-
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 Hotjoining for Glory
- Thread starter Toma
- Start date
- Status
My most proud moment in this game was when i lured your troops into mine
I had a feeling they were there but I didn't want to play another attrition war since my WE was so high so I took a gamble that not all your troops were there. But yeah well played. You meanies beating up on the peaceful Swedes
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
As ZZMitch said, it's just for fun. I have no real interest in territorial acquisition. I just wanted to get into a big war with another player. Most EU4 multiplayer games are far more ruthless; in the weekly Paradox developer sessions, for example, most players will have no problem outright annexing others.
You know, I went through annexation once in this game, that's quite enough for me :+
France will burn.
Given that fanboi is at war in a PvP war, should we maybe wait for him? Doesn't seem reasonable otherwise at this stage in the game.
Yeah that's fine too
Yeah, he's at war with mgo as well
You got a date? :3
Nah, work stuff. Meeting with my partner, discussing our future endevors.
So as Kabouter told you guys, my son didnt want to sleep tonight, and I wasnt able to join. We are in the middle of learning him to fall asleep without his pacifier, so that means he is spending way more time, and I missed this session.
It was nice of Mgo to peace out with me. I guess it was a stalemate anyways, but it was probably the best solution the way the war developed, even though to be honest, he played way better than me in that particular war. Saved by my allies.
Anyways, my main point here is that I feel kinda done with the game now. The globe is almost completely carved up, ZZ is locked behind a very strong alliance, Halys is dead, Kingsnake is a colossus on clay feet, and I am loosing my motivation. Fanboi can still conquer some very expensive to core provinces in China, Mgo needs to unify islam and Kabouter is leading the game - but in the end I think its quite clear that Kabouter and Mgo have been the huge winners here, and I dont think that will change from now untill 1821 - which is why I suggest its time to start over. Either another game of Europa Universalis, or maybe try something like CK2. I am up for anything.
And I think I am happy with how peace have prospered from the Adriatic down to the Aegean and the Black Sea via Caucasus to the Caspian through Turkestan, Hindukush, the Himalayas, Gobi and through Manchuria all the way to the Pacific and even beyond to Sakhalin and Hokaido - and then all the way back through Kamshaka, Bering, the Arctics and Kola, down again through Karelia to the Baltics and straight to Vistula and Oder with a small enclavement in the Sudetens and back down the Carpatians around the great Magyar Plains, up Donau and back to the Adriatic coast - while not even talking about all the peaceful regions, nations and people that dwell between.
It was nice of Mgo to peace out with me. I guess it was a stalemate anyways, but it was probably the best solution the way the war developed, even though to be honest, he played way better than me in that particular war. Saved by my allies.
Anyways, my main point here is that I feel kinda done with the game now. The globe is almost completely carved up, ZZ is locked behind a very strong alliance, Halys is dead, Kingsnake is a colossus on clay feet, and I am loosing my motivation. Fanboi can still conquer some very expensive to core provinces in China, Mgo needs to unify islam and Kabouter is leading the game - but in the end I think its quite clear that Kabouter and Mgo have been the huge winners here, and I dont think that will change from now untill 1821 - which is why I suggest its time to start over. Either another game of Europa Universalis, or maybe try something like CK2. I am up for anything.
And I think I am happy with how peace have prospered from the Adriatic down to the Aegean and the Black Sea via Caucasus to the Caspian through Turkestan, Hindukush, the Himalayas, Gobi and through Manchuria all the way to the Pacific and even beyond to Sakhalin and Hokaido - and then all the way back through Kamshaka, Bering, the Arctics and Kola, down again through Karelia to the Baltics and straight to Vistula and Oder with a small enclavement in the Sudetens and back down the Carpatians around the great Magyar Plains, up Donau and back to the Adriatic coast - while not even talking about all the peaceful regions, nations and people that dwell between.
I don't really know how to play as CK2, I start as a random duke, 100 years into it, I'm generally still a random duke, only now with shittier stats :+. That said, if everyone wants to go for a CK2 game instead of an EU4 game, I guess I'd be willing to try. I think I would prefer a new EU4 game though, but I would prefer it if we could get more players this time.
Oh, and as far as stopping goes, I'm fine with whatever the majority wants. I think it's mostly gotten stagnant too, but if people are eager to continue, I'm not going to stand in anyone's way and will continue.
Oh, and as far as stopping goes, I'm fine with whatever the majority wants. I think it's mostly gotten stagnant too, but if people are eager to continue, I'm not going to stand in anyone's way and will continue.
I'm fine either way. I cover my clay feet in money anyhow.
