Problem with one of the cheats.

[ruudiluca]

Cheat to kill all enemies when cheats are enabled is CTRL+ALT+F4

Didn't the developers know that ALT+F4 closes the window?
It is a pain, I press it and sometimes it works, but sometimes it closes my games!
Please fix.

 

[xSanGuinEx]

Don't press buttons at once, first press CTRL, then Alt and F4.

 

[tyrannicide]

It is a pain, I press it and sometimes it works, but sometimes it closes my games!

Ever thought it may be WAD?

Don't press buttons at once, first press CTRL, then Alt and F4.

^This.

 

[McBeverage]

Isn't it just CTRL+F4?

 

[Blaze]

Ctrl+F4 KOs one enemy, Ctrl+Alt+F4 KOs all immediate enemies in the scene.

Just do as the above, since you're don't have to be close to use it, you can take your time.

 

[Northern Mameluke Empire]

i always end up being forced to use this, like when i try to convince a lord to join me and then he atacks me like a **** face. so im forced to fking rape his men til they leave me alone.

 

[Veraxus5]

i always end up being forced to use this, like when i try to convince a lord to join me and then he atacks me like a **** face. so im forced to fking rape his men til they leave me alone.

Or you could learn to be more tactful and actually try to cozy up to the lord before you strong arm him... 

 

[Northern Mameluke Empire]

i always end up being forced to use this, like when i try to convince a lord to join me and then he atacks me like a **** face. so im forced to fking rape his men til they leave me alone.

Or you could learn to be more tactful and actually try to cozy up to the lord before you strong arm him... 

im sorry, I had no idea over 50 reputation with them as well as 6 persuasion wasnt good enough.

 

[Veraxus5]

i always end up being forced to use this, like when i try to convince a lord to join me and then he atacks me like a **** face. so im forced to fking rape his men til they leave me alone.

Or you could learn to be more tactful and actually try to cozy up to the lord before you strong arm him... 

im sorry, I had no idea over 50 reputation with them as well as 6 persuasion wasnt good enough.

And if they have no reason to hate their current liege, than no, it's not good enough...

 

[Kenkage]

If the 50 points is from honor they won't leave. Honorable lords stick with their lords to the bitter end usually.

 

[Northern Mameluke Empire]

well that would be it then...

but either way, that doesnt mean they have to fking attack me as soon as im done talking to them! assholes the bunch of them...

 

[Veraxus5]

well that would be it then...

but either way, that doesnt mean they have to fking attack me as soon as im done talking to them! assholes the bunch of them...

If I were to ask the Secretary of Defense to assist me in toppling our military efforts abroad and opposing the office of the President, do you suppose he would say no and then we would part ways on good terms?

 

[Northern Mameluke Empire]

Roman History.

I win.

 

[Veraxus5]

Roman History.

I win.

I wasn't aware that Medieval Europe hd anything to do with Rome? So if anything, you fail... 

 

[Northern Mameluke Empire]

Roman History.

I win.

I wasn't aware that Medieval Europe had anything to do with Rome? So if anything, you fail... 

well someone doesn't know history....

what I was referencing is the fact that, mostly in the latter part but also throughout Roman history, powerful men (Senators, Generals, Governors, etc.) threw their support around almost constantly. In fact, it got so bad that in a single year, there were 4 different Emperors, all from (I believe) different families. If anything, this is an example of how easy it is to change mens loyalty, if not with persuasion than money.


and in direct response to your ignorant comment:

I wasn't aware that 21st century politics had anything to do with Medieval Europe. In fact, the politics in the Middle Ages had barely changed from Late Roman politics, with the major exception of the Feudal system, and the larger scale. Instead of Emperor's and City/Regional Governors/Generals, you instead had Kings and Lords. Kings and Emperors still quarreled about how they rightfully own land, and rather than Civil War's, more often than not you had wars between neighboring states that were once or are now united countries, such as the various German States.


So if anything, you sir, fail, not only in lack of knowledge, but in assuming that you are always correct. 

