安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語(日文)
한국어(韓文)
ไทย(泰文)
Български(保加利亞文)
Čeština(捷克文)
Dansk(丹麥文)
Deutsch(德文)
English(英文)
Español - España(西班牙文 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希臘文)
Français(法文)
Italiano(義大利文)
Bahasa Indonesia(印尼語)
Magyar(匈牙利文)
Nederlands(荷蘭文)
Norsk(挪威文)
Polski(波蘭文)
Português(葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙)
Português - Brasil(葡萄牙文 - 巴西)
Română(羅馬尼亞文)
Русский(俄文)
Suomi(芬蘭文)
Svenska(瑞典文)
Türkçe(土耳其文)
tiếng Việt(越南文)
Українська(烏克蘭文)
回報翻譯問題
Clearly you fail to appreciate that armies and war costs, and that strong economic strrategy is the bedrock of a growing empire. It's not just about the battlefield.
In my Tyrant playthrough I barely recall spending any time focusing on managing my kingdom. The overwhelming majority of my playthrough was spent either in battle or doing quests.
Don't blame the game because you were too lazy to do some research on it first.
I will admit the crashing issue is a huge problem though, however not everyone seems to be experiencing it. No idea how to fix it.
You are expecting hard realism in a game about King Arthur and the Sidhe?
Its due to victory points and morale. Basically if you neglect victory points, you can still lose even if you have the bigger army, and if you defend them, you can win with a smaller army.
Historically, yes this would appear to be the case most of the time. However, in this game, so long as the army maintains morale (as per the game scoring, not related to whether the units are fleeing or not) and VPs, then their battle is won.
You may disagree with the accuracy or erealism of this attribute as much as you wish, but that will not change the way the game works.
Starting a battle with less-than-optimal morale makes for a huge and unnecessary disadvantage.