安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题
Besides, in my opinion Napoleon was too constrained in design.
Thank you. Yeah I kind of wanted FoTS just because I much perfer the Japense setting then the Nepolionic one.
Yes!
Actually I would perfer to have much slower more realistic battles then faster more unrealstic battles. I like the idea of less people dieing because thats what would happen back then. Did you know the base casualtie numbers in battles back in the Canadian civil war where around 16 casualties per battle. Lol.
Really, if you like slower attrition combat, get napoleon. If you like carnage and blood, explosions people dropping like flies from fast reloading carbines and breech loaders, go FOTS.
Honestly I'm a fan of both, but prefer FOTS