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 don't know who at CA thought it was a good idea to be condescending to the player, but they need to be smacked, with a chair.
I think a remaining problem are still battles where just the "assessment" of what the battle was e.g. many "sub"types of "heroic victories" will be interpreted completely wrong by the game, like in the example that I've provided... But I think (attention, sarcasm incoming!)
We'll just wait for CA to tackle this when they find the time <3
HAHAHA Thanks, @Shorewall. This mod is simply a supreme victory for modding <3
Coz that's another problem, I think. When you easily crush and foe that outnumbered you by 2,5x, lost a handful of men, all units will replenish their losses before nx round another attack wave comes in and CA calls it a "Pyrrhic victory" with the note "Should we call it a loss instead?" :)
Love that one specifically <3