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










I swear there *was* an issue, though, with settlement density on these smaller world maps, though. The population density slider wasn't very effective, and it would cause a lot of settlements to bunch up together on a tiny number of tiles at the south pole 😂 you'd see just a stack of settlements on top of each other in the ocean. I just tested it, though, and I don't see that anymore. I'm curious if you made any improvements. Or maybe I just don't remember how to replicate that issue.
at normal world size, there is ≈200 settlements on 181860 settlable tiles (≈40% of tiles are water or impassable, there is no proper tool to count them so number here is approximate)
at -1 world size, there is ≈70 settlements on 60321 settlable tiles
at -2 world size, there is ≈25 settlements on 20031 settlable tiles
at -3 world size, there is ≈10 settlements on 6688 settlable tiles
As you see, ratio of settlements to tiles stays roughly the same.
Let's rephrase this. Normal behavior - people settle in the same distance relative to each other.
This mods behavior - people settle the further away from each other the smaller the planet is.
If the globe becomes smaller then it should be like this. If globe size is unchanged then the distance should be accounted for and adjusted so it becomes like this.
You say the globe stays the same size, which isn't true, since travel time between cells remains the same. So logically the effect of your mod reduces the planet size in gameplay terms, as the name implies.