Multiplayer Capability in V2?

[Johan]

Hmm, already getting Experimental Railroads. Also, East Prussia as Russian just looks strange.

It looks perfectly great.. .

well, i want to get railroads, its pretty much always an awesome thing to have, so its my #2 tech to research unless i already Freedom of Trade.

 

[Tegus]

wait a sec....
Kaiser King left
Monsieur King entered

?

are you guys having several profiles or is it another dynamical thing that has passed straight above my head?

King was trying to get to play Prussia but Doomdark snatched it before him, so naturally he had to rename his nick.

 

[King]

wait a sec....
Kaiser King left
Monsieur King entered

?

are you guys having several profiles or is it another dynamical thing that has passed straight above my head?

Someone had taken Prussia already

 

[podcat]

I see you give us the stats of the nations on the list on the left. It looks like GB is best in everything but military, who is best in military? He isn't even in the top 12! Is it china?

Btw awesome set up. I really like it!

yeah I think its china.

 

[King]

Why do you guys prefer Two Sicilies? It was Sardinia-Piedmont that unified Italy, not Two Sicilies. But in Vicky I, Two Sicilies always exceeded Sardinia economically and militarily. Now is Two Sicilies again the chosen one in Vic II?

No, it was that Aerie had manged to make the Two Scillies a great power so they now had a shot at being Italy.

 

[Johan]

So how did it work with China in an MP game? In Victoria 1 China wasn't really possible to play in MP. If China managed to civilize, it was an absolute monster (and in something like 1890s/1900s we ran out of POP tags and tha game became literally unplayable due to constant crashes). If the others prevented it from civilizing, it would have made a very boring game for the player of China.

Johan's comments sound like that even if China managed to civilize, it wouldn't be able to properly industrialize and modernize too fast. That would certainly be good, China might actually be playable in MP without it being extremely unbalancing.

We didn't exactly play until the end, but just tested some things in MP.

 

[King]

Wondering... aren't you concerned about an 'early game bias'? Since when you test the game you'll naturally start from the beginning, which makes it much more likely you'll notice imbalances in the early years. Decisions, technologies or other situations in the late game that may be unbalanced or buggy you might notice far less because you or testers often don't end up playing a game that long.

We weren't really testing balance, we were looking sync issues, interface bugs and things like that.

 

[King]

Well historically, they weren't. But of course a capable human can alter the course of history in this respect; that's what this game is all about .

Aerie managed to clock up 70 bad boy taking out Italian Minors. I had a free CB against him for that, but decided it was more in my interest to help him instead of attacking him.

 

[King]

I'm not sure whether this is kindness or cruelty... All sorts of new insights into the game, but not getting to play it for another month...

Thanks, I think

Especially the brief glimpse of SP diplomatic maneuverings. That sure beats POP tweaking.

Only if you are a great power, otherwise you've got something to aim for.

 

[King]

Not to mention I get the feeling that there will be real maneuvering between the GPs, as they try to grab SoI's and take nations away from the influence of their enemies. Should be a lot of fun.

Especially for Union Tags, if you get all the cores either owned by you or in your sphere you can form the Union. So both Prussia and Austria have a damn good reason to fight over the German minors and France too has a reason to play spoiler. The same with Austria should one of the Italian state become a GP, if you can hold some of the Italian minors out of their sphere you can make the logic for a war over Lombardy less compelling.

 

[Trin Tragula]

Mugahstan wouldnt be terrible for a liberal nationalist union
maybe it could be formable by moslem states from the north but not as a pan-nationalist rebellion
Maybe Hindustan, it was quite popular during the time, atleast in english newspaper editorials

Hindusthan is what the Mughals called their empire and is a persian name for India so that would make sense atleast for a muslim dominated indian state. I still prefer the actual name "India" for a unification myself though as that's what it got to be called by europeans when it actually formed a few decades after victoria ends (well Bharat would be more correct and works too but would look odd in an imperialist style anglophone map imho).
Also while the Mughals refered to themselves as emperors of Hindusthan and europeans tended to refer to all of India as Hindusthan it's really a term for just the doab region in northern India originally so there's some room for confusion if the term is used.