安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語(日文)
한국어(韓文)
ไทย(泰文)
Български(保加利亞文)
Čeština(捷克文)
Dansk(丹麥文)
Deutsch(德文)
English(英文)
Español - España(西班牙文 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希臘文)
Français(法文)
Italiano(義大利文)
Bahasa Indonesia(印尼語)
Magyar(匈牙利文)
Nederlands(荷蘭文)
Norsk(挪威文)
Polski(波蘭文)
Português(葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙)
Português - Brasil(葡萄牙文 - 巴西)
Română(羅馬尼亞文)
Русский(俄文)
Suomi(芬蘭文)
Svenska(瑞典文)
Türkçe(土耳其文)
tiếng Việt(越南文)
Українська(烏克蘭文)
回報翻譯問題
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.