 

[Northern Mameluke Empire]

and yes i see you viewing this thread Veraxus. you are now officially my *****.

 

[shokkueibu]

One "word": lol

 

[Velax]

what I was referencing is the fact that, mostly in the latter part but also throughout Roman history, powerful men (Senators, Generals, Governors, etc.) threw their support around almost constantly. In fact, it got so bad that in a single year, there were 4 different Emperors, all from (I believe) different families. If anything, this is an example of how easy it is to change mens loyalty, if not with persuasion than money.

So if anything, you sir, fail, not only in lack of knowledge, but in assuming that you are always correct. 

And unfortunately you fail, badly, in implying the way the AI lords react has anything to do with real life, at any point in history.

i always end up being forced to use this, like when i try to convince a lord to join me and then he atacks me like a **** face. so im forced to fking rape his men til they leave me alone.

You also fail by having to cheat when things don't go your way.

 

[Veraxus5]

Roman History.

I win.

I wasn't aware that Medieval Europe had anything to do with Rome? So if anything, you fail... 

what I was referencing is the fact that, mostly in the latter part but also throughout Roman history, powerful men (Senators, Generals, Governors, etc.) threw their support around almost constantly. In fact, it got so bad that in a single year, there were 4 different Emperors, all from (I believe) different families. If anything, this is an example of how easy it is to change mens loyalty, if not with persuasion than money.

You're inability to substantiate is duly noted... Vague remarks are not viable substitutes for actual arguments. Using era specific examples doesn't exactly hold water. You've deprived your "argument" of motive and simply articulated unsubstantiated “facts” about a deteriorating empire… Saying that “senators threw their weight around” lacks motive seeing as you so conveniently removed culture and volatility from your “logic.” So once again, you fail…

Your understanding of the Late Roman period is feeble at best… Persuasion and money had little to do with the affairs of political opponents in the late Roman period. Political contention and ambition was driven by cultural tensions and desire for power. One did not need a bribe to be motivated, and there were strict laws and numerous prosecutions against those whose political goals were suited towards wealth and “political persuasion” by opposition groups. I suggest you actually read about Roman history and not spew so much nonsense. I would recommend the book PHOENIX, volume 47 by Michael C. Alexander for more information on Roman trials seeing as you know so little about what you assert.

I wasn't aware that 21st century politics had anything to do with Medieval Europe. In fact, the politics in the Middle Ages had barely changed from Late Roman politics, with the major exception of the Feudal system, and the larger scale. Instead of Emperor's and City/Regional Governors/Generals, you instead had Kings and Lords. Kings and Emperors still quarreled about how they rightfully own land, and rather than Civil War's, more often than not you had wars between neighboring states that were once or are now united countries, such as the various German States.

Your inability to analyze obvious material is also noted. Unlike your example, mine targets specific contradictions. I constructed a more plausible relationship and noted the irony of a hypothetical scenario. The form of government I am describing is cohesive. The form of government you are ranting about, quite comically I might add, was dissonant. The relationship between Senate and Emperor was not akin to that of Liege and Vassal, whereas the direct, personal, and necessary relationship between President and Vice President provides more of an analogous scenario and also describes a similar emotional state.

Trying to backpedal is unflattering. Rome varied in its form of government between a Republic and a Divine-Rite Imperial State… It was, in some ways similar to the Feudal system as well as the Manorial system only inasmuch as the two shared Germanic rites… Apart from that, you’re a moronic bull ****ter…

So now you want to play with semantic arguments? Emperor =/= King. King =/= Emperor. Get that through your head. By toying with such an obvious fact you’re only proving yourself desperate to create a false argument. I like to call that mental masturbation...

And by the way, saying that you see me looking at the thread only means that you are obsessively watching those who are watching your own post... So it's quite foolish of you to make yourself look like a moron moreso than you already have. Pre-teen anxt, mayhap?

 

[Blaze]

So yeah about the game closing when trying to press Ctrl+Alt+F4.

Don't press buttons at once, first press CTRL, then Alt and F4.

/thread.