"The Even Greater Game" — Sundays, 19:00 CET

[King John]

Well, I'm not particular about either. I've only played a few games, mostly on 1399s, and one SP run on a 1453-not enough to have a strong opinion either way. To me, it seemed the 1453 set everything on a more historical path, but that was with AI everywhere. I'm certainly fine going with 1399. Just to avoid waffling back and forth, in case there are other words coming forth about it, I'll give it a day or two before setting it in stone.

And what silktrader said, CEST.

[Helox]

As i am new to all multiplayer stuff i am hoping for a somewhat non important country i can screw up but my prefs are:

Moscowy
Sweden
Poland
Ottomans

If it is ok and we get more players i would prefer playing something less important...
As for the time i think i gonna go on safemode and be on the metaserver one hour earlier.

[silktrader]

The metaserver's rather unreliable, we may need to connect via direct IP. Those who are new to multiplayer could check past campaigns' saved games, they're quite informative. You may see which buildings were preferred, manpower levels, slider setups, enabled decisions and shunned national ideas — some combinations are (sadly) no-brainers, and require immediate attention and priority in multiplayer.

[King John]

Ah, right. Well, for connecting to one another, I think we're actually gong to need to use a software to bypass networks. I don't have internet at home for another month and a half, when I move, and thus rely on coffee shop internet, which tends to always have the necessary ports closed. I suppose the odds are I'm not the only one with some kind of network problem at the monent(there always seem to be 2-3, in my experience). The old standard software for this has been hamachi, but since HG has had a problem getting it to work lately, we've been using Tunngle, http://www.tunngle.com/.

[silktrader]

Ah, right. Well, for connecting to one another, I think we're actually gong to need to use a software to bypass networks. I don't have internet at home for another month and a half, when I move, and thus rely on coffee shop internet, which tends to always have the necessary ports closed. I suppose the odds are I'm not the only one with some kind of network problem at the monent(there always seem to be 2-3, in my experience). The old standard software for this has been hamachi, but since HG has had a problem getting it to work lately, we've been using Tunngle, http://www.tunngle.com/.

The host is the only player who needs to open his ports to both incoming and outgoing traffic. I know Hamachi, or other VPN solutions, were necessary with EU2. Frankly, it's redundant with EU3, as it introduces latency and other issues. Putting aside "Sands of Time II", not one campaign listed in the first page actually relies on Hamachi or its ilk. The most convincing argument is a test: I could host, you would find out whether you have issues connecting. I won't be able to host regularly though, as I will be travelling where I expect to connect wirelessly.

[King John]

The host is the only player who needs to open his ports to both incoming and outgoing traffic. I know Hamachi, or other VPN solutions, were necessary with EU2. Frankly, it's redundant with EU3, as it introduces latency and other issues. Putting aside "Sands of Time II", not one campaign listed in the first page actually relies on Hamachi or its ilk. The most convincing argument is a test: I could host, you would find out whether you have issues connecting. I won't be able to host regularly though, as I will be travelling where I expect to connect wirelessly.

Ahhh. Ok. Do you use ICQ, or how should I reach you? I could do a test now if you're still online. My icq number is 225570338, if you use that, or something compatible.

[TheArchduke]

Hey, Archduke! Nice to see another hoary old veteran! At this point, I can safely say it'll be a 19 CET Sunday game.

Exactly the reason Silktrader pointed my old, grumbly self to this thread. Most of the Eu2 players I knew never made the transition.

19 CET Sunday sounds perfect. We can make it earlier as well, but basically it is fine.

I have no country preference as I have not played anything long enough to matter in MP.

[admiral drake]

i would prefer 1399 to tbh, i never tryd a early start like this, stil have to buy the last expansion to i think hmmm got to fix that after work
ill have to take a look tonight/tomorrow what my preferences

and i can host

[Mac1]

Will it be on 5.1 or 5.2 beta ?

[silktrader]

Ahhh. Ok. Do you use ICQ, or how should I reach you? I could do a test now if you're still online. My icq number is 225570338, if you use that, or something compatible.

I've stopped using ICQ when I started growing pubic hair, King Johnsaurus. Like all the cool kids these days, I use MSN or Google Talk. My handle is simply my nickname @hotmail.com, or @gmail.com.

