What Would a Multiplayer Game Look Like?

[kylejames99]

What happened to the old "i pick this and you pick that and let' have some fun" ? My idea of MP session is not a half day debate about some arbitrary rules...but maybe it's just me...

Well as someone who has played lots of EU4 multiplayer I can confirm that letting players go however they want always leads to like 6 people playing non-European nations and never actually interacting by the time the game ends. I think that simply setting some very (VERY) basic guidelines to countries would be appropriate to prevent the match from getting boring or people from raging quitting. The most fun match is when all the major powers are humans.

 

[JerkyJerry]

Just over 30 more days to wait to find out!

 

[Novatheorem]

Yeah but there are 7 majors and 32 player limit? Some will pick China or Australia etc and will not allow Japan to just expand with uncontrollably.

I have literally NEVER been able to play a game with more than 5 people with any level of reliability. If I lived in a dorm-room type scenario, maybe. Or, if I can get a group to rent out my local gaming bar, maybe. Other than that - pretty much NEVER going to happen. So, the likelihood of the Japan player getting checked by another player is slim to none unless we put limitations around what countries players can and can't choose (which isn't very much fun).

 

[Dichologos]

I have literally NEVER been able to play a game with more than 5 people with any level of reliability. If I lived in a dorm-room type scenario, maybe. Or, if I can get a group to rent out my local gaming bar, maybe. Other than that - pretty much NEVER going to happen. So, the likelihood of the Japan player getting checked by another player is slim to none unless we put limitations around what countries players can and can't choose (which isn't very much fun).

Yeah, 5+ player games are hard to organize if you want the same players and people you might reasonably know (even if just gaming acquaintances).

But "hard to organize" or being hard to do with reliability doesn't mean it couldn't be done, it just means it's really tough. Besides, 5 players to me sounds like more than enough.

Though with 5 players, you really need to pick your theater of war properly. Center it around Europe, or around eastern Asia, but expecting to do both might be a bit much.

A game with Germany, France, the UK, Russia, and Italy could be a lot of fun, just as a game with Japan, China, the United States, Russia, and perhaps something like Australia could be fun.

Not balanced, perhaps, but at least semi-localized so that players are likely to be able to interact with other players before the end-game.

 

[Novatheorem]

But "hard to organize" or being hard to do with reliability doesn't mean it couldn't be done, it just means it's really tough. Besides, 5 players to me sounds like more than enough.

Completely agree, which makes my point - it is unlikely to be a fun experience unless you localize the battle, which was my point in my response to all the people who believe the five players should pick all majors. Simply put, if everyone is having a blast in Europe, and the Japanese player is still playing single player, it's kind of non-inclusive. Same if someone is having to wait until the 9th session to finally put all those tanks they made with USA to use.

That being said, I was in a 12 player PBE and a 5 player Europe-centric game so I completely understand how much fun it can be when done right.