Steam installieren
Anmelden
|
Sprache
简体中文 (Vereinfachtes Chinesisch)
繁體中文 (Traditionelles Chinesisch)
日本語 (Japanisch)
한국어 (Koreanisch)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarisch)
Čeština (Tschechisch)
Dansk (Dänisch)
English (Englisch)
Español – España (Spanisch – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (Lateinamerikanisches Spanisch)
Ελληνικά (Griechisch)
Français (Französisch)
Italiano (Italienisch)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesisch)
Magyar (Ungarisch)
Nederlands (Niederländisch)
Norsk (Norwegisch)
Polski (Polnisch)
Português – Portugal (Portugiesisch – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (Portugiesisch – Brasilien)
Română (Rumänisch)
Русский (Russisch)
Suomi (Finnisch)
Svenska (Schwedisch)
Türkçe (Türkisch)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisch)
Українська (Ukrainisch)
Ein Übersetzungsproblem melden
u can start rebellion alone
It took me three attempts, and sometimes it went really badly, but here's what I did.
With the maximum number of clan groups and a lot of influence, I create an army. I enlist everyone except my groups. And I put the miserable soldiers in my group and go with recruitable prisoner forces.
I head to an enemy city and... I crash the huge army against the defending machines.
Another option is to approach an enemy siege of a friendly fortress. And gradually leave the groups from my army. They go to fight confident that the rest will help them... and... that's what I don't do.
It's really not something I like to do, it doesn't tie in with the "role" of my character, a pretty honest guy. But I can't think of anything else.
After the military disaster, I disband the army. All the groups are decimated. I recruit prisoners, so as not to be attacked by hostile groups that are nearby. The rest... they pass.
With this I have managed to start a succession rebellion alone. But, as I said, it breaks my character role. Although I understand that the game cannot do it, I would have preferred that the player could start a rebellion without this 50% of the military weight.
You'll have to take that up with the mod authors.