Dollars to doughnuts (in this case, slang for "zero", presumably since both have the same shape) means that you are so confident that you are right that you will bet money against nothing in return. It's the same sentiment as "dollars to dimes", taken one step further, and randomly obfuscated. Though it does help you to sound like either a '40s noir private eye or a good ole boy, depending on context.
Imperialistic
- Thread starter iamdanthemansta
- Start date
dave866 said:
I'm not sure about the 'zero' aspect - my take on it had always been that it was simply emphasizing the notion that value(dollars) >> value(doughnuts) (thus implying that the offering party was so confident that they would be willing to take very bad odds) - but I certainly agree with everything else you said, especially your last sentence
. Furthermore, the 'doughnuts' saying's days are becoming numbered simply due to inflation, IMHO, as the time rapidly approaches that someone betting with doughnuts would actually be paying more for their wager than the allegedly confident party who is betting dollars ...Oh, and remotely on topic, I agree, FWIW, that the Imperialistic is pretty watered down in comparison to some other traits. Both features are really not terribly useful outside of the very early game, and even then, they are not overpoweringly so, IMHO.
"dollars to donuts" refers to a lopsided bet where the speaker will bet the same amount of dollars as the listener can bet donuts. It is short for "I will bet you dollars to donuts".
It's an old phrase, from before the time when donuts cost 50 cents.
It's an old phrase, from before the time when donuts cost 50 cents.
Tennyson said:
Boy you aren't kidding about old. Look at this:
http://www.wordorigins.org/wordord.htm
Dollars to Doughnuts
This phrase is clearly an allusion to odds in a bet--such a sure thing that the speaker is willing to wager real money against pastries. The terms were undoubtedly chosen for alliterative and metaphorical purposes. No one is seriously suggesting that people used to gamble with pastries. The phrase dates to at least 1876.
(Source: ADS-L)
Oh, before I forget - imperialism would be much improved IMHO if it could be Chrysler Imperialism. Or perhaps Imperial Margarinism?
pixiejmcc
Prince
iamdanthemansta said:
Aye carumba.
I never noticed.
pixiejmcc
Prince
Randolph said:
Reads on...
Phew
pixiejmcc
Prince
iamdanthemansta said:
Yeah I think Cyrus has got some good synergy going there.
bassist2119
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2006
- Messages
- 218
I'd like to see double GG's, settler increase as is, and an extra 25% reduction in war weariness.
Maybe make it like pre-stateproperty that it reduces distance from palace matinece cost by say 50%. Cause Imperialism during the industrial revolution was Britian, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, and the Dutch with far away colonies suppling them with resources. Makes it easier to pay for it.
Eqqman said:
Because dimes are still worth something, whereas doughnuts are only important in law enforcement....
Oh, and great generals rock. I think they just added the settler thing as an afterthought. This trait is easily much better than creative or expansionist.
Wodan
Deity
I think in the patch they'll probably fix the Settler bonus so that food income counts too. That'll help.
As it is, it's still not so bad. What it does is force you to change where you build settlers.
With other leaders, it's best to build them in a high food city (e.g., your capitol, which usually has at least 1-2 food resources). With an Imperialistic leader, you want to build your settlers in a Production city.
Wodan
As it is, it's still not so bad. What it does is force you to change where you build settlers.
With other leaders, it's best to build them in a high food city (e.g., your capitol, which usually has at least 1-2 food resources). With an Imperialistic leader, you want to build your settlers in a Production city.
Wodan
Bast
Protector of Cats
I'm happy with Imperialistic as it is. My favourite leader is Victoria. 
But I welcome any changes.
Great idea. The purpose of an imperalist leader should be to build an empire. If you want to build an empire you need many cities. How about cutting down the maintenance costs of those cities? Combine this with courthouses and you get a good imperialist.
Also, charismatic is WAAAAY overpowered.
But I welcome any changes.Jay said:Perhaps a small maintenience cut should be added (e.g. -25%) for all you people who think imperialistic is weak
Great idea. The purpose of an imperalist leader should be to build an empire. If you want to build an empire you need many cities. How about cutting down the maintenance costs of those cities? Combine this with courthouses and you get a good imperialist.
Also, charismatic is WAAAAY overpowered.
eric_
Emperor
Because you're so sure you're right that you'd bet dollars while the other person bets donuts (or dimes...)?
[edit]hehehe...I see this already has been established.[/edit]
eric_
Emperor
I like the idea of it being used as a reference to "zero," though, especially with the subsequent mention of inflation threatening to cause donuts to out-value dollars.
Similar threads
