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
That being said, just leave battle difficulty at normal or else you introduce broken offsetting of enemy values, they become much much stronger, you'll truly suffer imo.
Campaign difficulty you can set at whatever you like, if you think Hard is easier than vanilla, then why not try Legendary? :D
Phalanx suddenly become weak, archer can't kill anything, heavy shock cavalry barely handle javelinmen without suffer heavy losses. Elephants is no more worth it.... Don't try it if you can't handle pain :)
LOL! I just finished a very hard seleucid campaign and it's easier than vanilla, literally turned off my taxes for the entire campaign and was making still around 10k each turn, not even 40 turns into campaign. Literally the easiest campaign in the game if you know how to keep your satrapies. None of what you wrote above is true :D, and since very hard is the max battle diff, if you are even reducing battle difficulty it's not that insane of a difference. Most battles i did were on normal but even those that i played on very hard were not that insane of a difference. Except maybe i would lose 10-20% more than i would on normal difficulty.