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






Now modders have no standards to keep to in their creations of alternatives leaders, I wouldn't have chosen Maire-Antoinette if I were to mod another queen for France, but your work your choice ! The model is pretty cool, did you "draw" Marie-Antoinette by yourself ?
Civ and its devs shouldn't be held back by the narrative(s) of history, where women were almost always seen as weak or ineffective and had few opportunities unlike Victoria/Elizabeth.
The problem is IMHO one of perspective. Civ gamers need to stop treating Civ like a "Hall of Fame" of all the best or top historical leaders; if that were the case every new entry in the Civ franchise would have the exact same people. History isn't a high score table nor should the game be either, otherwise you're just perpetuating (and even condoning) the prejudices of the past.
Take Victoria and Elizabeth for instance. Nobody complains about then leading England (well, not for being women - for Victoria there is the valid complaint that she was a queen of the UK and not England). Seondeok on the other hand was a controversial choice because there was a more obvious, more famous and more liked option available.
Good on you Gedemo for doing something different