Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
War Focus has events that can get you injured or maimed. Maimed is the best.
It's refuse-to-die rulers like this that cause me to prefer Elective over Primogeneture. I'll put up with the backstabbing Elective can cause among voting vassals if it means my 70+ year old ruler can guarantee his 13th son who is close to 16 can inherit rather than his 50 year old firstborn, without going on a family killing spree.
I use the same justification for ultimogeniture. =]
I've toyed with the idea. What turns me off is the chance that the youngest is a moron but the 6th kid out 13 is the Kwisatz Haderach.
Steam really censors "more on?" Wow.
When I've had kings who have lived past their expiration date I usually put them on a horse and make them lead the army into the next battle. It works sometimes.
Yes, the double-edged sword of rulers who refuse to die. Great stability, but excrutiating as your heirs get older and older lol.
That and they start getting bad. Losing good traits, getting bad ones (infirm, insane) and so on.
1. Absoleutely. I tend to go for elective myself so that I can try and pick the candidate that isn't at least somewhat competent. But the youngest usually isn't the best candidate.
2. Steam censors that word because it's a slang term coined during the eugenics movement as a clinical term and is offensive in it's history and modern usage. Not that I like censorship, but if you're going to censor words, censor the ones like previously mentioned because they're actually remains of horrible times in history that are a stain in our common language. Your standard assortment of harsh language doesn't need censorship imho.
I'm refering to it's etymology in english. If we want to extrapolate then it probably has greek roots as well which have nothing to do with eugenics. Which I don't care about because they're not relevant to the context of it's etymology in english. Which it's etymology for common use in english was through eugenics.
Not to sound harsh, but unless you can come up with evidence that shows it's relevance to english wasn't related to eugenics, then your points - while interesting, because I didn't know that word meant that in medieval spain - are meaningless. We have various other words in English which carry the same meaning but without ties to eugenics. In fact, we can just say "Mentaly Deficient" and it's almost harder hitting and drives the point home just as well.
LOL you have like the queen of engeland ;) muwhahaha :P well don´t worry once past the 110 they start keeling over real fast even with max health etc.
It became a bad thing to refer to someone as, because it started as a bad thing to refer to a "fake Christian" as.
"You're as mentally deficient as a Jew who fakes being Christian to save himself."
My point is we're both right. We're also both way off topic and treading dangerous waters.