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
As for Old World, it's also a great game. ( I wish I had waited for it to hit Steam before buying it though. Not a big fan of Epic) It was created by the Civ devs who created Civ IV and includes the stuff they were not allowed to put in that game. I do wish they carried the game further on the timeline though, but I understand that limiting it to around a 300 year timeframe was the best way to keep that game from breaking.
For a full "Civ" experience, going from nomads to the space age, My personal favorite has become Humankind. It just does too many things the other games don't.
Will they do something about the millions of influence points required to merge cities? As it stands now i would literally need a thousand turns more to even get close to that number.
All 4X games go through growing pains early on. Humankind is much better than Civ 6 was pre-DLC, and that's really the bar to be judging it against.