Today’s Rave: Advanced Civilization

Everyone knows the ubiquitous Civilization games, up past their fourth incarnation and founded by the much-loved Sid Meier. What you may not know about this venerable series is that it drew as its inspiration a game by those old masters of the board, Avalon Hill. Besides being responsible for dozens of board games that put modern video games to shame in fun, replay value, and brilliant design, Avalon Hill also authorized a couple of adaptations of their board games to PC.

One such adaptation was Advanced Civiliation. But let me back up. The original Civilization was a board game by Avalon Hill. Sid Meier played and liked said game; in fact he liked it so much he stole/adapted/altered the design for his own game, also titled Civilization, albeit with his name plastered in front of it. It has a decidedly military focus compared to the original Civilization by AH. Perhaps in response to this release, and also partly because the original Civilization had some balance issues, Avalon Hill released an expansion of sorts called Advanced Civilization.

Unlike Sid Meier’s games, Advanced Civilization is won mostly through clever trading and expansion. Military conquest is difficult and inherently balanced out by the games’ population system. No empire can expand indefinitely since the players use the same set of tokens for both population and treasury money. Expand too far and your cities will have tax revolts; but expand too little and you will not be able to operate at maximum efficiency.

The goods and trading system is at the heart of what makes AdCiv so special – each city generates one trade card per turn that represents a type of good. For example, if you have 1 city, you draw a card from the first of nine piles – so you’ll most likely receive an ochre or hide trade card, worth 1 point. If you have 2, you’ll draw one of two types of cards worth 2 points from the second of nine piles, and so on.

The brilliance of this system lies in the fact that cards are exponentially more valuable in sets than singly. What this means, for example is that a set of four hides, each worth one, is worth sixteen as a group (it’s the square of the number of cards times the value of the good). What this means, then, is that a fifth hide is actually worth 9 points to you (that raises the total to twenty-five), which means you would be willing to trade a good worth much more, say 7 or 8, just to get another value 1 good. Everybody benefits from this system, and no player is out of the game just because they can’t generate high-value goods – it’ll be worth something to somebody.

The other fact is that it’s not all goods in the trade decks – on occasion, you will draw a calamity card. Some of them you can’t do anything about, but others can be cleverly passed off to other players by bluffing during trading. You must trade at least three cards, and you must be truthful about two of them, but any other number of cards can be outright lies. This makes every trade exciting, because you never know if you’ll be screwed over; on the other hand, if you know that even if only two of the cards in the trade are very valuable to you, even if you get a slave revolt or treachery inflicted on you, it’ll be worth it.

Brilliance I tell you. You use these trade cards and some spare money from your treasury to purchase civilizational advances, some of which give you new game mechanics, such as winning conflicts more easily or allowing you to use money to help build cities, and some simply mitigate the effects of calamities so they don’t hurt you so much. Also, advances (called tools in the game) give you credit towards certain other advances, helping you afford the more expensive ones later on. The game ends when one player makes it to the end of the archaeological time table by fulfilling certain goals during play, though the player who ends the game may no necessarily win it, thanks to a balanced and complex scoring system.

The PC adaptation’s AI is brutal, even on its easiest setting. I have yet to end any higher than third place in a game, and I’ve played half a dozen of them by now. This game is abandonware, so it’s easy and free to get – but it’s old and you’ll need DosBox to run it (a free Dos emulator for Windows). For fans of the Civilization series, get ready for a crazy shock when you realize how a simpler and more elegant game can deliver all the addictiveness of the often overly complex Civilzation series.

Today’s Rave: Tyrian

I was around back when there were one speed CD roms. A 500 MB hard drive was considered plenty big – even huge. Windows 3.1 was all the rage. Yes indeed. Simpler times. And games from those times had much less to work with. Most serious games of that era still ran in DOS because Windows was unwieldy and Microsoft had yet to invent Direct X as a resource workaround.

