Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文(簡体字中国語)
繁體中文(繁体字中国語)
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština(チェコ語)
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia(インドネシア語)
Magyar(ハンガリー語)
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português(ポルトガル語-ポルトガル)
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română(ルーマニア語)
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
Additionally, NOT being the suzerain should carry more weight too. I just finished a game as Barbarossa and it seems like the new warmonger rules didn't take into account City States. I decided to play the civ as designed, and took two important CSs on my continent to deny their bonuses to the other civs, while I focused my Envoys elsewhere. The warmonger penalties were just as bad as prior to the patch, taking 2 CSs meant something like -80+ with all the other civs, and took over 2 centuries to work off. Whereas later I declared a post-victory 'fun war' to make use of my tech advantage, and wiped Phillip II off the map (capped his 4 cities) and took 5 cities from China before my Warmonger penalty got to the same point.
My point being, I think unless a civ has a specific carebear agenda where they love all CSs, the only folks who should care about your attack should be the ones with envoys there. At least for the early game, when the world was more violent.
Seems like a very strange thing for an ally to do. I feel like this is an oversight on the game designer's part.
You can even upgrade the City State units which will make the City State a lot harder to attack after the 30 turns hire period are up.