated.
>>263805743
Pretty sure it's just democracy in general.
And the show makes a point of showing the strengths and weaknesses of both political systems.
>>263805251
Oberstein was the best character
>>263805791
That is true, I didn't like him that much, but the fourth ending is still my favourite.
And by the end of the show he still has plenty of time to improve.
>>263805892
Just watched this yesterday.
Why are the Yang parts of the gaiden so boring?
>>263804873
>Yang's death didn't have enough time to really hit you as hard as Reuental's.
I didn't feel similarly sad for Reuental though. Reuental was an interesting character, but personally, I never liked him that much as a person. He simply had it coming after all he had done.
With Yang, things were different. He was one of the nicest guys in the show and the show simply lost so much with his death; his commentary on events, the talks he'd have with Julian about it, making reference to history. Yang was pretty much the embodiment of what LOGH is about: "At all times and places the deeds of man remain the same" and under that premise, Yang, the historian, could predict the future by learning from the past. This was the true reason for his strength, unlike the others, Yang learned from history.
>>263806094
Because Yang never stabs a guy in the neck with an icicle?
>think people will discuss great commanders games
>people just use it as a thinly veiled anime discussion about LOGH
Disappointing, no different than KLK threads even if the quality between both shows is leaps and bounds.
Real human bean
>>263806046
That's not how you spell Walter von Schönkopf
>>263804804
I remember him getting shot and being shocked then going oh it's just his leg. Nobody fucking dies from getting shot in the leg. See he's still going...now he's bleeding a lot, fuck did he just bleed to death from a leg wound?
>>263805791
No one is gayer than Wesley.
At least there were reasonable explanations for the major roles that he played in the story.
>>263802648
>>263806208
Yeah, i dropped the show for a month after his death.
>>263806208
Yang learned strategy from history, but was unable to see that ideals do not have a place in it. That's why he failed.
>>263806328
I like to think he thought of his kid and her mother and then quietly keeled over before he could get up and go on another killing spree.
The fact that nobody knows how he died pretty much confirms that he got off his ass and massacred every German that saw him
>>263806463
Reinhard and Kircheis were totally gay for eachother.That's okay. I'd be too.
>>263806501
Oh yeah? Trya year
>>263806369
It's his femoral fucking artery. You are fucking finished if you get shot in the femoral artery.
>>263806713
easily best girl
>>263806729
You can clamp it off bro
>>263806534
Yang didn't really "fail" - his death wasn't a failure but a mere accident. And by the end of the show, the Empire was heading towards becoming a parliamentarian Monarchy.
>>263806690
Get well soon, anon.
>>263806729
I meant nobody in fiction dies from that.
>>263806369
That's exactly what was going on through my mind
>oh shit this nameless guy will kill Yang
>oh wait he ran away after he shot him in the leg
>thank god everything is going to fine
>I would sure hate it if the best character in the series died
>>263806804
Depends on whether you can reach them and the type of injury. This isn't the type of injury you can simply fix by wrapping a bandage around. Not to mention that Yang wasn't even able to think clear at that point any more due to the pills he took, and he was bleeding out too.
>>263805892
but gens do matter to some extend. you saying a retard can give birth to a smart stable human being?
>>263806832
Yang failed and he failed hard, he refused to sacrifice his ideals and take even temporary control of government. It's what kept him from strengthening the FPA after the coup, it's what kept him from savign the FPA when fighting Reinhard, and both of these situations forced him into a corner in Iserlohn where he would have been irrelevant if Reinhard had chosen to ignore him, and would have lost entirely had Reinhard decided not to open negotiations.
And then even after that, the only goal that even stands a chance of succeeding is the implementation of a constitution, NOT a parliament, that was something that was left ambiguous.
can someone post the picture where yang wife explains how he should have died.
There will never be a new show. It will probably be gay, so its ok.
>>263807527
Every god damn time ;_;
>>263807278
Retards probably get aborted in the Reich, so it doesn't factor into his argument.
They say historians would debate if Oberstein's death was intentional or a mistake. Where do you fall?
>>263807527
that hit me harder than his own death
>>263807594
Truly the straightest of shows about the manliest of men.