Tyrian was a space shooter from that era. It was put together by the tiny software company Epic MegaGames, creator of such ancient and beloved franchises and Jazz Jackrabbit and One Must Fall. It had good music and graphics for the time (it still looks colorful and runs smoothly) and was awesome because unlike other shooters, there was a great deal of customizability. But let me back up.

A game where you are a single pilot in a small plane or spaceship taking on fleets of enemies used to be simply called a shooter or shoot’em up. Generally speaking, you couldn’t get hit even once, or you died. Once you ran out of lives, it was game over. Tyrian broke with that rule because you had both shields (which recharged) and armor (which didn’t) which on the one hand was more forgiving, but on the other made the programmer able to create much harder situations because he knew a few mistakes wouldn’t kill you (that’s right, one programmer. Singular). Additionally, in arcade shooters (pretty much the only kind available at the time), you would collect weapon upgrades and bombs mid-level, and as long as you didn’t die you would keep all of your upgrades. Raiden, if you’ve ever seen that, is the classic example of this.

Tyrian also ruled because the weapons were hugely customizable. Your score was also your currency, which you would then use to buy different kinds of weapons or upgrade them. Besides your standard front weapon, there was also a rear/side weapon and two “sidekick” slots that you could customize with missile launchers, companion ships, bombs, flamethrowers, mines, and a dozen other useful weapons. You could also buy better ships (more armor), upgrade your shields, and upgrade your generator. See, what was particularly cool about the generators is that they power both your weapons and shields, so if your weapons consume too much power then your shields will recharge very slowly while firing. This relationship meant that hotshot pilots could buy really powerful weapons, secure in the knowledge that they could dodge well, whereas lazier people like me could scale back the weapon purchases but be assured of a somewhat more forgiving experience.

But what’s really great is that the source code was released to a group who have switched out the archaic DOS code for an up-to-date SDL executable, which means Tyrian can once again be run in all it’s speedy glory with full sound, instead of relying on DOSBox.

The music is really good too. Check it out, if you’re looking to kill some time with an old-school classic. Kudos to Epic MegaGames. Gone, but not forgotten.

http://code.google.com/p/opentyrian/

Today’s Rave: Fives

You may think that Dominoes is a childish game that is a waste of time for any seasoned game player. And you’d be right. Ahem. Actually, there is one game played with dominoes that’s pretty cool: Fives. Also known as All-Fives or Muggins, the game is simple yet there is quite a few different tactics to be employed.

Generally played with two though it can be played with up to four, the player with the highest double (i.e. a domino with the same number on both sides) puts it down. This is the spinner and it can be added to on four sides. Players then take turns adding on dominoes in the usual fashion, by connecting a matching number on one side of one of their dominoes to a domino already on the board.

The trick with Fives, and what makes it interesting, is that every time the outer dominoes on the board add up to a multiple of five, you score that many points. Also, if you manage to use up all of your dominoes, you score as many points as pips remaining in your opponent’s hand. This means that you can play defensively, and try to keep your opponent from scoring, or try to make him draw a lot of dominoes and then go out quickly (you have to keep drawing until you draw a domino you can play), trying to capitalize on his large hand. You can also try to set up traps where you invite him to score a low multiple and then you add a new domino, cranking up the score by five or even 10 for yourself.

Generally the game is played to about 200 points, and it combines speed of play with variety – a single round only takes a couple of minutes at most, and even players that are lagging pretty far behind can come back with a little luck and a few good moves. It’s just about the only good game with dominoes that I’ve played, and it stands up to virtually any classic board game in its appeal.

You may not be the kind of person that plays many board games, but if you have an old, unused set of dominoes lying around the house, you should bust them out and give the game a try with a friend. You won’t be disappointed.

Today’s Rave: Cooking Away

Since I’ve been living at home I’ve been cooking meals for my folks and me a couple of night a week, and I’m really enjoying it. I’ve never made a habit of cooking much, but as virtually every recipe is a step of logical steps to follow, provided that the recipe does not have any techniques that have to be learned, I can generally cook with success.

