Nainstalovat Steam
přihlásit se
|
jazyk
简体中文 (Zjednodušená čínština)
繁體中文 (Tradiční čínština)
日本語 (Japonština)
한국어 (Korejština)
ไทย (Thajština)
български (Bulharština)
Dansk (Dánština)
Deutsch (Němčina)
English (Angličtina)
Español-España (Evropská španělština)
Español-Latinoamérica (Latin. španělština)
Ελληνικά (Řečtina)
Français (Francouzština)
Italiano (Italština)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonéština)
Magyar (Maďarština)
Nederlands (Nizozemština)
Norsk (Norština)
Polski (Polština)
Português (Evropská portugalština)
Português-Brasil (Brazilská portugalština)
Română (Rumunština)
Русский (Ruština)
Suomi (Finština)
Svenska (Švédština)
Türkçe (Turečtina)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamština)
Українська (Ukrajinština)
Nahlásit problém s překladem
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/xvluxfmtsf
For those not familiar with the original discussion, the 1/X scaling meant that you'd gain no benefit from having multiple councilors of the same race, and you were best off mixing races with all-different racial benefits. With this alternate scaling, you'll see at least a little benefit. In my game, my egalitarian, xenophile empire treats all races as equal, except that my founder race is the only one allowed to be leaders or councilors because of all their racial leader bonuses, and so this sort of scaling is ideal.
When I made my earlier suggestions, I'd also been trying to figure out a method where your ruler's racial traits would count for more than the other councilors, but that's probably overcomplicating the math.