https://img27.imageshack.us/img27/1820/17477286.th.jpg
Do I even have to say anything?
Printable View
https://img27.imageshack.us/img27/1820/17477286.th.jpg
Do I even have to say anything?
Looks good for her age.
Wow, she looks a lot prettier than I expected.
Does this mean that Monarchs change the same way they did in history? Doesn't seem like there's a family tree, but surely that would be relevant?
You have noticed the date, havent you?
In my Prussian game, Austria also had a female leader, and Maratha starts out with one.
But this... can't be coincidental..
https://i257.photobucket.com/albums/...oto/Tarabi.png
INDIA: RULED BY LESBIANS AND TIGERS SINCE 1700!
I have noticed a hell of a lot of bugs in those monarchy/heads of state tabs. Female leaders are also referred to as he or him a lot, instead of her or she.
Still, it's no gamebreaker.
He-heh-heh.
:laugh4:
...I don't get it.
Woah! Victoria and Tarabai are HOT!:2thumbsup:
Whoops, looks like I just exposed my ignorance. :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Tarantyco.
She is female and has a mistress.
Man, Malkut, she must be hard to get but that only makes her more attractive! ~;)
Must say that those women in ETW are really beautiful! :dizzy2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun
Guys, you do realise that they are made out of polygons, right? -_-Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
O tempora! O mores!Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Hmm in my game Austria and Prussia both had a female monarch
Actually, they are simple image files, and are therefore made of pixels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Just like a real woman :2thumbsup:. No, wait....Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkut
I commented on this yesterday when I saw Victoria succeed William in 1720 in an AAR thread at .net - http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=231532&page=5
As I said over there -
The only comments so far have been to dismiss it as "Oh well, anything can happen in ETW" and "It isn't the same Victoria"Quote:
Victoria! In 1720?
She wasn't even born until 1819 and came to the throne in 1837. What happened to Anne and all the Georges?
I'm really surprised that CA didn't just use the historical timeline
1689-1702 William III (and Mary 1689-1694)
1702-1714 Anne
1714-1727 George I
1727-1760 George II
1760-1820 George III
1820-1830 George IV
1830-1837 William IV
1837-1901 Victoria
http://www.royal.gov.uk/Historyofthe.../Victoria.aspx
Great AAR by the way, thanks for taking the trouble
But really, the Victorian era starting in 1720....bah...mutter...mutter...
Seriously, what was wrong with just using a simple list of (historical) Monarch names? And have the right portrait too for that matter? I know TW are 'what if' games but using random or out of sequence monarchs is, well, pointless and just wrong. :thumbsdown:
It's hardly as if the names, ages and appearences of the monarchs are set in stone. If you want to see historical re-enactment, read a book.
Hmm, I see she likes a man (woman?) in uniform.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkut
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
It's 25 years in and you have nothing in India?
BTW how do you make screenshots?
I think the irony is that about 10 years earlier I got a message that William just had a son called george...
Fraps.
I think printscreen is the "official" way to take them, but it doesn't work all the time.
What are polygons if not virtual cells?Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
I'm sure she also finds tigers in uniforms to be charming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Kind of like those people who dress up their dogs.
*Is instantly reminded of "The Tiger Who Came to Tea"*Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkut
Who else read and loved that book?
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Frost
With the description of the ancillary ("Not every lady is ladylike...") and the uniform fetish, my imagination paints bizarre pictures...
Generally speaking, I like the random monarchs... it wouldn't be fun otherwise. Also, the fact that you get historical figures as generals is particularly awesome.
I used this same argument against someone concerning factions in multiplayer. However this use of it here fails, to be frank. The fact that Victoria comes to the throne over 100 years earlier than she should does not make the game any more fun and only serves to miseducate people for absolutely no reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Miseducate?
You are arguing that the monarchs have a set sequence, and death time. Why? Victoria is just one of the names they have in the database for female monarchs.
Its slightly odd though, because she seems to appear regardless of anything else. I got a messahe saying 'Your monarch has had an heir, his name is George' (or something to that effect). But as soon as the King dies I get Victoria.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Very Super Market
She must have killed off baby George somehow...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
I don't hear you!:quiet:
I have started a British campaign 4 times. Every time, Victoria came to the thrown after William. Based on this and other people's observations, far from being random, I'd say there was a bug pretty much ensuring all your Monarchs will be female, regardless of the gender of the so called heir.
What the bugger, that sounds rather stupid.