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
奖励
planet_pop_assembly_mult
and
pop_growth_speed
I took these from the tradition trees and as such combined both of them affect bio, machines and determined assimilators. Correct me if I'm wrong.
For Trade, that is a good question. I would assume that country_energy_produces_mult and country_unity_produces_mult would handle trade because trade can be turned into either of those two. The question then I guess is the multiplier added before or after trade? I would assume after Trade. I can test and find out. I just want to make sure I do not add trade_value_mult and then trade is getting double penalized because of the other modifiers :D
I've changed the capitalization to be me more consistent and will also try to give a message if someone changes back.
Consumer goods obviously have been added.
Perhaps the modifiers should affect Trade Value as well? It seems like empires relying on trade to generate energy gets of a bit easier that others.
I think the planet_pop_assembly modifier_mult only applies to mech pops. At least that is what the tooltip says. According paradoxwiki bio pops has a seperate modifer (planet_pop_assembly_organic_mult). If bio pop assembly isn't affected I think this should be added to level the playing field.
Consumer Goods is unaffected, but Alloys are affected. This seems inconsistant.
If a player removes their handicap after 2 months other player empires should be notified.
Finally, only the first letter of the modifier is capitalized. Paradox modifier usually capitalize every word. So "Strong handicap" should probably be "Strong Handicap" for consistency.
But yes, having the host mark the players would be better. Problem is the concept of the "host" doesn't really exist in the scripting language. There is a trick I can think of though that could have the players vote who the host is.
Overall though this is an honor system for casual games. Will explore better concepts as we refine the concept.
Would like to see the host be able to rate the players instead of self-selection, or at least get a menu to manually change it. Once the selection is done, the host can't change it, right?