The Trouble About Man Is Twofold. He Cannot Learn Truths Which Are Too Complicated; He Forgets Truths

The trouble about man is twofold. He cannot learn truths which are too complicated; he forgets truths which are too simple.

 -Rebecca West

Yeah nah they're not re-writing this. My auto-didactic obsession you don't touch that.

If they cared about African history they'd not erase the entire dynamic between the native Kushite peoples of the Upper Nile (let alone the panoply of peoples within this "crossroads empire") and the Greek aristocracy that developed on top of it. You could tell (and have a history to reference more easily than ever) a damn good story with that? No? The wars of the Diadochi and the pressing of Africans to fight and the subsequent revolts? NoPe bIn tHaT..

To go a step further as I formerly stated the Greeks developed on top of Egyptian society and were strained to integrate. Outside of Greece they were never "truly settled" in a sense (you could even say that in Greece really...) Settling is not in the Apollonian spirit it is present, it is the body. It is that very practical, cosmopolitan, and mercantile society. (But like any it has it's hierarchies and by our modern sense it's atrocities that go with) It only existed as there was life in it and when withered leaves the Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian column as evidence it was hence. (It was not even apparent to them at first to record their history, that too "carried with" in the oral/bardic tradition)

Really the hinge of the of the Ptolemaic Empire was Crete (not literally) but as a range. Colonies in Anatolia, Cyprus, Attica, Cyrenian Libya (formerly a Republic) distinct in retaining it's character. They were a people of the sea and clung to coast in every regard (or otherwise set off to find it). With that in mind, another avenue left blind by ignorance would only take a glance south in this period. Kush, Makuria, Aksum, a multitude of African Kingdoms going all along the Horn Of Africa (and all too relevant given contemporary developments).

All submerged for cheap race swap bait. A consequence of people who relate through a cracked mirror.

Don't believe me look at all pithy weaponized empathy but none of the foundation:

https://variety.com/2023/tv/global/queen-cleopatra-black-netflix-egypt-1235590708/

http://xkcd.com/1222/

Muse what you do to me

 Muse O’ what a bruise to me

 Construe a visage

   rendered past so cruel to thee

     What shadowed path brings you true to me

                     Symbols & Matches

                      Blood & Dry casks

Vistas crossed on weathered maps

               errant am I

         Vainly pursuing

      When in steady quiet

   the torrent carries

your voice to me

HOI4 pulls it off in a sense? It’s functional and lends a bit of immersion, but espionage overall still feels lacking in it’s impact as more than a novelty bolt-on.The inter-op between branches is logical with intel really being carried by the air-force in support of land and naval forces (small picket/patrol tasking fleets for the navies own intra-op intel) environment factor granularity incl. Game-play wise though it comes down to dropping/maintaining (as best as you can produce) scout planes (or ships) into active regions. So a bit of risk for shoe-string powers or downturns, problem is carrying that out is just to grant modifiers and increase task efficiencies so more lacking output in the sense your asking for, but it works?

Only tab that really gives kinda what you’re asking for is the intel ledger. It’s a tack-on to the state panel and has tabs for overall info on resource input/outputs, tech, state modifiers/laws/ministers and each branches respective info. Where it meets your standard is by either not presenting any info or a range that increases in accuracy based on agency progress/tech and having agents running networks and infiltration's. In MP it shines since it does allow for guesstimating an opponents strategic intent/mindset off of their tactical/strategic considerations. Spanner in that is meta-templates/designs, makes revealing or guessing any of that kinda moot (or at least unrewarding) when it’s just an iteration off a spread sheet. Think the ideal system hinges on having an active and pragmatic participant as well or even allowing them to add or even control that distortion?

argument: strategy games like civ and eu4 and stellaris really need to not only not give players perfect information about their opponents, but should in fact actually lie to players. there should be ways of reducing the magnitude of those lies, sometimes (e.g. through espionage and scouting), but never to the degree that you can confidently get into risk-free competition with your enemy

it’s especially noticeable in historical strategy games when the AI plays, not like an AI player of a historical nation, but like a reasonably cautious human player of a video game. in eu4 for instance, this leads to a lot of the AI avoiding fights it knows it can’t win, and blobbing when it can. in stellaris, the way combat works in that game lends itself even more to a game map that tends to become pretty static around the midgame, and only occasionally gets shaken up by prescripted events like the khan or the crises

computer strategy games are oriented toward giving you maximum information by default; occasionally, as in stellaris, they will hide some of that information behind espionage mechanics, but this feels quite pro forma by the time the board state is mature. you definitely have the resources to scout out your opponents in almost all circumstances, which means that while you have to lay a bit of groundwork, there’s no actual strategic risk, unless you deliberately create it by playing badly on purpose. and making combat contingent on dice rolls or randomness can only help so much–this usually only functions to introduce ambiguity when forces are at near parity, not to create sudden dramatic reversals to simulate major tactical failures (which players would hate)

so i think strategy games–and i do mean strategy here, not RTSes, which involve a lot more tactical gameplay–should lie to the player more, to simulate the fact that not only is perfect information impossible under the normal fog of war, but that intelligence failures are a real risk when trying to engage in strategic competition. how they should lie depends on the nature of the game and the way information is presented, but information should be costly, and good information doubly so!

RL friend posts his own poetry, art, and photography. Give him some credit for his practiced craft. Bit late in doing so myself, either way good stuff!

You stand there, the thick morning fog obscuring your vision.

The trees around you tall and overgrown, the sandy soil beneath your feet packed from years of use.

Steel and wood.

Eventually you hear it.

The unsteady warbling wail of that great beast.

Quiet at first, then louder, until it is upon you.

Its bright eye cutting through the haze.

It roars, lunging toward you at incredible speed.

But you know you are safe.

It's contained, confined to its thin piece of the land, as in some ways you are yours as well.

You turn and watch as it retreats.

Trundling off on its way.

The forlorn wail and the clattering that accompanies it drift off back into the ether.

Two beams of steel stretching out into the fog, the only mark that it was here.

You walk up and pick up two copper coins, now fused into one.

And walk back down to the little town you'll call home for the rest of your days.

The great iron beast has its path and you have yours.

The two intersecting only on mornings such as these.

Maybe one day you'll join it.

As a sojourner into whatever is beyond here.

Off in the direction of the setting sun.

Maybe tomorrow.

Or maybe you'll just put more coins upon the track.