Installa Steam
Accedi
|
Lingua
简体中文 (cinese semplificato)
繁體中文 (cinese tradizionale)
日本語 (giapponese)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandese)
Български (bulgaro)
Čeština (ceco)
Dansk (danese)
Deutsch (tedesco)
English (inglese)
Español - España (spagnolo - Spagna)
Español - Latinoamérica (spagnolo dell'America Latina)
Ελληνικά (greco)
Français (francese)
Indonesiano
Magyar (ungherese)
Nederlands (olandese)
Norsk (norvegese)
Polski (polacco)
Português (portoghese - Portogallo)
Português - Brasil (portoghese brasiliano)
Română (rumeno)
Русский (russo)
Suomi (finlandese)
Svenska (svedese)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraino)
Segnala un problema nella traduzione
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.