I would really love to try a CK II multiplayer game. But I could play also another EU game. I think we should avoid the big nations to make it more fun. Also for the CK II we can set up a rule to start as a count or a duke maximum.
I would really love to try a CK II multiplayer game. But I could play also another EU game. I think we should avoid the big nations to make it more fun. Also for the CK II we can set up a rule to start as a count or a duke maximum.
About the CK2 that was just a suggestion because I, like Kabouter describes, tend to start a Duke (or something) and then 100 years later still be a random Duke but with way worse stats, and would therefore think that a mp-game would be a good way to learn the mechanics, just like this game have more or less learnt me how to play EU4. But I am fine either way.
I also strongly agree that we should try to get as many players as possible, and that both close friends and people from the first game and the OT should be pursued for recruitment. I also have no problem continuing - I just felt it was time to voice this to start to at least prepare people mentally that the current game should soon be over. And I think the deciding factor in which game we chooses should be what we can get most people to join.
And btw Kingsnake, last I checked I was like sixth in points or something, so while you may have clayu feets, you definitely had a better game than me
I also strongly agree that we should try to get as many players as possible, and that both close friends and people from the first game and the OT should be pursued for recruitment. I also have no problem continuing - I just felt it was time to voice this to start to at least prepare people mentally that the current game should soon be over. And I think the deciding factor in which game we chooses should be what we can get most people to join.
And btw Kingsnake, last I checked I was like sixth in points or something, so while you may have clayu feets, you definitely had a better game than me
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
1. I would prefer to go another one or two sessions in the current game. We aren't going to start the next one for at least a few more weeks anyway.
2. CK2 multiplayer is really fun and chaotic, but don't expect to do very well. If you have trouble with realm management in single player, then it's much, much harder in multiplayer, where you can't really pause and maximize or perfect everything.
3. If we play EU4 instead, then we wouldn't start until after Wealth of Nations, and that doesn't have a release date yet.
2. CK2 multiplayer is really fun and chaotic, but don't expect to do very well. If you have trouble with realm management in single player, then it's much, much harder in multiplayer, where you can't really pause and maximize or perfect everything.
3. If we play EU4 instead, then we wouldn't start until after Wealth of Nations, and that doesn't have a release date yet.
If we do start a CK2 game, someone will pretty much have to walk me through it as we go. I just don't know how to progress in that game.
Someone else will have to host, I have almost no CK2 DLC. I can host any future EU4 game we play, since I'll probably end up buying Wealth of Nations.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
I would prefer to start at the 867 date (more opportunities to advance, no HRE) and allow players to choose both kings and dukes, but not both in the same realm. What does everyone else think about the starting rules?
I have most of the DLC except for Rajas of India and a few of the face and sprite packs. However, I probably wouldn't be a very good host.
I have most of the DLC except for Rajas of India and a few of the face and sprite packs. However, I probably wouldn't be a very good host.
Good rules.
Also, we need to settle war rules as well so we don't end up with meaningless waiting.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
You mean between players? 100% war score is a lot more trivial than it is in EU4. Occupying a war goal (assuming it's a single county or duchy) along with winning a few big battles is usually sufficient to achieve 100%. Full scale occupation is almost never necessary. On the other hand, players should be encouraged to give in if it's obvious they've lost, assuming the victory conditions aren't too onerous.
I like 867 as a starting date. I would rather not want to have kings as an option because then everyone will chose kings to have a better chance and the game will turn into a bublefest quite quick (the same as our current EU game), but if everyone wants this, I'm fine with it.
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
That depends upon the starting position. A shah or sultan could blob very quickly, but the Christian kings in the 867 start aren't particularly strong (unless you amass all those Karling-held titles under one ream). A pagan duke in 867 is probably stronger than a Christian king. In addition, anyone who starts as a king will probably have to deal with factions immediately. If they are Christian, then they will have weak CBs and their levies will be small.
Edit: I assume everyone would be okay if the Magyars are off limits?
Edit: I assume everyone would be okay if the Magyars are off limits?
East Francia, Bavaria, Italy, Byzantium and even Burgundy are quite strong. Anyhow much stronger than some duke. Italy and Byzantium might be prone to civil wars and factions, but when that's not happening they will blop the hell out of it.
I dont know the game at all, so I think I just want to play someone small so that I can get a grasp on stuff. Hopefully not that close (or as vassal off) the seemingly amazing players like Mgo
Yeah, I'll just be some random count or duke please. Maybe try Gelre or Holland.
Can use this thread from now on (CK2):
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=109562590#post109562590
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=109562590#post109562590
Lol, you trying again I see?
At one point there has to be a game where I don't get killed/annexed in the first twenty years.
I think I will try some hardcore game too, maybe the Wallachian count.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll