安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語(日文)
한국어(韓文)
ไทย(泰文)
Български(保加利亞文)
Čeština(捷克文)
Dansk(丹麥文)
Deutsch(德文)
English(英文)
Español - España(西班牙文 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希臘文)
Français(法文)
Italiano(義大利文)
Bahasa Indonesia(印尼語)
Magyar(匈牙利文)
Nederlands(荷蘭文)
Norsk(挪威文)
Polski(波蘭文)
Português(葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙)
Português - Brasil(葡萄牙文 - 巴西)
Română(羅馬尼亞文)
Русский(俄文)
Suomi(芬蘭文)
Svenska(瑞典文)
Türkçe(土耳其文)
tiếng Việt(越南文)
Українська(烏克蘭文)
回報翻譯問題
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.