开发人员在官方讨论区回应玩家关於政体DLC的大致方向: Obligatory I-don't-make-these-decisions caveat but: I'd actually disagree a little. We've got two big modular mechanics at the moment, faith and culture. Culture generally works pretty well, faith is far too static and player-lead, but in both instances a complaint we get a lot is that the differences between this or that doctrine, cultural tradition, or tenet don't feel meaningful enough, that playing in this part of the map is too similar to that part of the map. 目前我们有两大自订机制：信仰和文化。 文化大致运作良好，不过信仰过於被动且受玩家主导， 在这种情况下，我们受到很多抱怨， 即教义、文化传统或信条之间的差异不够明显， 各区域的游玩体验太相似了。 If we made governments into a modular system in the same way as faith and culture, we'd be forfeiting one of our major remaining static tools for dictating gameplay. :) I would prefer to see more of what we're doing with the clan rework: leave governments relatively static (feudal means feudal, clan means clan, etc.) but focus on giving them seriously differentiated play from one another. I'd also like to see more types of government, potentially sub-types of existing types, but I'd want each of those to have an excellent reason to exist and a strong style of play associated with them first and foremost. 如果我们照信仰和文化将政体做成自订机制， 我们就会失去我们仅存用於决定游戏玩法的重要静态工具之一。 我更愿意看到我们对氏族重做所做的更多事情： 让政体相对地壁垒分明（封建就是封建，氏族就是氏族，等等）， 专注於让它们彼此之间存在大幅差异的游戏。 我还希望看到更多类型的政体，可能是现有类型的子类型， 但我希望每一种都有一个很好的存在理由， 并且首先也是最重要的是差异明显的游戏风格。 In short: we have two big modular systems we can already use'n'improve, I don't necessarily think a third would be the best approach. 简而言之：我们已经有两个大型自订机制， 我们可以使用和改进，我不一定认为多第三个是最好的方法。 重点: 1.不会有EU4那种拼装式自订政体 2.会更区分各政体间的差异性,就像我们看到的氏族制 3.会有分支政体(可能汗国变成部落的分支政体?) 4.这样设计的目的是要避免重现换汤不换药的自订信仰与文化 (差异明显大概指的是Stls企业与寡头间,甚至集体意识与独裁间的差异程度, 而不是民主与君主间这种只差Civic及起源的程度) --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc), 来自: 1.170.166.129 (台湾) ※ 文章网址: https://webptt.com/cn.aspx?n=bbs/Paradox/M.1698842135.A.4C7.html