>>263807527
Fuck
>>263807396
Hilda was in favour of democratic ideas and she's in charge now. Reinhard himself didn't believe in hereditary monarchy. Iserlohn received autonomy.
>>263807842
>Iserlohn
Heinnesen bro not Iserlohn.
>>263806780
>redhead tsundere
Oh boy, its not like the biggest fucking cliché in anime, right?
>>263807842
>Hilda was in favour of democratic ideas and she's in charge now.
Where on earth did you get that idea?
And Reinhard was very reluctant to listen to any of Julian's ideas about democracy, so while he might be against heredity, that's no indication of a democratic future.
>>263807396
>Yang failed and he failed hard
I'm not sure whether Yang would consider it a failure. He had no grand plans, he usually just did his job and commented on the things that were happening. All he wanted was record history, he had no ambition to write it first hand; even though to his own dismay he frequently found himself in the position to do so.
>>263808258
>And Reinhard was very reluctant to listen to any of Julian's ideas about democracy
This isn't true at all though. Reinhard had long talks with Yang and he had long talks with Julian too. He wasn't convinced about democracy because he believed in merit most of all - which is also why Julian had to prove himself by fighting Reinhard first. How much of it stuck is questionable, and I don't think he became a true democrat through these talks. He did however find it interesting and he most certainly was influenced through these discussions. And when it comes to Hilda, I'm fairly certain that something like this was mentioned somewhere in the show.
>while he might be against heredity, that's no indication of a democratic future.
How else would they determine the one in charge though? Clearly Reinhard's of overthrowing the person in charge can't become the standard.
Yang didn't fail becuase his only objective was to practice Democracy and he did that till his death
>>263808858
>How else would they determine the one in charge though?
Regents.
Reinhard does imply that he intends his son to be ruler one day with his speech about how all of his descendents will fight on the front line as long as they hold their positions, and furthermore earlier in the show, he meets with democratic reformists who leave happy that he is helping the people, but upset that he did not institute any actual form of electing leaders. It seemed to me that Reinhard liked the idea of a contitution because it could prevent abuse of power by heredity, not for the sake of political representation that comes with democracy.
There are a million ways to find a ruler that do not include heredity beside the fact anyway.
>And when it comes to Hilda, I'm fairly certain that something like this was mentioned somewhere in the show.
Well then find it nigga.
Also democracy a shit.
>>263807396
And influence of that parliament remains to be seen, Prussia/Germany had a parliament in the end of the 19th century, it was just a mouthpiece for the emperor though and had no power
![Legend.of.the.Galactic.Heroes.108.[x264.720p.10bit.AAC].mkv_snapshot_13.13_[2014.09.16_05.50.28].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/DYnui3b.jpg "Legend.of.the.Galactic.Heroes.108.[x264.720p.10bit.AAC].mkv_snapshot_13.13_[2014.09.16_05.50.28].jpg")
No one ever talks about the most impactful death
>>263810021
Who?
LOGH's whole lesson was that there's no such thing as a permanent political system. Eventually the New Reich will fall too and a democracy will be in place of it, then a dictator would take the power and we're back to the empire. It will continue like this till the end of humanity
>>263809548
What happened earlier in the show doesn't necessarily represent his point of view at the end of it.
>There are a million ways to find a ruler that do not include heredity beside the fact anyway.
If you're not going to elect the ruler or determine the ruler by heritage, then I'm not too sure what you're going to do, because practically, these were usually the two ways people determined rulers historically.
>Also democracy a shit.
Yang has already made a point in favour of democracy throughout the show. It's simply the most stable form of government.
>>263807527
That hit me the hardest. Yet another pointless death in a pointless war.
>>263807527
>>263806713
>>263795476
>What are some games out there that let you feel like Yang Wenli, the hero of El Facil?
>It doesn't have to be in space
Total War for sure.
For in space try Homeworld.
>>263799207
>Play the LoGH mod for Sins of a Solar Empire.
this is a good recommendation
>>263810312
>these were usually the two ways people determined rulers historically.
How does someone rise to the top of a company, the military, or any other institution?
He shows himself fit for the job and climbs the ranks - this is not a democratic method.
>It's simply the most stable form of government.