The thing that’s cool is that there are a multitude advantages to making something that I have a craving for myself rather than to going out and buying it. First of all, there’s precision. I know precisely what ingredients go in, so if I want a particular flavor in a dish, I know what to put in. It’s also cheaper. But perhaps the best part is calorie control – it’s much easier to lose weight or stay steady state when you cook yourself. It’s healthier to make yourself a hamburger than buy one at McDonald’s.

Now, I’m not a health nut by a long shot. I love eating out and I like eating lots of food on occasion. Yum. But in terms of working out a way that I can eat what I feel like and yet lose weight, cooking yourself has plenty of advantages, and the only drawback is time. Lucky for me, I have some of that, and it’s true what they say: there’s no better meal than the one you cook yourself. Plus I can finally learn to cook Indian food. Woohoo! Up to this point I’ve made North Carolina-style Pulled Pork and Coleslaw, Rogan Josh (Lamb Curry), Chicken Parmigiana, Coq Au Vin, Grilled Fish Tacos, Jambalaya, Turkey Meatloaf and scads of others I can’t even remember. What’s cool is that I can have practically any kind of food I want – as long as I learn to make it.

Bon appetit!

Today’s Rave: The Scientist’s Claim To Fame

Have you ever though about Planck’s Constant? No, not the actual number, or what it represents. I mean the fact that Max Planck’s name is forever tied to a fundamental principle of quantum physics. Few honors in real life really compare to something of that magnitude.

Granted, it’s an arbitrary label. Planck’s constant simply is, regardless of what it’s called. But now the name is attached to the universe. It’s pretty interesting if you think about it. Avogadro’s number. Bernoulli’s principle. Boyle’s law. In a funny way, it’s almost like an invention. By discovering something (or the mathematical principle by which it operates) they have de facto provided something new to the scientific community, even though it was always sitting there.

In a roundabout way, this is true of physical inventions as well. The potential for a steam engine was always there; it was physically possible. James Watt simply provided the structure for physics to operate in such a way that it provided power. Does it take more ingenuity to invent a context for a physical principle to work then to discover it?

I don’t know, really. But in a certain sense, James Watt discovered the steam engine, since he himself was relying on the principles of gases that were “discovered” by someone else. So in that sense, the difference between an inventor and a discoverer is a semantic one. Really, it’s a question of an engineering approach vs. a research approach.

One makes observations about reality and tries to create mathematical systems that match and predict the behavior of these real world phenomenon. The other takes the principles of these systems and tries to use them in such a way to produce a desired end. The second sort of feeds off the first.

And inventions are often named after their creators too. The Wankel rotary engine is the best example I can think of. The only problem with that is if the invention becomes obsolete, the name of the creator is likely to become less well-known, if not gone entirely (except from history books, the fate of all luminaries without something named directly after them). The only way Planck’s constant becomes obsolete is if it’s not constant, or if it’s somehow wrong.

Interesting, no?

No. I know.

Today’s Rave: The Simpsons Movie

I finally saw the Simpsons movie the other day. It was good – better than I expected, really. But what I found compelling about it was not the humor – it was pretty funny throughout, though not hilarious – but the way they basically upgraded everything about the Simpsons to movie-quality. Better animation and clearer sound(and music scored for a movie, of course) are a given, though I will say there is more nuance to be picked up from the voice-acting here than in the show, and I also think the voice actors were either told to ham it up more, or realized the necessary gravity and did it themselves.

There are subtler important things woven into the way the movie is wirtten. I’m not convinced that the Simpsons have a true “canon,” nor am I sure that even if there is one that the movie would be in it, but much of the movie involves collapsing some of their most typical plot points from the show into a bigger dramatic arc. Everything is much more intense from a character interaction standpoint. For example, Bart’s tenuous relationship with Homer is an obvious plot used for many different episodes, but rather than a short reconciliation after twenty minutes of mental, emotional and physical tussling, Bart wholly abandons Homer to be with Flanders as he comes to realize what a father can be – and this gets worse for virtually the entire movie, ’till the very end where Homer wins him back by letting him hold the bomb as they race off to rescue the town. Essentially, I see their relationship as a “you can’t spell dysfunctional without functional” kind of thing, and that’s basically what they use to reconcile the two. Flanders also ends up looking pretty good, ultimately happy to see the two back together.

