Nailcake

I have WotC installed, love it and cant wait to see future improvements. But there is one thing that I missed; a Nuka world update. Is it possible to add Nuka raiders to the commonwealth? Standard raiders get boring after a while and if you kill the Nuka raiders at the park, the dlc is done and kind of wasted potential.

Sorry, I dont accept 'lets stop trying to improve our own situation because those people over there have it worse'. We always need to go forward and improve, whether its our own government or the EU. Eventually the world aswell. But then I get the impression your replies are influenced by people who make a big deal out of nothing. You'll always get that sort I'm afraid and unfortunatly they often seem to scream the loudest. As for cancer, you cant fight it on your own, you cant. And yes, I am aware of people who say otherwise. Its nonsense, dangerous nonsense. Yes, I'm an expert on the matter. More of an expert than I want, if you understand me so no more on that.

We can cure cancer a lot better today here in Western Europe than anywhere in Africa. Does that mean we should stop or even slow doing more research into treatment and just be happy that only ten thousand die of cancer rather than twenty thousand? Ofcourse not, you keep working until you find a way to cure cancer like you cure a common cold, until noone has to worry about it anymore. Governments are the same, yes they might be better than whatever represents leadership down there in Africa, but our governments are far from perfect and there is quite a bit we can do to make them better or even change them for the better. Yes, our salaries are better but if our government(mine specifically) managed it finances better, we'd have higher salaries(we wouldnt be billionaires, no, but we'd all drive expensive cars, thats for sure). Our jobs are good? Depends on what job, there are still some stinky jobs out there, maybe if they were paid properly... We seem rich here in the West but you'd be surprised if you look at the finances of the average family here and discover that a large proportion actually have trouble paying the bills every month. As for third world countries, they should dream of making a better future of their own country instead of trying to find it here. The West could help a bit more with that. btw, I'm not an average voter, I base myself off of studies and reports, not hearsay or populist nonsense. Results in me going head to head with like union people as I refuse to go on strike behind their demands. On that note, I remember many years ago people went on strike here and that lasted 10 days, could have been more though. It ended because some guys went back to work as they were afraid that they'd no longer be able to pay their bills.

Letting Germany down? your government invited them, why should others countries have to deal with it? Well, for one they didn't invite them. They may be heading a part of the EU decisive council and as such mostly directing what the EU decides on, but it isn't like they could actually "force" the others to agree with them on anything. But for two, what I'm talking about is it was a majority decision, the European Union in its entirety decided on how things should be done, how many refugees which member country would be taking, and how every country's contribution would best be coordinated. Neither was Germany the driving force in all this, nor are we having any horses in this race. It's just, apparently, we're now the only country doing their part as was decided on, the others... just don't. And that of course forces us to actually do double, if not thrice, as much as was decided on would be our part, so... yeah, I call that "letting us down". Now wouldn't you? I mean, if US congress decided, due to a massive drought, that every state would have to cut down on water consumption each about its own certain amount, specifically calculated and agreed on so it's as much as they can take but still not too much, and once everything got written down on paper and signed by all congress delegates, suddenly Nevada would be the only one doing their part, the others not even remotely coming close to what was agreed on, and Nevada even having to cut its water consumption down to 10% instead of the 50% it was asked for to make up for the others. Is it really fair to blame Nevada for their own fault, only because they said "we're in the desert mostly and won't need that much water for plants or plantations, so we support this idea 100%"? And are the others not letting them down, by not doing their part, and actually breaking the contract they signed (just like the rest of the EU does right now)? They all agreed! They signed contracts! Now they're not taking part in their own agreements and only we follow plan. They "are" letting us down, by breaking the contracts they signed. And coming back to the "you invited them" flaw in argumentation, all our politicians, or better yet chancellor Merkel, did was seeing the impossibility in the idea to just "keep them out" (we're on broad land, we can't just raise walls or fences the entire borderlines long, and we most definitely have neither the manpower nor the money to keep them even remotely guarded), and instead went along with the second best approach, to let them in and take them up, but to "control" how it's done and where. They said we can't "stop" them, so instead we control where they go and take care they'll be "equally distributed" (not every country takes the same amount equally but every country takes as much as is viable and does its part in it equal) across Europe so every member country does its part and isn't forced to take too much. The plan was great. It would've worked wonders, and still would... if just the others hadn't bailed and stood up to their promises and contracts. The EU must get their act together and start acting where their mouths are, not just agreeing on something and publicly celebrating having come to an agreement, and then at the end none but one doing their part. This is what's complicating things in this, not Germany's willingness to do their part, as what seems to be the sole contributor to what was originally planned and agreed on by all. Your little island has it easy, surrounded by water on every side and only a select few ways to get across. But Europe's a continent, and there's not even enough concrete or wire to build a wall or raise a fence all around it. That's illusional. edit: And for the records, we're still doing remarkably fine, doing thrice the amount of what was decided on. You can bet on, if the others would also be doing their part as planned, the whole thing wouldn't be an issue at all anymore in a heartbeat. It isn't for us now, so why should it for the others then? I'm sorry but I remember the Hungarians getting fed up with immigrants passing through their country, so they built a fence to keep them out. And then half Europe condemned them for it. Only because they did what the EU should have done before the mass exodus from the middle east started. The original idea was to stop the refugees in Turkey, but that meant that EU politicians had to deal with the Turks and make concessions they were not willing to make. So they didnt negotiate anything and just allowed the problem to march up to our doorstep. And then everyone had to do 'their part'. Which brings me back to what I said earlier. The EU constitution is the 'contract'(there are others like the Lisbon ratifications) that you are speaking of. The one that was rejected by those people who got to vote and then accepted by politicians who decided that they knew better. My country (Belgium) is one of those that doesnt want to play ball in this case, we dont want more refugees and only accepted what we had to. But I dont feel like I or my country let anyone down, quite the opposite, I am glad that we have a state secretary who has the guts to say 'no more'. If only we had had someone like that when it really mattered. Yes, amazing how I agree that one politician actually did something right. It'd be unfair of me not to accept when they actually do something good. No, I'm not rightwinged, I just dont see how having these refugees helps us or their respective countries. If anything, they should be over there, ready to go back and rebuild those countries. Many of these refugees claim they dont want to be here and want to return anyways.

