Best Multiplayer Battles?

76mm · Post by **76mm** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:53 am

I've recently started some multiplayer games but have only found a few that I really enjoy (Lilybaem, Cynocephalae, Heraclea)--anyone have any other suggestions for good balanced scenarios?

I prefer playing Hellenistic, but Carthage and Rome are also OK. Don't care much for playing Gauls. Prefer larger rather than smaller battles, where luck seems to play more of a role.

Also, which games seem pretty unbalanced, so that I can avoid them?

CharlesRobinson · Post by **CharlesRobinson** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 6:03 am

A Good Balanced Game is Agricola Moves North. I know you don't like the Gaul style armies, but this is a well balanced scenario. I have won several times as either side in multiplayer and most of the time when I do loose it is a close battle. I am only an average player (winning only about 50% of the time) so my opinion should not be an unbalanced one. Try it out and play it a couple of times from each side to get a feel for the armies. I think that you will like it. It has plenty of troops as well.

Xiccarph · Post by **Xiccarph** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 6:28 am

About three screens back in the list of forum threads is one titled 100 Games. It may help a bit. WHen I get to 200 games I will post another set of results. Cheers!

76mm · Post by **76mm** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 9:07 am

xiccarph, thanks for the link, helpful thread.

charles, thanks for the suggestion, will have to try that one...

Morbio · Post by **Morbio** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 3:57 pm

Avoid Lyginus River - very one-sided!

Starter Army Battle 2 is reasonably close.

Starter Army Battle 3 can be challenging, but it needs to be played with good tactics, particularly if you play the Indians.

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 4:06 pm

Morbio wrote:Avoid Lyginus River - very one-sided!

Starter Army Battle 2 is reasonably close.

Starter Army Battle 3 can be challenging, but it needs to be played with good tactics, particularly if you play the Indians.

Which side is Lyginus River unbalanced towards? I've won a couple times in multi-player with the Illyrians and don't think I've lost any. (Drew against the AI once because I ran out of time to kill enough Macedonians

. )

I find that between two good players that the extra BGs and the better cavalry for the Seleucids makes them definitely favored in Start Army 2. Silarus River (Spartacus revolt) seems to be pretty well balanced and is definitely a scenario with a different feel than most of the others given the mix of troops in the Slave army. Trebia seems like an a good scenario from the most recent batch although not a huge one.

Chris

Morbio · Post by **Morbio** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:16 pm

I think the game is strongly biased towards the Macedonians.

I quote from the description of the game in the battle selection window: '... If you play as the Macedonian player you should be able to win in 6 turns for the loss of only one unit - a historical result. If you play as the Tribali you will have a hard time but can win in about 10 turns.'

Personally, I doubt many people will win often as the Tribali against a competent player. Obviously, it may be possible to win if a lot of the rolls go in the Tribali favour, which although statistically unlikely will be possible.

Are you sure you are refering to the correct scenario? you are refering to the Illyrians and they aren't in this scenario!

CharlesRobinson · Post by **CharlesRobinson** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 6:09 pm

Ceaser at Bay is another one that is not balanced well. It is next to impossible to win with the Romans if your opponent knows what he is doing. I still like trying though.

The thing is, these are all historical games so many of them are not built to be balanced for multiplayer play. That is why the new update coming out with the army builder and random matches is so important for this games future. It will improve multiplay greatly and improve the overall qaulity of what is already a great game.

Also, a lot of the battles like Ceaser at Bay are not unbalanced vs the AI. It only becomes apparant in multiplay.

If you have not ordered the new expansion - I would - it is going to make a big difference in multiplayer game play.

What is not known, is how much the new Line of Sight rules will affect game balance. It was a very intelligent decision for the designers to not make it automatic, but as an option for the game. I have already designed a historic battle with this new rule in mind. I can hardly wait.

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 7:04 pm

Morbio wrote:I think the game is strongly biased towards the Macedonians.

I quote from the description of the game in the battle selection window: '... If you play as the Macedonian player you should be able to win in 6 turns for the loss of only one unit - a historical result. If you play as the Tribali you will have a hard time but can win in about 10 turns.'

Personally, I doubt many people will win often as the Tribali against a competent player. Obviously, it may be possible to win if a lot of the rolls go in the Tribali favour, which although statistically unlikely will be possible.

Are you sure you are refering to the correct scenario? you are refering to the Illyrians and they aren't in this scenario!

Historically the Triballi were a tribe of Illyrians. The biggest problem for the Macedonian is that many of the Triballi are light troops that are hard to catch with many of the Macedonian troops. It is fairly easy for a Macedonian who isn't careful enough to get his troops scattered and defeated in detail. I agree that the AI won't win as the Triballi but with a good human player it is certainly possible to defeat a Macedonian who doesn't keep his troops together well enough. Of course the fact that my opponent in the last game that I won charged two of his pike units into the woods to try to beat one of my MF and ended up losing both of them certainly didn't hurt.

Chris

Paisley · Post by **Paisley** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:44 pm

Sentium's a good one. Very dissimilar armies but anybody's game.

arsan · Post by **arsan** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:10 pm

I like Pharsalus a lot. It's the typical quality vs quantity case. I've played several PBEM games on this battle and have lost and won with both sides. Great fun!

MesaDon · Post by **MesaDon** » Sun Feb 28, 2010 12:23 am

I personally am not concerned with game balance, real life is unbalanced so why shouldn't the game be? Sometimes the hopeless struggle is more fun than the even match. Also if you play someone in a paired game you have the great competition of seeing who can do better against hopeless odds.

Triarii · Post by **Triarii** » Sun Feb 28, 2010 12:51 am

I would agree with MesaDon - I feel I have learned more from playing the outmatched rather than playing the stronger side.
Playing the Romans in Ceasar at Bay is a good challenge and there are more options than you might think.

However for balance i.e. games that can go either way - all else being equal - I would add :-
Starter Battle 3
&
Great Plains

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:08 am

Try playing paired matches - two games where you each take one side in the same battle. Generate a combined result from teh two games. It's something we'll be adding a feature for soon so the game works out the combined results...

Paisley · Post by **Paisley** » Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:14 am

That works well I find. though it would be nice if the 'paired battles' were a single pick o the 'accept challenge' screen, so both had to be picked up by the same player (but counting as only one acceptance).

76mm · Post by **76mm** » Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:16 am

iainmcneil wrote:Try playing paired matches - two games where you each take one side in the same battle. Generate a combined result from teh two games. It's something we'll be adding a feature for soon so the game works out the combined results...

This is certainly a good idea and I will give it a try, although frankly a bit too "clinical" for me. I will probably stick more with "equal" battles created in the Army Make (or whatever its called) in RoR.