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









Erm... I'd rather bring only three mechs with extra tonnage instead of bothering with a useless fourth, TYVM. I don't know about the original BattleTech, but in this game you need those extra armor plates for your mechs to survive.
Short of this, nice explanation.
It reminded me of those old-day mindset when you tinkered your Mechs together by yourself (at least in your fantasy).
You often forget those things with all the games we have now.
Don't know how many hours i've spent with pen&paper, not only in D&D and Shadowrun but also on Battletech sheets.
And yep...preferences count. X mech might be better on paper, but someone might hate the view out of the cockpit, or the main weapon type, or anything else, and just prefer something "less powerful" but that they're better at using. Cheers!
Also, good on you for mentioning player preference for 'mech chassis. It's not as measurable as the hard numbers on the 'mechs themselves, but I've found that a player who is comfortable in statistically suboptimal setup can outperform themselves in one that is uncomfortable but optimized. To a point, at least.