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
Siege Units: I'm not sure about the AI building more of these, as I'm not aware of how many it actually builds; it's a matter of testing to balance it out. I absolutely agree that the AI should heavily prioritize your siege units, specially when it's under siege.
Warmonger penalties: the AI reaction against warmongers vary greatly. It depends on the leader's personality, how that Civ perceives warmongers, the difference in power between the two, the alliances it has with other Civs.
Team games: again, not sure if this needs tweaking as I haven't played in a team with AI.
Settling: I don't think this needs any adjustment. The AI is quite liberal with their city locations, more so than most players. Also, the number of City-States settled into canals are astounding.
Civ playstyle: I believe that the leader's personality, the starting bias, and the unique unit(s) it has are more than enough to determine how a particular Civ will play out. Many of the AI strategy is defined by the terrain, the technology it possesses, and other aspects not defined by which Civ it is.