Инсталирайте Steam
вход
|
език
Опростен китайски (简体中文)
Традиционен китайски (繁體中文)
Японски (日本語)
Корейски (한국어)
Тайландски (ไทย)
Чешки (Čeština)
Датски (Dansk)
Немски (Deutsch)
Английски (English)
Испански — Испания (Español — España)
Испански — Латинска Америка (Español — Latinoamérica)
Гръцки (Ελληνικά)
Френски (Français)
Италиански (Italiano)
Индонезийски (Bahasa Indonesia)
Унгарски (Magyar)
Холандски (Nederlands)
Норвежки (Norsk)
Полски (Polski)
Португалски (Português)
Бразилски португалски (Português — Brasil)
Румънски (Română)
Руски (Русский)
Финландски (Suomi)
Шведски (Svenska)
Турски (Türkçe)
Виетнамски (Tiếng Việt)
Украински (Українська)
Докладване на проблем с превода
tsk tsk tsk. Rome has moar strategy you say? okay! Spam ashigaru = win? sure, you really know what your talking about. Rome = grassyflatland any other map your a noob.
But the clear rock paper scissor system that shogun 2 had was for me a reminder of Rome..
Empire and napoleon had that, but the barriers between each were blurry (for me at least i would reason that i didn't even need skirms in some cases, mostly because they require flat ground to make use of the range).
Where as in shogun 2, i know to bring missiles because there useful even during the main line engagement (I know skirms can just sit in-front of a line and continue to shoot.)
Oh and siege on Empire and Napoleon were good damn awful, maybe that contributes to the "ease" factor of shogun 2.
There is a reason that the defender gets less koku in a siege in shogun.
In Rome campaign all I did was cav spam to win. Yep because thats what you call tactics.
in shogun 2 battles can take more than hour aswell.. in rome the battles were also really fast, and much smaller armies.. most battles only took 15 minutes