Speaking of bombs, they also made the conflict situation more serious than it would normally be – i.e. the government sealing off and possibly murdering the residents of Springfield. To be honest, the drama of this plot actually detracts somewhat from the humor – it’s hard to laugh when all of your favorite characters might be wiped off the face of the earth. I mean, you know they won’t, but I actually found this emotional tweak to the plot to be interesting because it let the writers and actors stretch a bit, which I always enjoy.

And perhaps the most particularly overused plot point, as far as the series is concerned, is of course Homer and Marge’s outrageously improbable and inexplicably continuing marriage. Of course, as this is a movie, when she finally inevitably decides to break it off, it is particularly dramatic (in fact, Julie Kavner adds a very skillful, heart-wrenching degree of hopelessness to her goodbye video monologue) , and of course when they get back together it is much more touchingly romantic than it is in the series, where it is almost trite at this point.

Anyway, what I’m trying to say is that the movie was not simply a longer episode of The Simpsons – the writers, actors, and composer(s?) all rose to the task and took one of America’s (and probably the world’s) most beloved TV families and actually made a real movie out of them. I have only one thing to say.

Bravo.

Today’s Rave: Smart-Guy Advantage

During Bush’s reign of error I would recall reading many informative and useful pieces by various staff of the New York Times. Not all the columnists necessarily make political recommendations in their articles, but a couple that do (most often Krugman, Friendman, and Kristof) struck me as being particularly useful. There are ideas being thrown around that are worth simply knowing about and considering.

Then I would recall that the chances of Bush reading it to be absolutely zero, or at least abysmally low, and even were he to read it, the chance he would use or absorb any of the contents were zero.

Of course, I’m not claiming that the New York Times columnists are particularly adepts at instituting policy recommendations. Their strongest ability is simply to promote awareness of an issue. But most of all they quite authoritatively use the lens of common sense (with the exception of Kristol and some Brooks).

I read a good article regarding moving hard and fast in regards to another stimulus package by Krugman. And suddenly it occurred to me that Obama probably read the same article, or if he didn’t, one of his people might bring it to his attention. Additionally, Obama may consider Krugman’s word carefully, since Obama would be likely to take things like education and Nobel Laureate status into consideration.

Refreshing, isn’t it? That’s the power of logical thinking. Oh, how I’ve missed it.

So whenever I read a good idea from any even remotely public source, I can be sure that it’s probably gotten to Obama’s ear one way or another.

Obama seemed to be dead-center in terms of political ideals, but if you think about the policies he wants to implement (universal healthcare, green energy) he would seem to actually be leaning quite a bit to the left. Unless, of course, he’s seeing those two things simply as what they are: two good ideas that are necessary to move this country forward, and they have no inherent political affiliation. That’s what we’d all like to hope, I’m sure. I imagine the real reasons like somewhere in between.

In any case, having a President who actually reads the newspaper (of course, he probably has a bunch of press staffers combing the news at all times, but that’s more for publicity control) is a real relief. I can be sure that Obama won’t exclude anyone simply because they don’t fit into his own political conception of what the world ought to be like.

I don’t know when pragmatism became so rare, but I’m oh so glad it’s back where it belongs: in government.

Today’s Rave: Yes, We Can. Yes, We Will.

Man, what a great moment in history. The entire Republican hate machine couldn’t stop this tide.

