Funny Screenshots: Part Deux

Status
Not open for further replies.
so - tell me ... did the paratrooper die against the archer or ...?

and is there a Civ5 funny screenshot thread yet?
Nar, the paratrooper survived. You can't see it in the screen shot, but there are actually a bunch of bombers based in the city to help him; and you can see that the paratrooper has the Cover promotion. He's an anti-archer special-ops. So he managed to survive the fight, but he was never rescued from that little chunk of land.
 
Don't you have boats? Just send them to get the paratroopers.
 
So he managed to survive the fight, but he was never rescued from that little chunk of land.

I'm sure he'll be fine . . .

It was a distinct glimpse: the dugout, four paddling savages, and the lone white man turning his back suddenly on the headquarters, on relief, on thoughts of home--perhaps; setting his face towards the depth of the wilderness, towards his empty and desolate station.

The horror! The horror!

Or not. :eek:
 
"Hey France, thanks for the wall... dumbass!"

Spoiler :


Israel is Hindu?

Spoiler :
 
Furthermore, when you simply edit Gilgamesh to be called David, it doesn't change his religious preference and when you don't have choose religions on, you end up with Hinduism or Buddhism anyways.
 
Which shows you just how good wikipedia is as a reference source. I can't believe people use and believe what they read there... :rolleyes:

For 99% of what's on there--verifiable factual information and technical details--Wikipedia is great. If you're writing a Master's thesis using it as a historical record without checking your facts, frankly you're a moron. But then that can be said of most published literature, too.
 
Frankly, i don't agree with that beeing the fastest route.


Now, thats what i call city liberation!
 
It recommended that route so that you didn't have to enter territory you do not have OB or are at war with.

Sure, i know, but it does not realize that if i want to attack that city, i probably want to DOW anyway. Besides, that route is going trough the ocean!
 
For 99% of what's on there--verifiable factual information and technical details--Wikipedia is great. If you're writing a Master's thesis using it as a historical record without checking your facts, frankly you're a moron. But then that can be said of most published literature, too.

then how do you check your facts? many of the sites are nowhere near as complete (or reliable) as Wikipedia. getting a book is usually expensive (if its not in the library for whatever reason).
 
then how do you check your facts? many of the sites are nowhere near as complete (or reliable) as Wikipedia. getting a book is usually expensive (if its not in the library for whatever reason).

It really depends on how sure you need to be of "the facts." For a Civilopedia entry, I'd copy it right out of WP as was done and be done with it. For a Master's thesis, I'd check several sources from the library, professors' collections, and Amazon if necessary.
 
For 99% of what's on there--verifiable factual information and technical details--Wikipedia is great. If you're writing a Master's thesis using it as a historical record without checking your facts, frankly you're a moron. But then that can be said of most published literature, too.

I have no way of proving it of course, but I suspect 99% is rather higher than actual fact. ;) The main problem is that even "facts" in many cases are presented with a very strong bias. Some of the articles are basically propaganda. To say they are not peer reviewed is a kind way to put it! :)

Anyhow - enough about Wikipedia. I'm not posting photos, so I'll shut up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom