Zainstaluj Steam
zaloguj się
|
język
简体中文 (chiński uproszczony)
繁體中文 (chiński tradycyjny)
日本語 (japoński)
한국어 (koreański)
ไทย (tajski)
български (bułgarski)
Čeština (czeski)
Dansk (duński)
Deutsch (niemiecki)
English (angielski)
Español – España (hiszpański)
Español – Latinoamérica (hiszpański latynoamerykański)
Ελληνικά (grecki)
Français (francuski)
Italiano (włoski)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonezyjski)
Magyar (węgierski)
Nederlands (niderlandzki)
Norsk (norweski)
Português (portugalski – Portugalia)
Português – Brasil (portugalski brazylijski)
Română (rumuński)
Русский (rosyjski)
Suomi (fiński)
Svenska (szwedzki)
Türkçe (turecki)
Tiếng Việt (wietnamski)
Українська (ukraiński)
Zgłoś problem z tłumaczeniem
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.