Truth be told, the historical significance of this moment was a little lost on me at first, because I saw nothing particularly novel about an African-American being elected myself. My generation is much less likely to be racist because racism has to be taught, and racism is rapidly going out of style. But this morning it just occurred to me just what a huge step in the right direction this has been. We used to have an entire group of people who were denied practically all their fundamental rights in this country, and who were subject to centuries of discrimination,  but the “hold these truths to be self-evident” clause just got a little more accurate last night, as America took a major step in closing the book on slavery and racism and elected a black man to be President. It’s got great narrative sweep. I can never even hope to understand what this must represent to the black community as a whole, but I do know that internationally we just got HUGE bonus points. Except from Russia, who has been cranky recently. You know, I really hate these has-been empires throwing their weight around. Which is, I imagine, why much of the world hates us for Iraq. America was generally subtly imperial (that is, after we took an entire subcontinent and wiped out most of the native population) but still was creating banana republics and shifting “friendly” dictators into power in other countries. You know, like Saddam Hussein (we didn’t put him there, but we helped keep him there).

Part of the reason I despise politics so much is that the Bush administration and their mindless Republican cronies have been doing it wrong for almost a third of my life (and for another one-third of it, I wouldn’t have understood or cared much anyway). But Obama gives me reason to think that maybe we can not completely betray the founding principles of this country after all, and maybe we can actually work towards the stated goal of “a more perfect Union.” It will never get there, but that’s the point. Improvements can and must come. A huge one came last night.

The stunning electoral smashing McCain received may have had much to do with Obama’s huge amount of resources and modern style of campaigning, but what galvanized people into giving the money and volunteering is the positive message. If trying to run a campaign positively in a time where hope is rapidly being lost is pandering, then a) pander away and b) you’re too cynical for me. Obama brought and represents a unity that is sorely needed if we are going to undo the damage of nearly a decade of inept and corrupt administration.

I was, I must admit, very impressed with McCain’s concession speech. Who I heard was the old McCain: the honorable, good-humored, self-deprecating and patriotic veteran who loves his country first and has genuine respect for his opponents. If the Republican sleaze machine had tried to make use of these natural qualities of McCain instead of trying to fit him into their usual scumbag tactics, maybe they would have had a shot. It is dead obvious that McCain is relieved that he can stop being an asshole (his discomfort with this entire campaign has been apparent from the first debate and earlier) and go back to doing what he does best: sticking to his guns in the Senate, rather than sticking to somebody else’s guns on the campaign trail. McCain’s speech did much to repair my negative image of him that has built up. Especially when he made it clear that people’s mindless booing of the new president set an inappropriate tone. Perhaps there’s hope for him yet. Let’s all keep an eye on the Senate.

Obama’s victory speech was so great. I liked it better than his acceptance speech even though it had even less informational content. He skillfully put the moment in historical perspective, and generally just did a hell of a job making us think positively about the future, even as he noted that there will be no easy solutions and no quick fixes.

No easy solutions? No quick fixes? Thank God. Eight years of that attitude has done enough damage already.

Congratulations, President Obama.

Congratulations, America.

But be ready. There is much work to be done.

Today’s Rave: Nile

This is another one of those “metal” articles that most people will probably roll their eyes and ignore. Can’t blame you. But as I’m out of ideas I will start raving about one of my new old (or old new) favorite bands.

Nile is a brutal/technical death metal band from South Carolina. Their lead vocalist and guitarist, Karl Sanders, is an amateur Egyptologist with keen interest in all things ancient Egyptian, and he actually has a sizeable personal collection of artifacts and curios from that time.

Unsurprisingly, he brings this theme into the death metal that he writes. Many of the songs are transcriptions or interpretations of ancient texts (in English, for the most part) or prayers. Additionally, he makes consistent use of Middle-Eastern sounding modes and occasionally throws in archaic-sounding acoustic string and wind instruments for introductions or musical interludes.

So obviously, Nile gets big points for originality and consistency. But what does that matter if they suck, right? Well, Nile is admittedly an acquired taste. Half their songs are about wreaking horrible vengeance on some group or another with graphic descriptions of disemboweling and so forth (those ancient Egyptians were a terribly violent lot, apparently). Musically, they are in a subgenre of death metal called “brutal” which tends to be murkier-sounding and makes extensive use of palm muting to creates a sort of heavy strumming effect that doesn’t produce any real tone, but just sort of a percussive blast. As a result, you’ll find yourself straining to hear a melody where there isn’t any. Once you get used to the style though, it’s pretty awesome.