That depends entirely on the public and those they elect.
How long did France's revolutionary democracy last before Napoleon rose to power?
How long did democratic Germany last before Hitler rose to power?
How long has the United States been around- and during that time how many times has its existence been threatened by internal struggle or structural failure?
There is no 'most stable form of government'
>>263810170
While it's correct there's no such thing as a permanent political system, that doesn't follow that it means dictatorship and democracies will continually alternate
>>263810137
The Hyperion
>>263810906
There's no reason to think it will stop.
Monarchies are not ancient history.
>>263799039
This guy is the closest to Yang Wenli I can think of in video games. Great game as well
>>263810842
I'm not sure if it's my own arrogance or naive belief in the way things are right now but as a Brit I have almost 100% absolute belief that my country will never, ever have a revolution, a coup, or a dicatorship. The British political system very slowly and gradually evolves, and it's been slowly evolving to be more and more democratic over the last few hundreds of years.
While democracy is many areas of the world is unstable today, especially Asia and the Middle East, I feel like at least for the Western World, it has become the de facto norm, or default way of governing. I can't see, short of a catastrophe like a nuclear war, western nations ever having authoritarian forms of government ever again.
Note that the system of the USA is extremely unique in modern democracies, and almost the entire democratic world uses parliamentary systems of government rather than the Presidential system, which has pretty much failed in every nation except the USA.
>>263811348
Although I'll add to this the biggest threat in western democracies isn't any sort of militarist coup, it's the threat from vested corporate interests, the threat of an overly powerful media, and the threat of the surveillance state.
>>263810842
Revolutionary France was not a democracy it was an olicharchy with cliques of people in power. Most moderates (girondins) had been pushed out of power.
>>263811543
It is mistaken to talk of a Revolutionary Frane. It had many forms and was practically a different state every couple of years
>LOTGH threads
>>263810842
>How does someone rise to the top of a company, the military, or any other institution?
Sure, you could also appoint the guy in charge - or have him appointed by a committee. This still comes with lots of problems of course.
>How long did France's revolutionary democracy last before Napoleon rose to power?
Napoleon took over through force.
>How long did democratic Germany last before Hitler rose to power?
Hitler got rid of the democratic process, he abolished democracy through the democratic process because the German constitution at that time was lacking a failsafe for that - that too has nothing to do with the democratic process itself though.
>How long has the United States been around- and during that time how many times has its existence been threatened by internal struggle or structural failure?
It worked reasonably well - especially if you consider how often Presidents had been elected throughout all that time. Imagine a monarchy to have switched as many times its ruler throughout that period. The country would be in ruins.
Democracy provides a peaceful revolution every few years. Dynasties on the other hand have to be violently overthrown. That is the true strength of democracy. It provides stability and order.
>>263798910
Deep anime for deep people
*tips fedora*
>>263803503
>>263803932
Yang, you mean racist.
Daily reminder that Reinhard was a fucking commie
>>263812268
You would be as well if all the nobles were gang banging your sister.
>>263811723
>Napoleon took over through force.
And they didn't resist him
> that too has nothing to do with the democratic process itself though.
They elected him and supported the political changes that he made.
>Imagine a monarchy to have switched as many times its ruler throughout that period. The country would be in ruins.
Why do you think this?
All major historical crises in the United States have been resolved by the office of the president almost always acting outside of his authority- namely by Lincoln in the Civil War and by FDR in the Great Depression. they overstepped the system of democracy for the sake of national security and it worked becasue centralized power works.
A democracy is a system based on the bleief that the public has the right to decide all political issues. If they wish to abandon their democracy, then that is their fucking choice and yes it is a fault in democracy. Democracy assumes that people would never consent to be governed by a tyrant, and this is flat out wrong.
Furthermore, if you look at some of the longer lasting dynasties, you'll see that they remain just as long as the longest democracies.
Democracy doesn't do anything for stability and order, it simply gives people political power and thereby makes them a political resource. Whether or not this is beneficial or harmful depends upon circumstance.
>>263806713
V-Vivian?
>>263811723
>Dynasties on the other hand have to be violently overthrown.
And there's only one person to overthrow.
People consent to be governed in all political systems.
