How do you think a hypothetical Multiplayer EB campaign would go?

[Catmand0]

In a hypothetical multiplayer EB campaign where every civilization was controlled by a human how would the campaign be fundamentally changed? How would actual human diplomatic relations play out? How would tactics change to face a much more intelligent threat? Would any civilization have a disproportionally unfair advantage and how would that effect the rest of the game? What civilization would you want to be and how would you play?

[seleucid empire]

In a hypothetical multiplayer EB campaign where every civilization was controlled by a human how would the campaign be fundamentally changed? How would actual human diplomatic relations play out? How would tactics change to face a much more intelligent threat? Would any civilization have a disproportionally unfair advantage and how would that effect the rest of the game? What civilization would you want to be and how would you play?

Whoever's turn is last will have a huge disadvantage.

Also it's impossible to fight battles unless its an online thing and they can only attack when your also online

I would go casse, sweboz, Carthage or saka. Seleucids will get raped so hard and so will the Macedonians

Also there would have to be ground rules such as no private messaging the other players and only doing so through the game diplomats

[Ludens]

It depends a lot on the people that play it, particularly whether they know one another, how much they like to role-play, and how well their skill-level is matched.

If the answer to all these is no, I expect a very competitive and "hostile" game, where the weaker factions will be wiped out quickly. If the answer to all these is yes, diplomacy will be more important (and more effective) and there is less incentive for cheesy tactics, so aggression is limited and weaker factions stand a better chance.

I agree that Macedon will be in trouble in either case, though.

[Catmand0]

I imagine that mikra-asia would be a very interesting area in the first 150 turns. The gallic tribes would have to decide early on if they were going to unite or fight for supremacy. Rome would have to make an alliance with the sweboz to help keep the gauls in check. I could see an alliance between the saba and the seleucids to help deal with the egyptians.

[Brave Brave Sir Robin]

I really think Carthage wipes the floor with everybody. They can invade Italy by sea quickly and sack Rome and/or Capua to stunt Rome's growth. The Lusos would only be able to contest their Iberian holdings and would be hard pressed to kick Carthage out of two towns when they only start with one. Their only threat by sea would be Rome early on and the Carthaginian navy starts much stronger than any other faction, and it takes way too long for the Ptollies to march overland to Carthage. Their priority targets would be Syria and Greece instead and of course the Seleucids are a powerful foe to leave at your back while you marched west. Carthage also gets fantastic regionals. Besides the amazing Spaniards, they get Neitos and Brihentin in Gaul and Samnites in Italy.

What would be really interesting to see play out would be how the AS would fare. A wily Seleukid player could in effect cow some of the single province nearby factions into submission with a nearby army and demand some money to go away before they laid siege to those towns. Remember, Pontus, Hayasdan, Baktria, and to a lesser degree the Pahlava can all be wiped out by a Seleukid player within a few turns if he were to move quickly enough. Also, its one thing to take a city against the AI in a blitz. Its another to take a town from even a semi-competent human player. Protracted sieges would be the name of the game.

[SoFarSoGood]

Seiges would certainly be more interesting.