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
The result is PGI have needed to balance weapons so that IS and Clan can compete in CW, whilst retaining the character of the two factions and create advantages/disadvantages to both.
They've struck a balance of sorts, nobodies gonna claim its perfect but its not a bad stab at it either.
Essentially think like this - if Clans were implemented as they are in tabletop, why would anybody run an IS mech?
Yes...Thats all i want. I would use IS PPCs, if it would be possible.
Yeah, I agree with this 100%. When my buddy and I used to play the Clan Invasion senarios the IS needed about a 50% tonnage bonus in order to be competative. Most of our games would have an IS augmented company (a standard lance, a lance with an assault, and a re-enforced lance with infantry, tanks and other vehicles) vs 2 stars. We'd flip back and forth as to who was clan and who was IS so it was fair to say it was equal skill.