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








But sure, "bad" horses ("roncins", "ronzini", "rocinantes"...) given provisionally to rulers for wargames are destroyed, because they are not actually 'theirs' (weren't trained, weren't bought) and they have 0 value.
They are given for immersion (to show in the GUI), since these are all warhorse games, and many participants can't even have them - non-rulers won't ever equip artifacts unless forced to.
It's not because horses are needed, since these give +1 prowess to everyone.
About skills: wargames have almost* the same behavior as Vanilla duels. I'm quite sure it's not prowess only what counts, but I agree I could maybe add relevant traits there, like tournier/chowgan player or groom traits, and things like that. I haven't done that because I think this would actually duplicate chances of winning (prowess/martial + the trait itself).
*It's not the same because I eliminated some "quick death" movements to avoid weirdness in games. This sometimes makes games somehow boring, with only one option.