-
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.
OT
Oleg:
I know I'm at work doing everything but what I am supposed to, but what are you doing that allows you to hang out at this forum day after day afer day for hours at stretch? Just curious...
Oleg:
I know I'm at work doing everything but what I am supposed to, but what are you doing that allows you to hang out at this forum day after day afer day for hours at stretch? Just curious...
Well, "would of" is often heard in speech, but seldom seen in print, because it's wrong.
Washington had the one key quality we look for in Generals - he won.
I think that the deaths of major figures should have an impact beyond the loss of the leader, especially when the leader is the monarch (Henry V dies in battle but continues as King, yes it's explainable in a way, but better if he died both ways, IMHO).
It will certainly be needed in HOI, I think.
Washington had the one key quality we look for in Generals - he won.
I think that the deaths of major figures should have an impact beyond the loss of the leader, especially when the leader is the monarch (Henry V dies in battle but continues as King, yes it's explainable in a way, but better if he died both ways, IMHO).
It will certainly be needed in HOI, I think.
Agh it would be a glorious earth with no george washington. The world would be a better place...
Sounds like a thing for EU3 to me.
Sounds like a thing for EU3 to me.
Just imagine if G. Washington had died during the war. Thomas Conway (-6/-6/-6) or Horatio Gates (1/1/1) would have been the C and C. Hopefully they would have died or dismissed so that Nathaneal Greene could step in before we surrendered.
or Horatio Gates (1/1/1) would have been the C and C. Hopefully they would have died or dismissed so that Nathaneal Greene could step in before we surrendered.I really don't think you will see many monachs (or state leaders) as leaders on the battlefields in HOI. The king leading the charge of the heavy cav was from an era long gone by then.
Alas, Noah Webster...your attempts were in vain afterall.
Webster is the cause of the majority of American misspellings. Thanks to him, Yanks don't know how to spell "archaeology", "manoeuvre", or even "colour".
And, believe it or not, it's true.
What, by Cthulhu, is that proposition doing at the beginning of the sentence?
"Would **" 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".
I be agreeing.
Who, me?
Would you be kind enough to include a clause in your next sentence?
Or those using such "horrors"?
Aargh! I had an independent clause in mind.
[Washington] also had an amazing ability to get what he needed from people.
The Ohio valley comes to mind.
Webster is the cause of the majority of American misspellings. Thanks to him, Yanks don't know how to spell "archaeology", "manoeuvre", or even "colour".
And, believe it or not, it's true.
What, by Cthulhu, is that proposition doing at the beginning of the sentence?
"Would **" 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".
I be agreeing.
Who, me?
Would you be kind enough to include a clause in your next sentence?
Or those using such "horrors"?
Aargh! I had an independent clause in mind.
[Washington] also had an amazing ability to get what he needed from people.
The Ohio valley comes to mind.
What about the English misspellings of gray and judgment?
(Judgement always trips me up. I can never remember which way I'm supposed to spell it...)
(Judgement always trips me up. I can never remember which way I'm supposed to spell it...)
so i guess i recieve a D- for my grammar and spelling? didnt even know it was being graded
im just curious, you talk about becoming an english major, is english your native language? where are you from? Its hard for me to decide wether or not i am offened because i dont know the answeres to those questions.
ill try to keep the grammar mistakes to a mininmum in this post
but, back to the original topic, talk about Washington being a great leader, but a not so great general, even more solidifies my point.
Think about those troops out there on the hill, George is dead, shot right off his horse in front of your very own eyes. Now, Major Mel Gibson is in charge, who was the original brains behind the war anyway, but you have just lost a great man, and to many a hero. Even if Major Gibson comes up with the greatest tatical plan known to man, is your mind going to be on wining the battle or on the lose of o'l boy George.
Maybe, if a leader is involved in a battle or assualt, and happens to bite the big one, your troops should immediately retreat while suffering great loses at the same time. This full scale routing is not representing the fact that once Georgey is killed every American Boy with a rifle is going to turn tail and run, its representing that once they see their hero go on to greener pastures there is choas on the battlefield for the army who lost their commander. This could be represented in an uncertain chain of command (maybe Major Mel Gibson was standing next to Sir George when he got shot and Washington feel right off his horse onto the unsuspecting kilt wearing Major and now they have to go to the third in command, Sergent Danny Glover) or that the troops charge up bunker hill with hearts full of grief and once more of their friends start seeing angels they quickly run for safety. Or even a combination of both.
Now, to counter this problem would be to have two leaders in one army group. If one leader dies(poor George got shot once again) the other one is quickly able to regroup his troops and rally on to victory(maybe even a boots to stability if one dies cause the other will be a skilled enough general to take advantage of the mishap, making the dead general into a mytar(did i spell that right))
just a few things to think about.
im just curious, you talk about becoming an english major, is english your native language? where are you from? Its hard for me to decide wether or not i am offened because i dont know the answeres to those questions.
ill try to keep the grammar mistakes to a mininmum in this post
but, back to the original topic, talk about Washington being a great leader, but a not so great general, even more solidifies my point.
Think about those troops out there on the hill, George is dead, shot right off his horse in front of your very own eyes. Now, Major Mel Gibson is in charge, who was the original brains behind the war anyway, but you have just lost a great man, and to many a hero. Even if Major Gibson comes up with the greatest tatical plan known to man, is your mind going to be on wining the battle or on the lose of o'l boy George.
