Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
Overall though, I think it was a really good scenario. I'm a big fan of the Capital State series and I can't wait to see the next installment.
-There's a bug in the game currently where minefields are permanently in effect if you stick them in the same zone as a tunnel, and as several key cities have both a minefield and a tunnel, this results in the map being extremely difficult for soldiers to traverse. Maybe move the minefields to rural zones without tunnels, so they can at least be cleared?
In my scenarios, I have to try and set the multiplier a certain way so the sheer number of insurgents doesn't kill you immediately. The issue is that I have to try and factor in other difficulties and try to make sure that they're actually possible since I don't have much experience winning MB. The 'peace or war' mechanic also makes this significantly harder as the insurgent activity surges significantly between them, for obvious reasons, and I have to try to make both of them work (easier said than done).
There is one significant issue with the scenario, the insurgent reputation multiplier is set a little too far in the negatives. Most of the game I was gaining reputation from insurgents owning zones. I ended up having 600 reputation by the time I signed the peace deal. The only way I could lose was if I let my HQ fall. That may need adjustment.