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
Everyone else really cant go tall, the game economy is very expansion focused, limited territories per city, cost scaling within cities for how built up they are, cheap cost of expanding, they all push you to go wide with no real benefits for avoiding them.
And unlike EL1, you plant camps and evolve them into cities using Influence. Each additional Camp and City scales the cost, so it becomes more expensive to grab more territory.
Too much of the interaction with other factions (and gameplay) is ultimately driven by competition for territory, and it's really hard to balance "tall" having more strength than it should for the territory it has (by definition) against having a much smaller border and less it needs to defend (by definition).
You basically need to have completely different win conditions at that point, as well as different fail states -- at which point are you even playing the game with the other players?
Paradox titles have struggled with this idea for A LONG TIME and they've never quite got it right, and I'm pretty convinced because it's a snipe hunt. Tall playstyles are fundamentally unstable when it comes to balance.
...yes, which is actually a further mark against it, because even in the relatively forgiving backdrop of a narrative generator, tall still breaks gameplay and incentives too hard.