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








Just of interest, what was the reasoning behind this choice? Was it some OP issue or so in relation to expanding? I've been using this together with The Belt, and RP-wise they really work together...
In my current game I have Sol expanded with Planet Nine and that with two furthermost asteroids are acting as 'System Ports' with spaceports, with Nine from your mod and asteroids from The Belt. From Sol, also Juno is an asteroid base (a prison asteroid as a small event chain from The Belt made it into one), and I'm now terraforming both Venus & Mars with your mod. Feels kind of realistic in my mind.
Then in current game I have few systems of my 50+ that have only an asteroid space port and no planet at all, but as the asteroids when colonized have only a minimal border influence in comparison with planets and outposts, they do not really turn into strategic advantage, but rather give only a small mineral boost (~40 per asteroid altogether) at the cost of energy (robots there), and a lot of material for inner storytelling...
So if properly worked out, colonizing asteroids = no OP, but a lot of RP potential...
IMHO.