Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
(Use marksmen. That's the only good advice.)
As to in-game downsides, underperforming will harshen Galfrey's review of your performance and will mildly change the endgame slides you see. But there aren't broader implications like Kingmaker where you could actually use strong kingdom management performance to impact the game's final conflict.
i've cleared all stationary armies in the accessible parts of the map and did all available fort/bastion upgrades, but i'm still 4.x on 3 out of 4 stats, so all 5s looks more like an achievement than some minimal viable level of performance. but i'll see if getting 5s is too tedious or not.
Beyond that, the only major difficulty is, as was mentioned, the ending, and also that any rank-up decision you didn't do will be automatically filled in with a default choice (basically Galfrey making the choice for you while you were away), which for things like your Military rank-ups could lead to you having unit types you don't want, or in Leadership's case your generals having sub-par abilities when they could have been better, etc.