And don't tell me that there is no such thing as a despotic democracy, take a look at US history. It's always the tyranny of the majority, a democracy empowers this even further.
Or hell, it doesn't even prevent tyranny by a minority. The US politcal system today is dominated by big business. The Roman political system was dominated by the military and the wealthy. The Greek politcal system was dominated by the wealthy. This isn't uncommon whatsoever.
>>263812694
No, fuck off.
>>263812452
>Democracy doesn't do anything for stability and order
Flat out wrong, democracies rarely go to war with each other, it's an objective observational fact that non-democratic states are far more likely to go to war
>>263813190
And then you get ones like America that starts a war every day.
>>263812694
Fuck off nigger
>>263813190
>Flat out wrong, democracies rarely go to war with each other, it's an objective observational fact that non-democratic states are far more likely to go to war
Right, take a look at the middle east and Russia, buddy.
People don't want to go to war today because they're scared stiff of nuclear weapons. Friendship between democracies is a product of the cold war.
i'm already a 30 year old functioning alcoholic, i don't need a videogame for that
>>263806208
Thankfully, the series ending made up for it when Julian goes absolutely furious at the Terraist boss, gunning him down with the rage of a thousand suns.
That shit was satisfying.
>>263812452
>And they didn't resist him
And what a brilliant idea that was. Napoleon plunged the whole of Europe into war.
>They elected him and supported the political changes that he made.
No, the NSDAP received not even half of the votes. The conservative, bourgeois parties supported Hitler because they hoped he'd get rid of the Communists for them. Without their support, Hitler could have never taken over.
>If they wish to abandon their democracy, then that is their fucking choice and yes it is a fault in democracy.
That's not how a stable democracy works though. If you allow people to abolish democracy, through the democratic process, then you're enabling them to take that choice away from the generations to follow, because those will grow up in a dictatorship they've never chosen.
>Democracy assumes that people would never consent to be governed by a tyrant, and this is flat out wrong.
Which is why it takes a solid constitution. Without a solid constitution to make sure that the elected leaders don't turn into tyrants democracy is completely pointless.
>Furthermore, if you look at some of the longer lasting dynasties, you'll see that they remain just as long as the longest democracies.
They remain, but were they good to their people? Did they allow for social mobility, free commerce, equality in face of the law? Did they provide internal and external stability?
>Democracy doesn't do anything for stability and order, it simply gives people political power and thereby makes them a political resource.
It allows people to non-violently overthrow the government every few years. This is an enormous benefit. Also, due to the people electing the government, the government needs to make sure to be reasonably populist - it cannot ago against the most basic interests of its people on a significant level.
>>263798236
you mean the shitty 2d battles that if the show wants you to win you will magically do more damage
>>263797896
>fedora core
Fuck off to /tv/ pedophile
>>263812694
I can't unread that, Anon.
>>263813859
>not forming into a spindle and penetrating their precious semi-circle
>>263814008
>not retreating the middle ships and getting the wings around their precious spindle trapping them with no escape even though the universe is in 3d and not 2 fucking d but whatever I don't watch this shit for the battles anyway
>>263812781
>And there's only one person to overthrow.
This too is another decisive weakness. If the Monarch leaves no heir, if the Monarch is to be killed or if he dies due to illness or loses his mind, then the country is in peril. Too much depends on one man.
>People consent to be governed in all political systems.
Not necessarily. People might be discontent with how things are, but in order to make them willing to give up their very existence in order to overthrow the current government things have to get really bad. So in a country where people can't elect new leaders they might be living in a constant state of discontent, that just isn't bad to a degree where they pick up arms. A democracy provides the potential for things getting better through elections.
>Or hell, it doesn't even prevent tyranny by a minority. The US politcal system today is dominated by big business. The Roman political system was dominated by the military and the wealthy. The Greek politcal system was dominated by the wealthy. This isn't uncommon whatsoever.
The antique democracies didn't allow everyone to vote though and votes often weren't counted equally. If all votes are counted equally, then the rulers can't go against their subjects interests all too much, or they lose their power.
>>263813708
>>263813859
The battles in this show really don't seem to make much sense a lot of the time.
