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
Like say 'Anti-Feminist' to Androcentric (Male Focus) and 'Anti-Meninist' to Gynocentric (Female Focus)
I see you changed the description... but you applied Gynocentric and Androcentric to the wrong effects
Gynocentrist means women are more important/dominant
Androcentrist means men more important/dominant
Maybe 20-25%? I already have enough problems, with half of my factions being a pacifist, even those I am militarist.
Should I change the other to -25 governing ethics aswell?
What about the happiness buff/debuff?
I don't know if I want the two options to be just opposite of eachother, but I also don't want one to accedentally be obviously better
I'll reduce it to 25%, is that ok?
Thats fair.
Actually, that's not true. Since you would only be accepting candidates for certain roles, they would be just as many people. It makes no sense for them to cost more unless it would be a new policy since then you would be flushing out half of them. Even then you would not really lose candidates. Personally, I never see a bunch of new ones unless you use or remove one of the candidates.