SB Plays ZEPHON 03 - No Time For Friends

[@Paladin0005]

With the slow base healing, it seems that medics and engineers are necessary to maintain momentum.

[@addisonmartin3200]

Absolutely critical. Unless you're playing the fallen soldier... it's bullshit going up against him too because EVERYTHING controlled by the Fallen Soldier heals just a little bit every turn.

[@ibccreamsoda3811]

This game is fricking metal

[@d.w.4071]

❤❤😊

[@milanstevic8424]

@14:40 "growth of what?" the event is called Economic bubble, so obviously the growth of economy. "The political beliefs of the developers" well, economy is not necessarily related to politics. Rather it's about trade of goods (and currencies) and producer/consumer relationship. Sure, politics will meddle, but economy is not inherently political, and in fact economies exists and function even without any semblance of social order or laws, as people will produce whatever goods they can in order to trade for whatever they're in need of. Therefore it's not about anyone's stance on politics, let alone developers'. Free market vs state regulation is just a spectrum between two social order extremes, each governing a different trade-off between the individual greed and common interests. During the 20th century the same kind of polarity was typically used to illustrate the difference between capitalism (i.e. laissez-faire) and communism (i.e. five year plan). Reality is not really black & white like that, as all markets are heavily regulated but all economies are tuned with different goals in mind, given the historical circumstances.

[@christianjohansson7185]

I dunno. While I do agree that trade will continue regardless of (most) political events, I disagree with making such a sharp distinction between economy and politics. Almost all political activity will center around the distribution of resources and priorities thereof, and many of the conditions under which economical decisions are made stem from whatever ideological beliefs leaders hold. In addition, one of the most -if not the most- influential group engaging in politics, will irregardless of system be folks with access to or stakes in business and resources. I won't presume where you are from, but since SB lives in the US, a region where economy and politics are heavily connected. To a point one coukd argue, where both of the main parties will prioritize business interests over human need. Soon to be president is a landowner and businessman millionaire and is stacking his cabinet with other ultra rich business people as we speak. He also campaigned on a platform of anti establishment rethoric aimed partly at disenfranchised and economically destitute regions overlooked or actively dismantled by either corporate disinterest or political priority moving on. (Also hatred, but that's this one time beside the point). So from an americam perspective (again sorry I don't know if you are american) it is difficult bot to view political views to be directly connected to actionable economic ideology. The mere fact that economy will not by default cater to the actual need of everybody in the societal pyramid makes it inherently political, since the conditions under which economy can develop still will be affected by the ability of leaders, be they primarily political or economical, to persuade, coerce or outright force people to participate means that no matter what system, be it free market or planned, almost nothing is more politically charged than economic policy. For my part I live in a region where the transition from a 1600's feudal system slowly developed into separating municipal political power (governed democratically) and one large modern corporation recently buying out the literal remnant of said unbroken ownership lineage. Old owners were nobility by rule of god and the state from 1918 up towards 1982. New owners are also part of this old money ruling class. This is not an apolitical situation, but the primary condition under which the local political sphere can operate, and any political decision made that affects the economy will see the primary actor best case putting in a word, and worst case demanding concessions. This has absolutely been the main political goal of that societal group and have affected everything from who went to war whith whom, to what was available for people to eat or buy. Almost in a way, how modern corporations can alter the landscapes and conditions under which politics operate has sorta turnied the tables of which system denominates the conditions for the other to operate. Scary but cool. Especially in the age of billionaires. Looling at this I'd posit economy will always be politically charged. One denominates the conditions under which the other develop and operate. Sorry for the long reply. I just thought you deserved better than just "I disagree with you!"

[@addisonmartin3200]

@@christianjohansson7185idk about the guy you're replying to, but this is a very well thought out reply and *I* felt it was worth reading! Also the bit about both US parties prioritizing business over human need is only an argument because no politician wants to just come out and say 'I give no shits about you' and a lot of people don't like to think deeper than surface level promises.

[@christianjohansson7185]

@@addisonmartin3200 Thank you!

[@milanstevic8424]

@@christianjohansson7185 I never said that economic policies don't have a potential to be politically charged. In fact, one could say that the politics emerged solely because of the importance of having control over a large economy. My point is that economy predates politics, and runs completely in parallel, and is in no way causally connected to anyone's stance on politics, especially not in this particular case, where the dichotomy -- as presented in the game -- is strictly idealistic, and given in terms of economy and social order alone. So no political background is needed. A player can very easily invent a political faction in their head when choosing a side or stay neutral (the middle option). What you're fixated on seems to be that politics have a strong influence on economy and for some reason you think as if the two are intertwined somehow, yet economies are literally BIGGER than all financial systems combined. All economies CONTAIN the world of money and finances, all kinds of markets, funds, the banks, production chains, the trading operations, as well as the consumers like the military, energy sector, and housing. Politics is literally an appendage to this system, a control board, it's not something that can fully steer, create or destroy an economy, it can only attach itself to the most lucrative venues, to regulate, tax, sanction, incentivize and so on. Both me and the developers are from Europe (and maybe some of their employees are in the US, because they all work remotely, but the HQ is registered in Germany). Regardless, I don't think our places of origin should affect how we view on broad concepts such as the economy. The word should have the same meaning everywhere, and I made sure to check for its American English description before commenting.