Any interest in multiplayer grand strategy? - EU IV, Stellaris, CK2, etc

[mindlessobserver]

Been a big fan of of Paradoxes grand strategy games for years, but I can't help feeling it would be way more fun to play against actual opponents. Thing is, the games are very autistic and with a niche user base and take a long time to play out. Which means that they would have to happen at scheduled times on scheduled days over the course of a few weeks/months. So.....does this interest people around here at all? The way I am thinking is figuring out one or two days in the week when we can all get together to play for a couple of hours and see who's strategy autism is stronger.

 

[The Flawless Gazelles]

playing them online is not fun. the breaks because another player has to think, deal with events etc. making it impossible to have a kind of flow every game needs. having to pause in your single player game is fine, because you have no pointless downtime.

 

[OB 946]

There's communities that are dedicated to large multiplayer Paradox games. The rules are autistic and bad. The games themselves are total dogshit for multiplayer because there is an optimal way to do everything. If you don't follow the exact optimal path you will lose and be banned from playing games in the future. Now you may be saying that's fine you'll just play with people who aren't as sweaty, but if one person does the optimal thing he will absolutely mop the floor with every other person in the game.

Hoi4 is the most egregious example. There is an optimal division build and an optimal doctrine path. If you do anything that isn't 7/2 or 14/4 infantry artillery with fire support doctrine there literally is no point in playing the game. Not to mention that naval combat is broken because win% is slaved to war support, which make no sense. What that means is that someone with tier 4 destroyers and cruisers and battleships will lose to someone with tier 1 stuff if they guy with tier 1 stuff has higher war support. It's a meme. Paradox games are broken shitheaps.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Yeah, I've not done paradox multiplayer before. And the few communities I have looked at were very autistic with lots of irl rules (you must show up, etc etc)

 

[Wallace]

Afraid the only thing I'm any good at is Civ 5.

 

[NeverHappened]

You got to play with a bunch of mods so no meta is known. A modset might even be good for 2 games!

 

[OB 946]

You got to play with a bunch of mods so no meta is known. A modset might even be good for 2 games!

The only time multiplayer Paradox games are fun is when you are playing with a group of close friends that roleplay effectively. It can be fun then and only then.

 

[millais]

I remember this free grand strategy browser game that managed the multiplayer aspect very well. It was like a cross between Diplomacy and HOI, but set in WWI. They ran the matches locked to realtime, ie it takes 2 weeks for an expeditionary force to cross the Atlantic, several days for a division to cover the distance between say Paris and Brussels if traveling on foot with no opposition. Battles might take days to weeks to resolve depending on the forces involved, and same thing for construction of infrastructure/fortifications/railway guns/dreadnoughts. So you only had to log in once every 2-3 days to issue orders, check up on your trade deals and diplomatic develpments, etc. Very laid back and chill, though occasionally with very close-fought battles and cascading diplomatic crises you might have to log in twice in a day to steal a march over an opponent.

 

[OB 946]

I remember this free grand strategy browser game that managed the multiplayer aspect very well. It was like a cross between Diplomacy and HOI, but set in WWI. They ran the matches locked to realtime, ie it takes 2 weeks for an expeditionary force to cross the Atlantic, several days for a division to cover the distance between say Paris and Brussels if traveling on foot with no opposition. Battles might take days to weeks to resolve depending on the forces involved, and same thing for construction of infrastructure/fortifications/railway guns/dreadnoughts. So you only had to log in once every 2-3 days to issue orders, check up on your trade deals and diplomatic develpments, etc. Very laid back and chill, though occasionally with very close-fought battles and cascading diplomatic crises you might have to log in twice in a day to steal a march over an opponent.

Supremacy1914. It's still active and they've added a ton of content over the last decade.

 

[millais]

Supremacy1914. It's still active and they've added a ton of content over the last decade.

That's the one! I did not play it for almost 10 years now, but back in the day I very much liked the simplified "research", logistics, and diplomatic system that makes it much easier compared to HOI to start wars and get into the thick of the fighting from the start, instead of spending much of the early game in HOI style "1936-1939 peacetime buildup".

I guess the only weird thing about it is the ahistorical breakup of North American, Russia, and North Africa into balkanized states to make more playable nations of equal strength in the larger sized game map. The classic, smaller Western Europe map is always there for the people who want a more authentic historical feel, though.

I very much enjoyed the Diplomacy style backstabbing and cloak-and-dagger dealmaking, where often you never really know which alliances are real and when your erstwhile allies will turn on you.