Instalează Steam
conectare
|
limbă
简体中文 (chineză simplificată)
繁體中文 (chineză tradițională)
日本語 (japoneză)
한국어 (coreeană)
ไทย (thailandeză)
български (bulgară)
Čeština (cehă)
Dansk (daneză)
Deutsch (germană)
English (engleză)
Español - España (spaniolă - Spania)
Español - Latinoamérica (spaniolă - America Latină)
Ελληνικά (greacă)
Français (franceză)
Italiano (italiană)
Bahasa Indonesia (indoneziană)
Magyar (maghiară)
Nederlands (neerlandeză)
Norsk (norvegiană)
Polski (poloneză)
Português (portugheză - Portugalia)
Português - Brasil (portugheză - Brazilia)
Русский (rusă)
Suomi (finlandeză)
Svenska (suedeză)
Türkçe (turcă)
Tiếng Việt (vietnameză)
Українська (ucraineană)
Raportează o problemă de traducere
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.