Which is Better for Multiplayer Games

[unmerged(10591)]

Ive just began writing in the Forums... but have played the game on my own and through my own LAN for some time now. As a matter of opinion which is better in a multiplayer game.... all playing nations close together (aka all in Europe.. or all in a more exact area of Europe) or being spread out throughout the world.... (in one of my LAN games one player was Britian, another Russia, and another China).... also which is the best time to start in... ?

 

[Prince Eugene]

You want to all be at least on the same continent.

 

[Jens Z]

The closer the better. Otherwise you guys will feel like playing SP.

We prefer a Europe 1492 setup with all major countries. We dont like the 1419 scenario as it is too dependend on the outcome of the 100years war. Either England or France becomes too powerfull early in the game.

 

[Mowers]

Originally posted by Jens Z
The closer the better. Otherwise you guys will feel like playing SP.

We prefer a Europe 1492 setup with all major countries. We dont like the 1419 scenario as it is too dependend on the outcome of the 100years war. Either England or France becomes too powerfull early in the game.

I'd strongly agree with both these sentiments. I've never bothered with 1419 and unless you have all the players together then its just SP at slow speed.

 

[unmerged(10591)]

I do have to agree with the comment that whoever wins the 100 years war is far to powerful... especially if England wins.. with being more spread out though i do have to agrue that at the end game years 1770-1820 it can lead to some cool super wars (despite being nowhere near historically acurate) in which the nations, which by then have amassed huge fortunes can really beat each other into the ground...