Would've... would of... not a big step for the language, but IMO a very unfortunate one. It's just plain wrong, pure evil.
(IMHO)
(IMHO)
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Re: KrisKannon
Well, seeing that this thread is destined for OT anyhoo...
Spelling in the US is pretty much a thing of the past. It is probably the least taught area in school besides Geography. Anyway, since most are attempting to spell phonetically, would've (wood-uv) has begun to twist into wood of (still sounding like wood-uv) to most. Alas, Noah Webster...your attempts were in vain afterall.
Well, seeing that this thread is destined for OT anyhoo...
Spelling in the US is pretty much a thing of the past. It is probably the least taught area in school besides Geography. Anyway, since most are attempting to spell phonetically, would've (wood-uv) has begun to twist into wood of (still sounding like wood-uv) to most. Alas, Noah Webster...your attempts were in vain afterall.
Rather OOC, but wanted to throw in my 2cents about Kelvin's query about localised American slang.
No, "would of" is definately not part of what the world considers standard and *good* English.
As you can see, it's totally off-key in terms of grammar.
However, since every different locale and region that speaks English has a tendency to introduce it's own slangs and sorts, I guess it's just normal.
In the meantime, my teacher would hang and quarter me if I insisted that "would of" is correct grammar.
No, "would of" is definately not part of what the world considers standard and *good* English.
As you can see, it's totally off-key in terms of grammar.
However, since every different locale and region that speaks English has a tendency to introduce it's own slangs and sorts, I guess it's just normal.
In the meantime, my teacher would hang and quarter me if I insisted that "would of" is correct grammar.
Have faith, since they can't speak their own language properly it is our duty as foreigners to correct them.
Serene_Revival:
That would seem mild compared with the pains I'd suffer from my Univeristy teachers (proper term would be "a lector" I think)...
Araanor:
And, believe it or not, it's true. My friend's mother teaches English in highschool and holds a course of advanced English for adults at University (both in L.A.). Slightly unbelievable, isn't it?
That would seem mild compared with the pains I'd suffer from my Univeristy teachers (proper term would be "a lector" I think)...
Araanor:
And, believe it or not, it's true. My friend's mother teaches English in highschool and holds a course of advanced English for adults at University (both in L.A.). Slightly
unbelievable, isn't it?
I think this is one of the best ideas I have ever seen suggested in this forum. A simple idea that I believe would greatly enhance the joy of playing and that is the core of discussions of how the game should be designed. In a way it is unfortunate that Paradox do not do any improvements to EU anymore, but in another way that is good since it means we will get HOI and CK faster
"Would of" is just plain wrong, even for Americans. It's English of the kind spoken by David Beckham and Ali G - it belongs in the same category of horrors as "we was" and "you was".
Ugh. *shudder*
Desist.
Ugh. *shudder*
Desist.
Who, me?
Or those using such "horrors"?
Back on topic...
Losing a leader or killing the opponent's leader should definitely have some serious consequences, such as a loss in overall morale, stability hit etc.
Or those using such "horrors"?
Back on topic...
Losing a leader or killing the opponent's leader should definitely have some serious consequences, such as a loss in overall morale, stability hit etc.
But picture this:
You're playing Napoleon's Ambition, and Nappy dies in an insignificant border skirmish... No Nappy, no Nappy's ambition...
Or as Prussia against Nappy, you lose 2/3 of your best leaders... Wouldn't that be a shock for your entire army and for a population?
You're playing Napoleon's Ambition, and Nappy dies in an insignificant border skirmish... No Nappy, no Nappy's ambition...
Or as Prussia against Nappy, you lose 2/3 of your best leaders... Wouldn't that be a shock for your entire army and for a population?
You could say that without leadership, your entire army would be severely crippled...
Yes, but if you remove the majority of the high-ranking officers for a particular country, IRL the country would be virtually defenceless as its army would be completely demoralized.
Last edited:
Washington wasn't a great general, however he WAS a great leader (which in some cases might be even more important) and he also had an amazing ability to get what he needed from people. He managed to keep his men RELATIVELY well-fed and well-paid (at least enough)
However bad he was tactically (and he wasn't particularly good), his grand strategy (keep his army intact - hit the enemy where they aren't, drive out enemy supporters once they've left) was excellent. And his strategic mistakes (accepting battle on Long Island and Manhattan) are balanced by some striking strategic sucesses (the Yorktown campaign).
Everything we said has merit, but implementing the changes... now that would be (I think) a major job for someone really skilled.