I used to like Nile alright, but I recently got into them again and after my foray into black metal I guess my tastes have widened up enough to let me really get into brutal death metal. Now Nile has jumped up into my top 5. They tend to do two types of songs really well: shorter, insanely brutal thrashing songs that take you through a wild maelstrom of crashing melodies, and longer (7 minutes plus), slower and more measured epics that feature greater variety of material.

Also, Karl Sanders has the honor of quite possibly having the lowest death growl I have ever heard. It is so low as to be essentially unintelligible about half the time, and I’m getting used to picking out words from almost any growl now. His guttural intonations perfectly fit the sort of necromantic material they cover, particularly in the album “In Their Darkened Shrines” which has a much more crypt-like feel.

Nile is such a unique and intense listening experience, I would recommend it to everyone except I know that most people would hate them immediately. I think the average person would have to work their way up to Nile. There are probably a few people who hear it and immediately realize it’s the music for them. Nile’s songs are an immensely satisfying combination of exotic modes, atonal ramblings, ancient texts, and face-smashing intensity, not one of which you are even remotely likely to get within a hundred miles of the pop music scene. Of course, you may not look for face-smashing intensity in your music.

Your loss.

Today’s Rave: Religulous

If you haven’t seen Religulous, the more or less anti-religious pseudo-documentary movie by Bill Maher, I recommend it to you without qualification. It essentially points out the inherent and fundamental danger in allowing anyone with transcendental beliefs to make any real-world political decisions whatsoever. He does this by continually pointing out inconsistencies, holes, and generally just taking to task any arguments that religion is at all a good thing. While the whole thing is definitely comedic in nature, he drops the act at the very end and clearly and severely addresses the audience to cast aside their childish superstitions and “grow up.”

Bill Maher is my hero.

He is not an atheist as such, but he is an agnostic with an agenda. Sometimes I feel like people use agnosticism so as not to get verbally burned at the stake by religious people. In his case, his use of “I just don’t know” agnosticism gets religious people to open up to him because he seems to be a lost lamb rather than simply lost. That means at the end people pray for you rather than chase you out of the building.

Technically, I’m agnostic (I don’t care whether there’s a God since I consider the question irrelevant) but I usually call myself an atheist because I really don’t think there is a God, and I like to piss off religious nuts. I’m not adamant about the non-existence of God, I can conceive that there could be a God, but I think there isn’t one.

Doubt is the default of the skeptic.

In any case, the movie is a somewhat personal one as Maher describes his own religious background and how he eventually came to be the atheist that he is. It was, more or less, because his family just suddenly stopped going to church. Without constant indoctrination, most religions tends to fall apart as things like rational thought suddenly intrude on your blissful dream of life after death.

But of course, I don’t have any problem with religion as long as you keep it to yourself. But it is not only morally wrong to force your views into politics, government, or society, it is extremely dangerous, as Maher points out consistently. Keep your goddamn commandments out of my schools, your Christian worldview out of my Oval Office (it’s our goddamn office by the way, we’re letting the President use it) and your religiously zealotry away from my high-rise office buildings.

Only transcendental thinking could possibly result in someone justifying the taking of their own life and the slaughtering of thousands of innocent people. If you don’t believe in a God or an afterlife, the only reason you would do something like that is if you were absolutely insane.

Oh wait. As Maher points out, there is no inherent difference between schizophrenia and hearing the voice of God (as so many Christians claim to have done). But we get these people help because it’s religion, and you can’t touch religion.

The world would be so much better off if we would take out eyes off the heavens and start looking around us so that we can build a better world here and now.

It is this that Maher communicates so clearly. Watch this movie, you’ll laugh, and you’ll get angry. Maher says we need louder atheists. Louder and more pissed-off.

Sounds good to me.