Instal Steam
login
|
bahasa
简体中文 (Tionghoa Sederhana)
繁體中文 (Tionghoa Tradisional)
日本語 (Bahasa Jepang)
한국어 (Bahasa Korea)
ไทย (Bahasa Thai)
Български (Bahasa Bulgaria)
Čeština (Bahasa Ceko)
Dansk (Bahasa Denmark)
Deutsch (Bahasa Jerman)
English (Bahasa Inggris)
Español - España (Bahasa Spanyol - Spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (Bahasa Spanyol - Amerika Latin)
Ελληνικά (Bahasa Yunani)
Français (Bahasa Prancis)
Italiano (Bahasa Italia)
Magyar (Bahasa Hungaria)
Nederlands (Bahasa Belanda)
Norsk (Bahasa Norwegia)
Polski (Bahasa Polandia)
Português (Portugis - Portugal)
Português-Brasil (Bahasa Portugis-Brasil)
Română (Bahasa Rumania)
Русский (Bahasa Rusia)
Suomi (Bahasa Finlandia)
Svenska (Bahasa Swedia)
Türkçe (Bahasa Turki)
Tiếng Việt (Bahasa Vietnam)
Українська (Bahasa Ukraina)
Laporkan kesalahan penerjemahan
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.