Steam'i Yükleyin
giriş
|
dil
简体中文 (Basitleştirilmiş Çince)
繁體中文 (Geleneksel Çince)
日本語 (Japonca)
한국어 (Korece)
ไทย (Tayca)
Български (Bulgarca)
Čeština (Çekçe)
Dansk (Danca)
Deutsch (Almanca)
English (İngilizce)
Español - España (İspanyolca - İspanya)
Español - Latinoamérica (İspanyolca - Latin Amerika)
Ελληνικά (Yunanca)
Français (Fransızca)
Italiano (İtalyanca)
Bahasa Indonesia (Endonezce)
Magyar (Macarca)
Nederlands (Hollandaca)
Norsk (Norveççe)
Polski (Lehçe)
Português (Portekizce - Portekiz)
Português - Brasil (Portekizce - Brezilya)
Română (Rumence)
Русский (Rusça)
Suomi (Fince)
Svenska (İsveççe)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamca)
Українська (Ukraynaca)
Bir çeviri sorunu bildirin
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/xvluxfmtsf
For those not familiar with the original discussion, the 1/X scaling meant that you'd gain no benefit from having multiple councilors of the same race, and you were best off mixing races with all-different racial benefits. With this alternate scaling, you'll see at least a little benefit. In my game, my egalitarian, xenophile empire treats all races as equal, except that my founder race is the only one allowed to be leaders or councilors because of all their racial leader bonuses, and so this sort of scaling is ideal.
When I made my earlier suggestions, I'd also been trying to figure out a method where your ruler's racial traits would count for more than the other councilors, but that's probably overcomplicating the math.