Maybe, if a leader is involved in a battle or assualt, and happens to bite the big one, your troops should immediately retreat while suffering great loses at the same time. This full scale routing is not representing the fact that once Georgey is killed every American Boy with a rifle is going to turn tail and run, its representing that once they see their hero go on to greener pastures there is choas on the battlefield for the army who lost their commander. This could be represented in an uncertain chain of command (maybe Major Mel Gibson was standing next to Sir George when he got shot and Washington feel right off his horse onto the unsuspecting kilt wearing Major and now they have to go to the third in command, Sergent Danny Glover) or that the troops charge up bunker hill with hearts full of grief and once more of their friends start seeing angels they quickly run for safety. Or even a combination of both.
Now, to counter this problem would be to have two leaders in one army group. If one leader dies(poor George got shot once again) the other one is quickly able to regroup his troops and rally on to victory(maybe even a boots to stability if one dies cause the other will be a skilled enough general to take advantage of the mishap, making the dead general into a mytar(did i spell that right))
just a few things to think about.
Martyr, eh? This is far too hard to model, and would involve including popularity in the stats. Why bother?Originally posted by KrisKannon
so i guess i recieve a D- for my grammar and spelling? didnt even know it was being graded
im just curious, you talk about becoming an english major, is english your native language? where are you from? Its hard for me to decide wether or not i am offened because i dont know the answeres to those questions.
ill try to keep the grammar mistakes to a mininmum in this post
but, back to the original topic, talk about Washington being a great leader, but a not so great general, even more solidifies my point.
Think about those troops out there on the hill, George is dead, shot right off his horse in front of your very own eyes. Now, Major Mel Gibson is in charge, who was the original brains behind the war anyway, but you have just lost a great man, and to many a hero. Even if Major Gibson comes up with the greatest tatical plan known to man, is your mind going to be on wining the battle or on the lose of o'l boy George.
Maybe, if a leader is involved in a battle or assualt, and happens to bite the big one, your troops should immediately retreat while suffering great loses at the same time. This full scale routing is not representing the fact that once Georgey is killed every American Boy with a rifle is going to turn tail and run, its representing that once they see their hero go on to greener pastures there is choas on the battlefield for the army who lost their commander. This could be represented in an uncertain chain of command (maybe Major Mel Gibson was standing next to Sir George when he got shot and Washington feel right off his horse onto the unsuspecting kilt wearing Major and now they have to go to the third in command, Sergent Danny Glover) or that the troops charge up bunker hill with hearts full of grief and once more of their friends start seeing angels they quickly run for safety. Or even a combination of both.
Now, to counter this problem would be to have two leaders in one army group. If one leader dies(poor George got shot once again) the other one is quickly able to regroup his troops and rally on to victory(maybe even a boots to stability if one dies cause the other will be a skilled enough general to take advantage of the mishap, making the dead general into a mytar(did i spell that right))
just a few things to think about.
Also- as the spelling of English was not standardized until the OED IMO, America simply chose one of the accepted versions of how to spell. It's not our fault the British are contrarians.
Most of the British can't spell either
The Scots can barely talk
And as for grammar - would you believe that hardly any of my compatriots understand what to do with an apostrophe?
OK, I give up Write as you like, all of you, as long as we can understand each others. I just knew I shouldn't have gone off topic...
Nobody's English is being graded.
St. Leo, I appologize for bad style/grammar.
As for majoring in English Language&Literature (plus a translator's certificate), English is not my native language, but my second (started at the tender age of 6), plus it's my second major (or first, my majors are marked as A1 and A2, minors would be B1, B2 etc.) at the University, and lately, what with my current job and the lack of translated literature, I'm using it almost half the time when speaking (even more when thinking).
My location is plainly visible just below my chosen avatar.
Write as you like, all of you, as long as we can understand each others. I just knew I shouldn't have gone off topic...Nobody's English is being graded.
St. Leo, I appologize for bad style/grammar.
As for majoring in English Language&Literature (plus a translator's certificate), English is not my native language, but my second (started at the tender age of 6), plus it's my second major (or first, my majors are marked as A1 and A2, minors would be B1, B2 etc.) at the University, and lately, what with my current job and the lack of translated literature, I'm using it almost half the time when speaking (even more when thinking).
My location is plainly visible just below my chosen avatar.
Originally posted by Owl
Most of the British can't spell either
The Scots can barely talk
And as for grammar - would you believe that hardly any of my compatriots understand what to do with an apostrophe?
"The Scots and the Irish leave you close to tears
And in America they haven't spoken it in years"
from "My Fair Lady"
What was the quote about two nations divided by a common language?
Well, John Cleese said that the difference between the English and the Americans is that the English speak English and Americans don't, and that the English are required to go down on only one knee before their sovereign, whereas American must go on both (during Clinton administration )
)
Originally posted by Kelvin
Well, John Cleese said that the difference between the English and the Americans is that the English speak English and Americans don't, and that the English are required to go down on only one knee before their sovereign, whereas American must go on both (during Clinton administration
Now that's, just not right! 
There should be an automatic loss of stability when a monarch dies yes, and if there are many monarchs in succession stability will plummet. This, however is at it should be: Many monarchs in quick succession is a sign of historical instability).
Some examples of very sucessful leaders killed in battle
-Gaston Foix was Louis XII's best general in the Italian Wars. He was killed as the city of Ravenna was captured by his army. Their run of sucess ended after that, the leadership wasn't as good and they were beaten in the next batttle.
-Gustavus Adolphus II of Sweden overran most of Germany. He was killed in the early stages of the battle of Lutzen. His troops rallied and in hard fought battle delivered a significant defeat to the imperialists
-James Wolfe led the British army that took Quebec. The battle was mostly over by the time he was killed (it was very short battle), but the army won rather easily.
-John Moore commanded the British army in Spain opposing Napoleon. He was killed at Corunna as the French tried to prevent the British from loading onto their fleet and getting away. This was in the early stages of a purely defensive battle, but he British managed to hold of the French and get away.