Installer Steam
log på
|
sprog
简体中文 (forenklet kinesisk)
繁體中文 (traditionelt kinesisk)
日本語 (japansk)
한국어 (koreansk)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bulgarsk)
Čeština (tjekkisk)
Deutsch (tysk)
English (engelsk)
Español – España (spansk – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (spansk – Latinamerika)
Ελληνικά (græsk)
Français (fransk)
Italiano (italiensk)
Bahasa indonesia (indonesisk)
Magyar (ungarsk)
Nederlands (hollandsk)
Norsk
Polski (polsk)
Português (portugisisk – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (portugisisk – Brasilien)
Română (rumænsk)
Русский (russisk)
Suomi (finsk)
Svenska (svensk)
Türkçe (tyrkisk)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisk)
Українська (ukrainsk)
Rapporter et oversættelsesproblem








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.