Tattorack

I mean... Mushrooms are the sex organs...

Well, of course not, because Wine Is Not an Emulator. Considering it's called XWine1, would there be a Linux version too?

A lot of Paradox DLCs. You're essentially forced to buy the next DLC or miss out on sometimes literal game-changing mechanics.

It's Bethesda we're talking about. My expectations aren't high.

"Artist" needs to be in quotation marks.

I want a foldable phone.

Phones have become larger abd flatter over the years, and they're just uncomfortable to have in my pocket. A foldable phone will solve this issue.

I didn't buy one yet due to not believing the tech is there yet. Screens are very scratchable and the battery life is poor.

Age of Empires II is honestly a somewhat strange combination of historical and not. Take, for example, the upgrade lines for certain units:

Militia -> Man-At-Arms -> Longswordsman -> Two-Handed Swordsman -> Champion.

So the skirmisher is a spear-throwing foot soldier with a shield. Historically a foot soldier would have a shield, a few throwing spears, and then a melee weapon. But in Age of Empires II the spear throwing and the melee are divided into two separate units.

Age of Empires II does have a light cavelry line, though, and they're pretty quick. But only civs historically known for their good cavelry have bonuses towards them that make the viable (i.e. There are various steppe-civs in AoEII, as well as Mongols and Huns, and I'm sure Turks and Saracens have some benefit to light cav as well).

In this regard Age of Empires IV is more historically accurate, as that game can have completely unsymmetrical civs, whereas Age of Empires II has far more symmetrical gameplay.

Yeah, in Age of Empires II they're more expensive than Skirmishers, who are archer-countering units. They're also more expensive than regular archers, and that's not going into the research that a good cavalry archer needs, as they're also subject to some of the most expensive research options.

In Bannerlord you can get good horse archers only be recruiting young nobles. Then you have to spend time on levelling them up, because at the lower tiers they're just not that good, and you risk a number of the dying before they reach a high enough level.

So between the two games I play that prominently feature horse archers, I'd say they're managed pretty well, with the increased costs, slower training times, player skill, or levelling requirements.

Definitely more user friendly than Itch. Search filters are downright frustrating on Itch.

Never even heard of Game Jolt, so it can't be that good or useful.

It's not about Steam and Valve being beyond reproach for criticism. It's that posts like OP are incredibly hyperbolic.

Steam is genuinely a good service, at least for now, for as long as the current people in charge stay in charge. And because they're such a good service they have become the number one place where people look for games.

This attracts the occasional person like OP who tries really... really hard to make Valve look evil. And not just random people either, other platforms who either don't have the resources, or don't want to spend the resources, to make a service that can actually compete with Steam try to make Valve look like a villain too.

Claims that seems true on the surface, but are otherwise false (i.e. Valve has a monopoly), cases that are misrepresented (i.e. The case with Wolfire Games), or criticisms directed at Valve that aren't specific to Valve or Steam (i.e. You don't actually own your games) are often the go-to topics of posts like OP, and have been repeated hundreds of times (and debunked). At this point people are just sick of seeing it and will downvote on sight.

Yeah, because just mentioning someone using civilians as a shield is on its own bad enough. Anyone with half a brain cell would understand that's bad without the need for specifically pointing it out.