I think having major nations played by human players makes the game way shorter. I would go for the opposite, having no major countries controlled by human players. It will be more challenging and will make the game longer. There are still enough medium tier countries that can go huge anyhow.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Europa Universalis IV MP Community Thread of fanboi needing to speaka da English
- Thread starter fanboi
- Start date
- Status
Having larger nations being player controlled may make for a shorter session, however having stronger player nations from the start would foster more early and complex alliance webs to counter balance this. Having everyone playing weaker nations just extends the same problem to a later date, as players will have more time to focus on gobbling up small AI nations before being forced into PvP. Our main problem is that when alliances form, they generally last forever, instead of shifting to counter a powerful nation, and thus keep the game rolling for longer.
Anyway, in lieu of a better idea that I don't have, raising the rank limit for a bigger range is agreeable for me, though we should either go to 10, or stick to 5 but use non integer values when rating, e.g:
France - 10, England - 9
or
France - 5, England 4.5
Both will have an increase in range and accuracy over the current model.
Anyway, in lieu of a better idea that I don't have, raising the rank limit for a bigger range is agreeable for me, though we should either go to 10, or stick to 5 but use non integer values when rating, e.g:
France - 10, England - 9
or
France - 5, England 4.5
Both will have an increase in range and accuracy over the current model.
I would like to try with only minors as well.
That could be quite fun for an "off season" session if we're going to have a long break before another session, something fun/unusual. E.g. everyone has to pick a OPM in the HRE, or we split up Ming into its components and everyone has to pick from those nations etc.
Haha, I like that, but you would be crushed by England in the first session. Or we custom all?
All custom, but England wouldn't stand a chance against my glorious inuit hordes.
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
I think our group have demonstrated on several occasions that GAFEUMP alliance logics don't work quite like that. We would probably end up with a French-Austrian-Ottoman alliance taking out the Portugals and Venices one by one
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
I was going to suggest that everyone should feel free to critique each other's ratings. If someone had pointed out to me that I had accidentally low-balled the Timurids, I would have changed my rating (conversely, I thought Fitz's performance over the long run warranted a higher score than 3.5).
I think our group have demonstrated on several occasions that GAFEUMP alliance logics don't work quite like that. We would probably end up with a French-Austrian-Ottoman alliance taking out the Portugals and Venices one by one
Exactly. There were always 2-3 big player alliances going for 1. Or disproportionate wars. Even this game, having first France&Netherland&Prussia allied most of the game? And then Netherland&Timurids&Uzbek?
We would end up on the same point. Ending up the game quite fast due to a big war and no way to expand. It's quicker and quicker as we get more experience in these games.
Then I call dibs on Orthodox Wallachian Rome
Would really love to try out custom nations out in MP.
I think our group have demonstrated on several occasions that GAFEUMP alliance logics don't work quite like that. We would probably end up with a French-Austrian-Ottoman alliance taking out the Portugals and Venices one by one
I agree with the point, we tend to form game-long alliances, and so am not in favour of totally removing the nation ranking system, though I don't think that's a flaw in the system, it's us mostly playing it safe as long as possible.
Yes, this, or at least limit the amount of player alliances to 1 for example. For the entire duration of the game.
Thats going to end the same way though, the biggest two players ally, the rest cant ally another player, so they have no chance against the winning alliance.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
That's not how our alliances work. Usually what happens is the two strongest players don't want to fight each other because they're the strongest, so they ally each other and then beat up everyone else. See: toma/fanboi in session 3, Fitz/Kabouter in session 5.
I think that could be pretty interesting.
How again was I one of the 2 strongest players in any session we played?
I was admittedly piggy backing on the strongest players of course (Fitz and KingSnake this time), since you have no chance to get anything done if the others have those alliances instead of yourself.
How again was I one of the 2 strongest players in any session we played?
I was admittedly piggy backing on the strongest players of course (Fitz and KingSnake this time), since you have no chance to get anything done if the others have those alliances instead of yourself.
Just proven by my game.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It's a general problem with EU4. There's no such thing as a swift war with quick conclusions. Any war will be total war, and big powers win total wars, so you never ally against big powers. Not really sure what we can do about it that wouldn't be really contrived, aside from try and keep people at roughly the same 'power level' as long as possible. That's what our ranking system does. It functioned really well in the 4th session and wasn't too bad in this system aside from the fact that the Timurids were critically underrated. I mean, we made it to what, 1680ish, iirc? The 3rd session ended in the 1540s after the crushing dominance of the Russo-Catalan alliance, so the rankings are a definite improvement. I think they just need a little more scrutiny.
Oh, then not interested. If it's just about mechanics, then I'll just play SP, which at speed 5 is more fun then
But feel free to play that without me of course.
Edit: I'll just play in the next 'normal' game whenever that is in August or whatever
. Wouldn't be too bad to get a short break from competitive EU4 games anyway.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Not sure about only OPMs, but I'm hella up for a no alliances game.
Depending on the province, a custom nation OPM can be super strong.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Oh, didn't realize we were still talking custom nations.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
If we're doing custom nations, we go all in. 200 points, random base tax values, random dynamic nations, Final Destination.
You vs me in teakwood
Let's do this!
It's nice to want things
Also, got most ratings in now. Just need ratings from Toma, Gamma, and mgo
With the words of a famous dutch philosopher:
It's nice to want things
So, everyone who's in for the interim (unranked) game cool with a full random world? That is, random province values, random custom AI nations, and we'll all create our own custom 200 point nations on the first session, then play as usual until A)The patch is out next month and everything breaks, B)People are ready for next proper session or C) Armageddon. We can start either this Sunday, or next Wednesday, no point waiting around, just a quick mess about session.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I'm in.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
They are pretty similar. I might be wrong, but iirc Resistance was designed as a direct response to Mafia. Resistance has some advantages, but I think it's much less flexible as a format.
I'm in.
I am also in.
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
I think I'm just going to practice Jigglypuff in Smash
I have never ever played with custom nations, and I'm ready for a break anyway
glhf though!
I have never ever played with custom nations, and I'm ready for a break anyway
glhf though!
The more the merrier, we'll start an interim custom nation game soon (people prefer this coming Sunday or Wednesday?), which will likely not be too many players, then another standard game sometime after the next big update. Bear in mind we're mostly on Euro time though, we typically play at 8pm - 10pm Sundays, and from 8.30 on Wednesdays.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll