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
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.