>>263813662
>That's not how a stable democracy works though. If you allow people to abolish democracy, through the democratic process, then you're enabling them to take that choice away from the generations to follow, because those will grow up in a dictatorship they've never chosen.
And every choice that the previous generation makes politically will invetably affect the future generation and they had nothing to do with it.
You don't get to cherry pick your examples here.
>They remain, but were they good to their people? Did they allow for social mobility, free commerce, equality in face of the law? Did they provide internal and external stability?
I don't know, I'm not familiar with chinese history.
It was stable enough to keep the public from revoltng for a thousand years or two. And you mistakenly assume that those are necessary conditions for a happy public.
>It allows people to non-violently overthrow the government every few years.
But that's not at all what happens. You're still constrained to the platforms that they choose, you're still using the same constitution (if you have one), and political system, you still have the same major economic forces, you still have the same military leaders, you still have the same public that dominates opinion. And you assume that people are able to fulfill their own desires. People don't understand politics on average anon, look at all of the terrible fucking representatives they've elected in the past. I'm willing to bet it's equal to or less than reliable as a hereditary government with a kind and his advisors.
>>263814163
>not then accelerating at full speed ahead in a clockwise direction to get at the enemies unprotected rear
>>263814372
>not putting Ironshield Muller in your rear
>>263814163
I've always wondered about people complaining about a lack of 3D manoeuvres in LOGH.
First of all, their formations are 3D, so 3D manoeuvring would result in firing lines being crossed.
Second, manoeuvring primarily serves the purpose of maximising ones firing efficiency or minimising the enemy's firing efficiency. In order to achieve that, planar manoeuvres are more efficient than spatial manoeuvres.
While LOGH is hardly, realistic, a lack of spatial manoeuvring in combat isn't the problem.
>>263814703
He's already there so when we're pushing through the Rebels can't do anything to us.
I tried watching it but then they had sounds in space
>>263814909
>>263814774
that is the the worst translation i have ever seen. it's right there in katakana. why are they trying to mix it up to something it's not by adding letters that don't even really exist in Japanese such as "L"
>>263814190
>If the Monarch leaves no heir, if the Monarch is to be killed or if he dies due to illness or loses his mind, then the country is in peril. Too much depends on one man.
One man can be replaced by any of his contemporaries, it's incredibly unlikely that he was indispensible unless you have based your monarchy around heredity-and it isn't flexible in these times. This speaks to a poor autocracy rather than autocracy being a poor system. Because an autocracy at its best has the most competent person in charge as the system is inteded to foster his advancement.
>Not necessarily
Yes necessarily. If at any point an individual becomes so unhappy with his government that he wishes it destroyed, he can try to do so or he can leave (by force if necessary). If he doesn't even attempt, then he doesn't deserve politcal change. Similarly if you don't vote you don't get to complain about the policy. But wait, I can raise the same concern you did here-any idividual can disagree and suffer from majority decisions. A majority is not necessarily any more just than an individual, in fact they're much more likely to act in your interests when they realize that all of their power comes from the public and they are the person held accountable for all failure unlike in a democracy where you can only blame the ephemeral majority opinion.
>The antique democracies didn't allow everyone to vote though and votes often weren't counted equally
Did you not read all of the issues?
Economic power will alays influence politics more than an individual. Military might will always influence politics more than an individual. This is why these things are problems in the first place. They will always play a role in influencing a democracy either through advertisement or through lobbying, taxing, and donations
>>263814278
They don't because
>lol miracle Yang
>>263815215
>>263814190
>any idividual can disagree and suffer from majority decisions
And to elaborate on this point, the United States had to force the elimination of slavery because they could not remove it democratically.
>>263815738
Did they ever actually put it to a vote?
>>263815215
The best of autocracy will always be better than the best of democracy, and the worst of autocracy will always be worse than the worst of democracy.
>>263816187
I don't think they could actually, since voting on whether or not slavery was legal would contradict the dredd scott ruling set by the Supreme Court. Although people did vote on whether or not slavery would expand to the territories and it did.
>>263814346
>And every choice that the previous generation makes politically will invetably affect the future generation and they had nothing to do with it.