Its not really corruption, they dont embezzle money. Its a political class really that is more interested in keeping itself alive/protected/privileged than anything else. A politician goes out of office, he ends up leading some company or sitting on some board of directors. How do you like a (former?)socialist leading the board of a big multimillion company screwing overa couple thousand simple employees who depend on it? One former prime minister was in 13 (thirteen!) such boards and on each of them he received money(legally).

That problem is nothing new, I have to go back a quite a bit. Nearly a decade ago there was the European constitution. In about three countries, there was a referendum in which they asked the population whether or not to accept it. People voted against. But their respective governments decided to ignore the results and accepted the constitution anyways(I believe Ireland was the exception because their national constitution dictated they had to respect the results). We here in my country did not get to vote for it, Our prime minister then, decided that we didnt understand the issue and that the government would decide in our place. It made me quite angry, if we dont understand; explain it to us then! I have to say, I know what the EU constitution is about and I still dont like it, maybe thats why I didnt get to vote or why others said no in their national referenda. That prime minister did not get elected into office again, but it didnt matter because that particular politician went for and now is an EU Member of Parliament. Other politicians took his place but generally adopted the same idea's and methods(the difference is very often in the details). What you see is that people punish politicians that do not deliver in the next elections(voting is compulsory here, so its quite extreme), only to see them replaced by others who continue where the previous left off. And I have to be honest and say that we Europeans in general are quite weak and somewhat ignorant and naive. Part of the population believes that there is nothing they can do about the situation/government and they just continue with their own personal lives while others think that the next government will be better(I've seen them make that claim that for the past two decades though). I remember a professor once saying that a politician thinks no further than the next elections while a statesman thinks no further than his own career. And its generally quite true. I dont want to kill anyone, what I would like to do is get rid of these politicians. But I stand alone mostly. There are some who agree with me but nothing happens and unless it goes horribly wrong and people wake up, nothing will change. I know I sound very pessimistic, but thats mostly because I am, the above example is just one that represents the many.

Interesting topic you have here, I never considered playing as a female when I was a teenager, even in the few games that had females back in the 90's. I always found daily life extremely boring and wanted to play the hero somewhere. The character had to be me. After graduating and going working that changed and for a while I cared less about the characters I played. Initially started playing female because 'Why not?' I prefer to look at female shapes because I find the male body ugly. Then I began to give them a background and had them make decisions based upon whom they were. I rarely just went with whatever came along. I did not, for instance, do the Daedric quests very often even if there was good loot involved. Nowadays I play mostly females. My only skyrim male character(and only male character in any game in the last ten years) was a Breton mage in that looked (and behaved) a lot like me. Loved the character, never joked and laughed so hard as I did with him but I dont feel like repeating it. My last female character was a Dark Elf warrior that looked(and behaved) quite a lot like my wife, had to use beautification mods for that though. Dark elf females in native skyrim can be troublesome to make look like someone human and even with the mods the nosebridge still freaks me out, fortunatly only visible in profile. With behaviour I specifically mean; Neither me nor my wife would never be/play an assassin so the Dark Brotherhood has to die. Come to think of it; the redguard I before that also looked quite a bit like my wife. Now as a former Hema enthusiast I know for a fact that anyone can be a swordfighter. I remember a girl at the club that made my pinkie look obese(and I have average hands at best), but she always paid attention and learnt quickly. As a result, sparring with her was always challenging, no matter how tall or strong the person going up against her. Swordfighting is just way more about technique than it is about strength. Hollywood gets it soo wrong, the warrior is a tall male athlete who wields a huge twohanded sword like a log and smashes through armour while the sidekick is the skinny girl with the bow. And well, it should be the other way around; bows require strength and swords require technique. Put a girl in a suit or armour, give her a sword and some basic training and it would be very hard indeed to see the difference with a male combatant. Which is why the whole 'skinny fragile girl that wouldnt stand a chance' is not something that bothers me. Its perfectly acceptable. Shouldnt be bothering you either. In fact; there are some historical records, archeological finds and studies that record the existence of female warriors both in Scandinavia and the Eurasian steppe. Btw, my wife plays Skyrim and Fo4, though she spends more time setting up jukeboxes and discoballs and she does building walls and turrets. And I have the impression that that isnt unusual at all.