Europa Universalis IV announced

[Anatron]

Any chance for a languish MP?

[Liep]

Any chance for a languish MP?

I'll be up for it.

[Zanza]

I would try it, but I can't really imagine that EU4 lends itself well to multiplayer as I enjoy it (e.g. Starcraft, Diablo 3 or so).

[Anatron]

I would try it, but I can't really imagine that EU4 lends itself well to multiplayer as I enjoy it (e.g. Starcraft, Diablo 3 or so).

I was fun in eu3 with a good team.Was less fun in eu4 with cheaters and trolls.
I hope a langusih game would be different then a paradox forum game where Mamluks was allied with Ottomans for example.

[crazy canuck]

I would try it, but I can't really imagine that EU4 lends itself well to multiplayer as I enjoy it (e.g. Starcraft, Diablo 3 or so).

Anyone who enjoys Diablo 3 is beyond redemption.

[DGuller]

I think the biggest problem with Languish EU MP games is that we don't have enough players, and thus most PvP conflicts are unnecessary.  You don't really need to fight other players for resources, the only rational motive for war is to knock back someone who jumped too far ahead.  I really wish we could have a Euro-centric map, which ends at Urals/Sahara/Atlantic Ocean;  yes, that would cut out the exploration bits, which were integral to history back then, but those are boring anyway and just relieve pressure from PvP conflicts.

[Zanza]

Anyone who enjoys Diablo 3 is beyond redemption.

I enjoyed it for a while and played it quite a bit with friends online. Didn't touch it ever since though.

[Shade]

As always I am down for a MP at the right time I do think either A) having a multitude of players (12+) or B) making a more narrow focused game would make it more fast paced and enjoyable.

[Anatron]

As always I am down for a MP at the right time I do think either A) having a multitude of players (12+) or B) making a more narrow focused game would make it more fast paced and enjoyable.

As I see we are 4 now if we could have 4 more then we could play.8-12 player is enough for multy.What time you guys prefer?

I can join at weekends (prefer Sunday):

CET:        14:00 ~ 22:00

EST/EDT :  8:00 ~ 16:00

[Solmyr]

I think the biggest problem with Languish EU MP games is that we don't have enough players, and thus most PvP conflicts are unnecessary.  You don't really need to fight other players for resources, the only rational motive for war is to knock back someone who jumped too far ahead.  I really wish we could have a Euro-centric map, which ends at Urals/Sahara/Atlantic Ocean;  yes, that would cut out the exploration bits, which were integral to history back then, but those are boring anyway and just relieve pressure from PvP conflicts.

We had plenty of conflicts in our EU3 games.

And I'd be up for a game if the time is right and if Habs is in it.

[Anatron]

Considering the eu4 is not motivating important powers to fight against eachother (like Austria and Ottomans) i think we should add rules about victory conditions.

For example:

Every player if wants to win the multyplayer game must collect victory points.What does it mean?We can add different goals for each major powers,if they reach it , the GM add victory points for them.For example:

Austria goals:

Victory points owning provinces:

+1 point for each provinces in the HRE

+5 point for each province in Hungary or the Balkans

+2 point for each provinces in Bohemia and Poland.

+3 point for each provinces in Italy

+100 point removing Ottomans from Europe.

Ottomans:

+ 5 points after each provinces in Hungary.

+2 poitns after each christian provinces.

+5 points for each provinces in Austria.

+50 point annexing Mamluks.

These are my ideas.But you guys can think about more.The main idea,we have to motivate players to not do crazy things like Austrian-Ottoman alliance.

[DGuller]

And that highlights the second big problem of EU MP games, this time not exclusive to Languish.  There are no victory conditions, and where this hurts the game is that some powers who just by the nature of their setup can't be the biggest bully on the block decide to hitch their wagon to the strongest power (*cough* Solmyr *cough*).  That kills the balance of power.

[Solmyr]

When did I do that? 

And you are painting a far grimmer picture about our MP games than I recall. I recall people having fun, even if PvP wasn't always perfectly balanced and even if someone went off to conquer places elsewhere on the map. Do we really need some rigid victory conditions and perfect balance to enjoy ourselves?

[DGuller]

When did I do that? 

One quick example is when Alci played France, and you played Spain.  France needed to be contained to keep the game balanced, and Brandenburg/Austria/Italy were willing to do that on the other side of it, but after one lost war you basically gave up on that and played for second place.

And you are painting a far grimmer picture about our MP games than I recall. I recall people having fun, even if PvP wasn't always perfectly balanced and even if someone went off to conquer places elsewhere on the map. Do we really need some rigid victory conditions and perfect balance to enjoy ourselves?

No question that we did have some fun, in some games more than others, but at the same time the fun was limited by those factors.

[Zanza]

As always I am down for a MP at the right time I do think either A) having a multitude of players (12+) or B) making a more narrow focused game would make it more fast paced and enjoyable.

As I see we are 4 now if we could have 4 more then we could play.8-12 player is enough for multy.What time you guys prefer?

I can join at weekends (prefer Sunday):

CET:        14:00 ~ 22:00

EST/EDT :  8:00 ~ 16:00

I would be willing to try it this Sunday and then decide if I enjoy it enough to keep on playing.