They get to make their own choices to change the current course if they disagree with it though. If they want to make changes AT ALL when a dictator is in charge, they'll have to overthrow that dictator first, sacrifice themselves and plunge the country into chaos.
>It was stable enough to keep the public from revoltng for a thousand years or two. And you mistakenly assume that those are necessary conditions for a happy public.
But they are necessary conditions. I'd be unhappy without those, and they were major reasons for the revolutions in Europe. Also, keep in mind: before the public starts to revolt, things have to get really bad. They don't just give up their existence simply because things aren't going too well - shit has to be really fucked up for people to revolt. In a democracy, people just have to vote for someone else if things are pissing them off, the hurdle to vote for someone else is much lower than the hurdle to revolt. This means that a democratically elected leader has less leeway when it comes to pissing off his subjects than a dictator who knows that he can take things much further before revolutions happen. And the result of this is that the will of the people will generally be better represented within a democracy than in a dictatorship.
[to be continued]
>>263816273
That's a fair statement.
>>263814346
continuation of >>263816367
>You're still constrained to the platforms that they choose
Said platforms allows for political changes to be made, which is your goal.
>you're still using the same constitution (if you have one)
The constitution comes as a dogma: it is assumed good.
>and political system
As I said: changes to the democratic process aren't fair to generations to come. It can't be gotten rid of.
>you still have the same major economic forces
Economic forces are private business. The government has no say there.
>you still have the same military leaders
The military is subject to the government. Clausewitz himself declared war a tool of politics.
>you still have the same public that dominates opinion
You have a vote yourself, and if you think there's a very important issue that people need to keep in mind you're free to campaign for said issue.
>And you assume that people are able to fulfill their own desires. People don't understand politics on average anon, look at all of the terrible fucking representatives they've elected in the past. I'm willing to bet it's equal to or less than reliable as a hereditary government with a kind and his advisors.
I don't necessarily think people understand politics, and perhaps they could have elected better leaders. However, due to the leader depending on the goodwill of the people, the leader can't go completely opposite. This provides a good check. How could a hereditary government be better? Current day Monarchs might seem nice, now that they've been neutered, but in the past, they were a bunch of cronies who mostly served their own interests. You don't want to give these people power again.
Of course things can be good or bad independently from the political system. But I see a lot more potential for abuse and shit really hitting the fan with some sort of dictator in charge.
>>263816367
>They get to make their own choices to change the current course if they disagree with it though. If they want to make changes AT ALL when a dictator is in charge, they'll have to overthrow that dictator first, sacrifice themselves and plunge the country into chaos.
That's assuming that it's not a constitutional ruling or some other form of permanent law. these are not infrequently passed. And you also assume that an actual revolution is necessaily violent. Seriosly, all you need is a good assassin.
>>263816628
>Seriosly, all you need is a good assassin.
With modern firearms this might not be too hard any more, but in the past, assassinating people wasn't that easy.
Also, if you're dealing with a hereditary form of government, where the Monarch can only be an aristocrat, chances are things aren't necessarily going to improve, since he might see things exactly the same way as the previous Monarch.
>>263813662
jesus democracyfags are truly brainwashed.
overthrow the government? how do you overthrow the hordes of bureaucrats that aren't elected?
>social mobility
yes.
>free commerce?
depends on the political views of the monarch.
>equality in the face of the law
no, thank god for that. that is the most stupid thing. nigger gangbanger is worth as much to society as a taxpayer? why, why are you democracyfags obsessed with equality is it because you can't measure up so you have to bring others down? seems like it.
>0% approval rating for the senate and obama
democracy is the greatest thing ever guys, we just have to wait 4 more years until these people that were selected by g-d's chosen can switch sides and play the same game again!
>>263817078
I hole-hardedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go. Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.
>>263817040
I might add: if there are multiple people claiming the throne, said assassination might also easily plunge the whole country into chaos. Or it might have even worse consequences, thinking of WW1.
>>263815340
I do like how a big part of the tactical advantage the FPA have over the Empire is the Empire's constant paranoia that whatever Yang is doing is somehow a trap or elaborate ruse.
>>263817246
Except for the fact that jews were behind WW1.
>>263817107
>doubles advocate
>pre-Madonnas
>a feel day
>peach of cake.
