Trillions?  Now I'm curious on that math.

I hate that I have to be on the other side of this debate.

1: Metal-backed currency does NOT mean the currency must be the metal.  It simply means that, on request, the currency could be exchanged for equivalent values of that metal.  This has a few implications.

First of all, I'm not saying your argument is 100% irrelevant.  After all, there was a clear minority even within the "backed currency" camps that wanted to skip the guarantee and go straight to the metal (including certain IC forum posters who may or may not still be around and who will remain nameless).

That being said... this means in actually discussing the issue of metal-backed currency, the pragmatic issues of metal weight are irrelevant.

2: And a counter-argument on the economics side.  I find it slightly amusing that, in providing an economics lesson, supply and demand for the good in question was utterly missed.

So let's run through the hypothetical.  The US says that they're buying up enough gold to back the US currency.  This would, by your own words, add quite easily the biggest single increase in demand for silver in at least the past century. 

So... what happens to silver?  Sure, the US may not initially be able to get all the silver it wants... but then the marvels of market economics would kick in, because demand would outstrip supply and as such.... price would increase.  This is actually a good thing for the feasibility of the silver-backed currency.  After all, since silver-backed currency only promises to return an amount of the metal equivalent to the currency given, the US isn't looking for a certain amount of silver measured by weight.  It is quite literally putting $50 billion on a table and saying "give me whatever I can get for this."  Even if there is only $10 billion worth of silver available on the open market, that action by the US would take a significant amount of silver out of circulation while creating new demand for silver... almost definitely increasing the price of silver to a point where it could accommodate the new purchaser.

Not that I like metal-backed currencies.  Just needed to step in.

Oh, I'm still considering closing this as spam, so don't get your hopes up. 

Personally, I just think it's hilarious that, in trying to support conservatism, Flint is trying to show the philosophy emulates an organization that is a representation of good... according to a guy who is somewhere between Michael Moore and Lenin on the left-right spectrum.

@The Yell

You're using the prequals as representative of the Star Wars universe.  That's like going to a Passover seder and citing the New Testament.

Oh, forgot one other thing that hasn't been mentioned here.

The ISIS is comprised largely of members from the old Al Qaeda in Iraq.  I say "the old" because, after years of infighting in which Al Qaeda denounced its Iraqi counterparts' killing of Sunni civilians, Al Qaeda finally disowned the ISIS from Al Qaeda.

In the words of a certain Gotham butler... "A man who is too extreme for Ayman Al-Zawahiri is not to be trifled with..."

The problem is the puppets are doing it wrong!

Spam-Closed.

In the future... you know... maybe a topic or something would be nice.

Lemme explain the whole thing... which may shed some light on Arby's statement.

The divide system doesn't divide your unit up into equal numbers of soldiers.  Remember, soldiers are part of max-1,000 person regiments.  Even if there are 0 people in that regiment at the time, that regiment still exists.  As such, the game did divide your army up equally... but it divided the army by # of regiments, rather than # of soldiers, and you likely had a number of low-person regiments (most likely due to some losses from prior battles).

That being said, this system makes sense when considering other EU4 mechanics.  The attrition system places a maximum cap on the amount of soldiers that can be placed on any one province, with an excess resulting in monthly troop losses for the entire group present.  If the game were to have split things equally, it risked creating a false impression of the size of the army that could be placed in a particular province, relative to maximum supply limit in said province.  This way, you have one unit that may still be relatively close to where its maximum will be when any remaining missing troops are replenished... and one tiny army of 400 people that will raise an eyebrow and pretty much guarantee you check that army to see what's up. 

Plus... you know... there is an instruction manual that goes over how stuff works.  It's definitely not a game to do one playthrough, say "this doesn't work," and walk away.

Look at Oman, smartass.  Ibadi was separated out (it replaces the Shia army tradition with naval tradition... which would probably be a step backwards, until you look at Oman's national ideas, which are all navy/trade focused.  Oman may not be too bad if you wanted to play a naval power other than England, as long as you can deal with the fact that nobody in the game has positive relations with you at game start.  That being said, considering many rivals will be sitting on army morale bonuses, Oman will be a serious pain for a player to build up).

They also separated out Coptic from Orthodoxy, putting Ethiopia in an even more awkward situation.  Now, not only are they in a bad tech group surrounded by Muslims, they don't even have others of the same religion to lean on for an unlikely alliance.