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








Regarding Improvements:
1) and 3) The AI in EaWX is specifally told to not try to retreat if an enemy Interdictor is present, because it was abusable for the player if only those with activated ability were considered.
1), 2) and 3) AI modding is very complicated and limited in EaW.
4) That isn't possible, because to have damage lasting a ship needs to be an own object and all ISDs are basically the same object. It also would be nearly impossible to comunicate to the player which ship is how badly damaged. SSDs are the exception, because you have only one anyways.
5) GCs refelct only starting positions from there on they are a sandbox. Having such areas would only skyrocket the planet count.
6) and 7) TR will get missions eventually like FotR has them already, but that isn't planned in the next update. Also the historicals mostly need reworks so that will probably solve the infrastructure issue then.
Rehgarding Questions:
1) As said above. Yes that is planned but not anytime soon
2) The devs had no statement about that so far, but it is planned to have galactic stuff influence tactical a bit more and Influence seems like a fair guess there.
3) That might or might not come back when historicals are reworked, but for now I suggest the Regional GC Boarderlands to have something like that (as other points already suggest without misions of course)
4) The devs haven't said something about that, but it seems unlikely for me, because it interferes with the indepence of the player a lot.
5) I know that some devs would like such a GC, but same as above for it: Not now and maybe when historcals get reworked.
Hope I could help. For more reliable answers I suggest joining the discord that is linked on the Steampage
Ad. retreats and interdictors:
The scenario I mentioned in point b) did not include any interdictor on my part. Lusankya was simply being reduced to final HPs and even with functioning engines, the AI still refused to retreat.
I suppose it would be best if interdictor ships had a limited range of gravity engine, though I doubt if such a thing can be coded.
Ad. staging areas:
As far as I remember the Thrawn campaign only consist of 60 planets or so. Adding 3 to 4 staging areas for Thrawn to jump to the other side of the map would not seriously affect performance.
Ad. player independence:
I do not see it that way. It is a bonus that helps to build the historical narrative.
Another suggestion:
I modified the Difficulty file to make the easy level increase AI income by 10x. When I play on progressive GC I switch the game to easy for 1-3 cycles every time an era progresses, so the AI suddenly recieves a lot of credits. It helps the AI recover and makes later conquests more challenging. I think simple scripted events of similar purpose, that "recharge" the AI with resources and additional ships, would benefit the gameplay.
2) Those staging areas would be taken by the AI pretty fast anyways and the hyperlanes would look very weird.
3) That is for the Devs to decide.
4) Easy getting a boost would be the worst one to choose. You can activate cruel AI for a few weeks to archive that exact thing. Era/Regime progression has no really effect on events anymore anyways.
3) Everything is for the Devs to decide.
4) Works for me. I discovered how to switch the Cruel AI only yesterday.