>>263816367
>This means that a democratically elected leader has less leeway when it comes to pissing off his subjects than a dictator who knows that he can take things much further before revolutions happen. And the result of this is that the will of the people will generally be better represented within a democracy than in a dictatorship.
A democratically elected leader can fuck up as much as he likes so long as he doesn't commit any impeachable offenses- and even then it's liekly not his life on the line. A monarch has to worry about assassination at all times and the good will of all of his subjects. I think you're assuming that only the public can create an interregnum of note here, any single person in an autocracy can create a major political change if they play their cards right while in a democracy you need to go through an extensive poltical campaign.
>Said platforms allows for political changes to be made, which is your goal.
Not necessarily, they might both focus on non-issues, they might simply be running on character alone (because that's what people vote on in the end anyway, Carter won this way, so have others)
>As I said: changes to the democratic process aren't fair to generations to come. It can't be gotten rid of.
Then a constitution isn't democratic.
>The military is subject to the government. Clausewitz himself declared war a tool of politics.
The military is an organization of individuals like any other institution. Should any one of them have the support of their troops (even a fraction of the military) you have the potential for a coup. I don't give a damn what Clausewitz said, a soldier can be a politcian the same as anyone else.
>You have a vote yourself, and if you think there's a very important issue that people need to keep in mind you're free to campaign for said issue.
But if public opinion is against you nothing will come of it. Sometimes you can't convince people to see reason. No one wants taxes coming out of a paycheck.
cont.
>>263816590
>I don't necessarily think people understand politics, and perhaps they could have elected better leaders. However, due to the leader depending on the goodwill of the people, the leader can't go completely opposite
The exact same thing can be said of an autocracy. Every political system is a social contract by defintion.
>How could a hereditary government be better?
They're just people, anon. People can be taught like anyone else. In a hereditary system, you have people whose existence is defined by governance and who are educated with this in mind. If this fails, it reflects on the teachers and not the individual alone. On the other hand, anyone can run for office relatively speaking. And contrary to popular history there have been good monarchs, in truth most were pretty unremarkable. It's because we learn about the war of the roses and all of the inquisitions that we believe monarchs are impetuous assholes. These are the excpetion not the rule.
>>263816367
>he thinks he has political power in a democracy.
Wow that one vote you cast did good, now what about all the braindead apathetic people who just vote for who the media portrays, or your preselected political candidates, or... x1000 with all the flaws of democracy.
>>263817078
>overthrow the government? how do you overthrow the hordes of bureaucrats that aren't elected?
The bureaucrats merely execute the will of those in charge.
Also, what you hold against democracy applies to non-democratic systems as well: except that you have even less say in the matter, so that argument doesn't really count.
>social mobility
>yes.
Very much no. Could a peasant become knight? No, he couldn't.
>depends on the political views of the monarch.
Exactly my point: it all depends on the good will of the monarch.
>no, thank god for that. that is the most stupid thing.
So, some aristocratic lout counts more than an upstanding bourgeois? You're looking at things from your American perspective. Monarchy is something that never happened there. I live in Europe, Monarchies, where aristocrats held actual power, aren't too long gone.
>we just have to wait 4 more years until these people that were selected by g-d's chosen can switch sides and play the same game again!
Under the assumption that you're not actually dealing with democracy but with an oligarchy headed by the Jews, what's your problem with democracy then?
>>263817862
>>263816590
Also, if you're talking about recent history in regard to monarchs, we put more than half of those guys in power ourselves with a complete disregard for the people themselves. The dictators knew they could get away with murder because their power came from the United States, not their subjects.
>>263817107
I don't wanna say I toadasoo
But I totally fucking a toadasoo
>>263817457
>A democratically elected leader can fuck up as much as he likes so long as he doesn't commit any impeachable offenses
The hurdle for a democratically elected leader to not be re-elected is MUCH lower than the hurdle for a despot to get assassinated or violently overthrown through revolution. One requires you to simply vote for someone else, the other requires you to pick up arms and risk your life, possibly sacrificing yourself and the future of your family in case you have one, plunging the whole country into chaos.
>A monarch has to worry about assassination at all times and the good will of all of his subjects.