I don't know whether King John or Admiral Drake can access the public beta section, for registration requirements are strict. As Mac1 remarks though, there's a beta patch which alters quite a few things and adds some features. While it's an improvement over stock 5.1 in many regards, it hasn't been tested extensively in multiplayer (I couldn't notice stability issues). It won't be finalised by the time we start.

[Mac1]

I've stopped using ICQ when I started growing pubic hair, King Johnsaurus. Like all the cool kids these days, I use MSN or Google Talk. My handle is simply my nickname @hotmail.com, or @gmail.com.

I don't know whether King John or Admiral Drake can access the public beta section, for registration requirements are strict. As Mac1 remarks though, there's a beta patch which alters quite a few things and adds some features. While it's an improvement over stock 5.1 in many regards, it hasn't been tested extensively in multiplayer (I couldn't notice stability issues). It won't be finalised by the time we start.

When it will be finalized , anybody knows ?

The patch changes maaaany things, so starting on 5.1 and moving then to 5.2 can have critical cirumstances. And playing whole campaign on 5.1 if 5.2 comes soon may be bad idea as well.
About stability issues, I already play a campaign on beta patch. I noticed probably some more OOS issues, than before. Usually need everyone to clear cache before game and this not always guarantee lack of OOS, but helps.
Except OOS problems there are no more issues, I noticed.

[K'shar]

Curses this shitty labtop me wants in now!

[King John]

Hmmm. Well, 5.1 seems pretty good to me, even if there are some nice improvements on the way. I think we ought to stick with it for this game- enjoy the next patch when we know all the issues are ironed out. The OOS issues seem like they could be a tad annoying.

K'shar, what's your laptop specs? Maybe so long as you're not hosting and have the graphics set low, you'll be alright.

[K'shar]

Truuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuust me buddy hehe. This works out best anyhow, you have a nightmare of a first game, and by the time you get all the kinks ironed out i'll be rdy to come in and spank you game 2

[King John]

Or it'll be the game that everybody talks about for generations. Would you take that chance?

Lets talk about rules now. It's come to my attention that the land-naval slider may not be any more balanced here than it was in Eu2, due to resultant excessive manpower for those who veer land, causing it to be almost irrelevant after sufficient MP boosting buildings have been constructed. It may be a little early to start applying these rules, what with many of us playing the game in mp for the first time, but I want to bring it up all the same, to put out for consideration in case we'd like to lock it in at five or even toward full naval, to make manpower and thus attrition and combat losses as relevant as possible.

[admiral drake]

Or it'll be the game that everybody talks about for generations. Would you take that chance?

Lets talk about rules now. It's come to my attention that the land-naval slider may not be any more balanced here than it was in Eu2, due to resultant excessive manpower for those who veer land, causing it to be almost irrelevant after sufficient MP boosting buildings have been constructed. It may be a little early to start applying these rules, what with many of us playing the game in mp for the first time, but I want to bring it up all the same, to put out for consideration in case we'd like to lock it in at five or even toward full naval, to make manpower and thus attrition and combat losses as relevant as possible.

unles they fixed it, you can basicle crash the game by fielding a 2000ship fleet so your not able to really use the advantage very well of going naval in my opinion and it used to be really laggy to move such big fleets arround to(and a nightmare to split the taskforce)and note i tryd it in mp as denmark once,
altho its nice that nobody can try to take control of the sund by force without crashing the game its stil fairly gamebreaking to go naval vs land(wich can use its full potential)

[silktrader]

Synchronisation and stability issues derived from large naval stacks were fixed in Divine Wind. There now is an ulterior reason not to feature these large fleets: they're completely ineffectual, due to naval positioning.

[admiral drake]

Synchronisation and stability issues derived from large naval stacks were fixed in Divine Wind. There now is an ulterior reason not to feature these large fleets: they're completely ineffectual, due to naval positioning.

good to know

[Grimtaz]

If there are any spots left, I'd love to join. I've only played multiplayer over LAN before, so would be a first for me. But I'm nice, on time and like to think of myself as a somewhat capable player (:

I can play whichever nation you have left to fill the spot for.

I own the game through Steam. Would this pose a problem?

[silktrader]

I own the game through Steam. Would this pose a problem?

No.

Your checksum needs to be the standard one, that is BJLT. The bottom left corner, in the starting screen, informs you what the checksum is.