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









You're right about EU5, but we know Paradox and how they release games (vic3,ck3,hoi4), so I guess many will just stick to EU4 for at least one more year :P
And about scorching - scorching ottomans is necessary and a good feeling
As for the migration bit, the development moving from devastated regions to undevastated regions is already implemented, but the culture change is not. I dont think its really worth trying to implement with eu5 right around the corner.
For example province of Symia is under Hungarian control, let's say it has a Hungarian culture and its development is really low (4), while all central Serbia is devastated due to war with Ottomans and their development is falling down everywhere due to devastation - so basically these "people" are migrating somewhere and that can be closest province and if development is very low (not populated) they can become majority (what actually happened in some southern and central Hungarian cities
like development_cost_in_primary_culture development_cost development_cost_modifier local_development_cost local_development_cost_modifier
In the known issues you refer to the "Development cost modifier" reductions by admin tech, these are the 10% reduction given at techs 17, 23 and 27 ?