No, this is historically wrong. Assassinations have never been that big of a deal, simply because it wasn't that easy to kill people. You have this weird idea about Assassin's Creed style ninjas who flip around and murder people, but this isn't historical reality. Bad leaders weren't commonly assassinated, in fact, bad leaders were very good at not getting assassinated.
>any single person in an autocracy can create a major political change if they play their cards right
No. How would some peasant even get to the court? And even if he somehow got to court, how could he make his voice get heard, how could the monarch listen, and if he did, would he understand and be willing to act? The chance is slim as hell.
>Then a constitution isn't democratic.
It's not like constitutions can't be changed, but people should be careful about it.
>Should any one of them have the support of their troops (even a fraction of the military) you have the potential for a coup.
A standing military always poses that risk, which is why people need to keep a close eye on it.
>a soldier can be a politcian the same as anyone else
Only if he's not actively serving.
>But if public opinion is against you nothing will come of it.
Maybe things simply aren't that bad then. You'll have to live with not getting your will in every tiny matter.
>>263818116
your reading comprehension is really shit
you're thinking of feudalism not monarchy. you're dumb.
you mean a kid raised from birth to become king wants to harm his power because >muh tv periodicals portrayed the peasant who becomes a noble is da gud guy and da nobles are all evil xcept 4 his wyfu
keep being indoctrinated kid.
>aristocratic lout
we're talking about monarchy here kiddo, not aristocracy or feudalism.
>oligarchy headed by the jews
that's democracy, anon.
>>263817862
>The exact same thing can be said of an autocracy. Every political system is a social contract by defintion.
No, it can't, because an autocracy needs to be violently overthrown, thus the hurdle for people to get up and make a change is much higher. In order for people to be willing to die to make some changes, things need to be really fucked up.
>They're just people, anon. People can be taught like anyone else.
How are you going to make sure they don't develop a class conceit? As I said earlier: don't mistake the current monarchs with those of the past. A monarch has a mind of his own too and if he has the power, there's no guarantee he won't make use of it.
>And contrary to popular history there have been good monarchs, in truth most were pretty unremarkable.
This is completely true. Things aren't necessarily going to be completely fucked up under a monarchy. However, they can easily be in a consistent state of "bad", just not bad enough for people to take up arms.
>>263819297
>you're thinking of feudalism not monarchy. you're dumb.
How are you going to keep monarchy from going back to that? If you give a certain case of people power by birth, what is going to keep them from going back to the feudal age?
>we're talking about monarchy here kiddo, not aristocracy or feudalism.
You have to choose the monarch from somewhere. Where are you going to take the monarch from if not from aristocratic families? You can't have monarchy without an aristocracy. Otherwise you have no candidates to take your rulers from.
>>263819021
>The hurdle for a democratically elected leader to not be re-elected is MUCH lower than the hurdle for a despot to get assassinated
You know how easy it is to assassinate someone?
You know how hard it is to beat an incumbent?
>You have this weird idea about Assassin's Creed style ninjas who flip around and murder people, but this isn't historical reality. Bad leaders weren't commonly assassinated, in fact, bad leaders were very good at not getting assassinated.
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of poison in the tea, but you know, feel free to dramatize. And in historical reality, we don't have records of assassination attempts because that's not something that you tell the public. And despots are regularly thrown out of power historically even if not by assassination. It's rare for a despot to be a good enough ruler that he is able to maintain his hold on the public. And we're talking structure in this sense, not history. It's only become easier to kill someone.
>No. How would some peasant even get to the court?
We're not talking feudalism here. Any individual doesn't have to strictly abide by his social rules and those that do are soomed to servitude anyway. They're submissive by nature.
>It's not like constitutions can't be changed, but people should be careful about it.
They most certainly are not supposed to be.
>A standing military always poses that risk, which is why people need to keep a close eye on it.
Great advice. Keep a close eye on it. And what are you going to do when there's a problem? They have all of the guns.
>Only if he's not actively serving.
Again, no soldier is on duty 24/7 so much that they can't make a few connections.
You need to stop thinking so much in terms of current political systems and more of the abstract democracy vs autocracy. While things might be a certain way now or might have been a certain way then that doesn't mean that they must be this way.
cont.
