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 can count on these things, and more.
But do bear in mind that this is NOT the vanilla experience. There is no such thing as specialized transport ships anymore, so I encourage you to take a look at every ship you currently have and check their transport capacity.
However, I can tell you the general rule. Ordering the following ships by transport capacity from least to most:
fire ship - light ship/bomb ship - galley - supply ship/middling ship - heavy ship - massive ship
The idea here is for a more realistic depiction of a ship's troop capacity and transport. If you want to carry many troops, you'll need either the naval levies or larger ships. You'll also notice that there are 4 new ship types.
Btw, each hulk should carry 150 men, not 100. Could you please double-check and confirm with me? If it's 100, it's not WAD and I'll have to check it.
Also, there was a post in the forum that left an impression on me. AI Timurids colonizing Siberia and the Russia player didn't get a chance to. I don't think these things should happen, at least not commonly or easily.
And yes, exploration maintenance is absolutely nonsensical. I understand they did it for gameplay reasons, but it's so jarring that it breaks immersion for me.
I'll keep working on the balance based on your feedback. It's tricky, because I don't want you guys to be frustrated by constant exploration failure, but also tweaking too much results in it being too easy when it shouldn't. Let's see how it goes.
Thank you for your continued support. Please keep giving feedback.
The Devs did not include this in the game because it is frustrating. That is the easy way. I don't take the easy way. I ask for your patience while I sort this out and find a good balance. Thank you.
However I am playing with NWIP and Way of the Dodo so it might just be a mod conflict. Just thought I'd mention it in case you hear it from other people as well :)
All these numbers are subject to tweaking, please bear in mind it is still very early days and I have limited time to do coding and comprehensive testing, so I count on your very valuable feedback for this. Thank you.
An exploration has a base 10% monthly fail chance. The -72% fail chance is applied upon those 10%, so basically you have around 3% monthly fail chance. However, if there's a cape or deep ocean in the area, that monthly fail chance jumps to over 12%.
This is working as intended, not a bug. What needs to be improved though is readibility. There is currently no way for a player to know if they are sending an exploration to an area with cape or deep ocean, and I am having a hard time with UI modding.
So I've been thinking, for the sake of immersion, for the exploration fail event to give that information. I'll be working on it this weekend.
0 exploration finished in 5 in my new game test with debug mode. It feels very bad. Is there any way to change fail change checking once a year or others. The bug may casused by month check.
@Captain it's not only for explorers, it's for characters exploring. This auto fail was happening before, the update should have fixed it. The unsubscribing and subscribing again, it worked for other players.
I am going to do another round of tests today and I'll let you know. Also regarding the UI, it is not my speciality but im really trying to show information in a helpful way. I'll see what I can do.
Thank you for the feedback, please keep it coming.