Zainstaluj Steam
zaloguj się
|
język
简体中文 (chiński uproszczony)
繁體中文 (chiński tradycyjny)
日本語 (japoński)
한국어 (koreański)
ไทย (tajski)
български (bułgarski)
Čeština (czeski)
Dansk (duński)
Deutsch (niemiecki)
English (angielski)
Español – España (hiszpański)
Español – Latinoamérica (hiszpański latynoamerykański)
Ελληνικά (grecki)
Français (francuski)
Italiano (włoski)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonezyjski)
Magyar (węgierski)
Nederlands (niderlandzki)
Norsk (norweski)
Português (portugalski – Portugalia)
Português – Brasil (portugalski brazylijski)
Română (rumuński)
Русский (rosyjski)
Suomi (fiński)
Svenska (szwedzki)
Türkçe (turecki)
Tiếng Việt (wietnamski)
Українська (ukraiński)
Zgłoś problem z tłumaczeniem












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.