Because Hope Springs Eternal: Languish EU3 MP thread

[Alcibiades]

I'd prefer majors, earlier start the better imo.

And the new expansion appears to be worth it, the AI is a real pain in the ass and actually does logical stuff now.   

[FunkMonk]

Well I just bought the expansion so that gets my vote, and an HRE electorate game sounds most intriguing to me.

[Kleves]

Alright, I bought H3T as well now, so I suppose we'll be using that. Now we just need to decide on the scenario.

[Habbaku]

Indeed; let's get some voting in, eh?

I vote : electorates, 1399.

[Kleves]

I'd like to try playing the electors, but I'm not sure how viable the ecclesiastic electors are.

[Tamas]

One of the beauties of the game is that you can't really predict what will happen. I mean, you certainly can when the majors are human controlled but otherwise... One thing is sure we don't want to play some one or two province minors. So given the number of us, maybe it should be "major electors and their neighbors" like Poland, Hungary, Burgundy perhaps?

Or we could just play western majors either in 1399 or 1453. How about in 1399: England, France, Castille, Aragon, Burgundy, Austria, and either Milan or Portugal? That would mean constant human interaction, well except for maybe Austria.

[Kleves]

Well, I'm not sure how much point there is to having just some of us play electors. Is it possible to edit game file like it was with EU2? We could increase the size of the archbishoprics to make them more viable.

[Slargos]

Playing the electorates could prove for an amusing game, though I think it might also be a short one unless the majority of the electors band together to smack down anyone who grows too large since they are all so small it will only require seizing 5-6 good provinces and you're suddenly going to dominate the rest of the field.

I'm in.

I guess it's still not possible to manually vote for the HRE?

[Solmyr]

I could go for either choice, but I'm not in any way a pro at EU3 so my electorate would likely fail horribly.

[katmai]

I can volunteer as a sub since I can make the occasional game, but I'd be lying to you guys and myself to say i'd be there every sunday at 7am

[Habbaku]

Or we could just play western majors either in 1399 or 1453. How about in 1399: England, France, Castille, Aragon, Burgundy, Austria, and either Milan or Portugal? That would mean constant human interaction, well except for maybe Austria.

Thinking over it again, it might be best if we went ahead and played a bunch of majors.  I am wary of placing two PCs in control of Castille/Aragon, though--doesn't that practically guarantee that one of them will try to smash the other to create Spain?

[Tamas]

Or we could just play western majors either in 1399 or 1453. How about in 1399: England, France, Castille, Aragon, Burgundy, Austria, and either Milan or Portugal? That would mean constant human interaction, well except for maybe Austria.

Thinking over it again, it might be best if we went ahead and played a bunch of majors.  I am wary of placing two PCs in control of Castille/Aragon, though--doesn't that practically guarantee that one of them will try to smash the other to create Spain?

Well, I THINK that the only advantage of being Spain is Spain-specific National Decisions - one could check the files for what those exactly are. But in 1399, altough Aragon could be crushed under a joint Castilian-French effort, it is by no way chance-less, and Aragon has some potential to march up Italy as well.
Speaking of Italy, how about Naples instead of Aragon?

[Habbaku]

Depends on how many players we have, really.  I think parking someone as Naples gets away from the interaction that we should be looking for amongst the powers, though.  Aragon/Castille both being PC nations would, I think, lead to too much interaction--what is the likelihood that those two would cooperate the entire game?

[Tamas]

Depends on how many players we have, really.  I think parking someone as Naples gets away from the interaction that we should be looking for amongst the powers, though.  Aragon/Castille both being PC nations would, I think, lead to too much interaction--what is the likelihood that those two would cooperate the entire game?

Well, if played without arbitary rules to constrain themselves, I am pretty sure it will come to them ultimately fighting for Iberian supremacy, as inheritance will be out of question due to them both being humans. However, I would think that by the time there is a clear loser, another influental power will rise which can be taken over by him.

I think the Castille-Aragon-France-England-Burgundy grouping of humans will surely cause constant human interaction with somewhat shifting allegiances, which should be fun, but only we accept that one or two of us may need to switch mid-game due to being stomped by the others. The question is where to put the other two players. Portugal is iffy but could be done. Austria is also fine but limited interaction, and a very good chance early game to farm imperial authority and run away with the game.

I think the other possibility is 1492, really. Then you can do a classic Spain, Portugal, France, England, Austria, Russia, Ottomans thing.

[Alcibiades]

I'm really not sure that would be really necessary.  I mean, look at Eu2 games, albeit I've never bothered playing Eu3 in mp, by 1550 from a 1492 nearly everyone is interacting.  I don't necessarily think bunching everyone together is a must.