What are most balanced multiplayer strategy games?

rwenstrup · July 20, 2022, 07:03:02 PM

What are most balanced multiplayer strategy games? Trying to find a good one for a friend and I to play ...

Thanks ...

ArizonaTank · July 20, 2022, 08:34:10 PM

Very broad question...but here are some thoughts. All are on Steam and not in any particular order:

Battle Academy from Slitherine.

Sid Meier's Civilization VI, or even Civ IV or Civ III from 2K games.

Strategic Command WWI from Slitherine.

Field of Glory II or Field of Glory II Medieval from Slitherine.

Twighlight Struggle from Playdek.

Armello from League of Geeks.

JasonPratt · July 21, 2022, 08:09:56 AM

You can expand any such list dramatically by investing $20 each into Tabletop Simulator (or Tabletopia for free, then pay for finished modules or free betas, but I've heard reports the engine doesn't play as well as TTS.)

rwenstrup · July 21, 2022, 08:27:47 AM

Thanks for the response ... to further clarify ... looking for military strategy games like the Strategic Command series ... and I agree the World War I game is great. The World War 2 game could use a balance modifier for the Germans ... and the Civil War game a balance modifier for the South.

The Civil War game raised this question... I enjoy the historical accuracy ... and it is an excellent game... but when you play multiplayer the Southern player can't seem to win. Maybe it would be as easy as changing the victory objectives for multiplayer ...

At the end of the day ... I would like to have military strategy games for WW2 and the Civil War that are evenly balanced so I could have an ongoing series of games with my friend ... and others ... where we each felt the odds were even ...

Thanks for any help you can provide in my search!

devoncop · July 21, 2022, 09:19:30 AM

Quote from: rwenstrup on July 21, 2022, 08:27:47 AM
Thanks for the response ... to further clarify ... looking for military strategy games like the Strategic Command series ... and I agree the World War I game is great. The World War 2 game could use a balance modifier for the Germans ... and the Civil War game a balance modifier for the South.

The Civil War game raised this question... I enjoy the historical accuracy ... and it is an excellent game... but when you play multiplayer the Southern player can't seem to win. Maybe it would be as easy as changing the victory objectives for multiplayer ...

At the end of the day ... I would like to have military strategy games for WW2 and the Civil War that are evenly balanced so I could have an ongoing series of games with my friend ... and others ... where we each felt the odds were even ...

Thanks for any help you can provide in my search!

The ACW game has just received a balancing update, but I can recommend you playing a simultaneous set of mirror matches where each plays the Union and the Rebs and see who lasts longest as the Rebs to determine overall victory (assuming of course you both win as the Confederates ! )

I am on the verge of my first MP win as the Confederates so it is possible 🙂

JasonPratt · July 21, 2022, 09:43:57 AM

Is there a timeframe involved? For example, ACW to WW2 but not modern?

The sequel/prequel to Aggressors: Ancient Rome is multiplayer (...um, Imperiums: Greek Somethingorother? I'm not where I can check at the moment), and it has an overtly balanced multiplayer setup on random maps with minimal starting forces.

Field of Glory: Empires can be set up pretty balanced for multiplayer, in a nice asynch engine for up to 40 players (though probably not balanced in that case ;) ), depending on what factions you choose. You can have teams or pure competition, too, although that can't be setup in advance before launching the game. (Players just ally themselves asap within the game.) The DLC expansion kicks back to the Persian Empire's rise, which is definitely NOT balanced but again it depends on where you and your fellow players faction-in.

Warhammer40K: Gladius can't be played asynch, only live (despite being turn-based -- the devs keep promising asynch is in the works), but it has a good balance among the factions, and again players can team or compete as they wish.

WH40K: Regicide can be played like straight chess, or as a tactical Marines vs Orks fight with chess rules overlaid, which is pretty neat. Naturally it's balanced like chess, though in the tactical ("Regicide") mode there are some differences in abilities. I can't recall if it's asynch.

For something closer to ACW, and asynch-capable, 1775: Rebellion works okay in its Steam adaptation. Can't be played 4p like the boardgame, though.

For something in the WW2 timeframe, the Decisive Campaigns series pull off very well-balanced scenarios despite the real-life operations being hugely imbalanced. DC1 is overtly capable of being played by up to 9 people, and it's probably possible to play the others more than 2p with some shuffling around of the save games until 'turn-end'.

Gusington · July 21, 2022, 09:57:55 AM

^Imperiums: Greek Wars

JasonPratt · July 21, 2022, 10:10:26 AM

World War One: Centennial, which still has Steam keys (can't be sold on Steam per se, but can be sold as a Steam game from legit stores like Gamersgate), has an email 4p multiplayer asynch game, and is pretty balanced all things considered. You just have to fight an obscure hashup of board-game rules with an older version of the AGEOD engine. ;) Its semi-sorta-remake/update, To End All Wars, while it plays on a better UI (having been designed from the ground up for the most recent AGEOD engine), doesn't allow multiplayer, if I recall correctly, alas.

World at War: A World Divided (if I recall the Matrix/Slitherine name correctly) is effectively Axis & Allies (right down to the art style of the map and counters) with a ton of groggy details added on, and can be PBEM, although again the interface is a little primitive by today's standards. Thanks to its board-game inspiration, it's also pretty balanced.

W8taminute · July 21, 2022, 03:23:18 PM

This is a great thread. Posted here just to keep track of it in my feed.

Father Ted · July 21, 2022, 05:39:11 PM

Okay, slightly left field, but how about Shadow Empire? If you look beyond the sci-fi trappings you have a solid RPG/wargame hybrid. Point being is that each game map is procedurally generated meaning that there is no prior knowledge of who won historically and/or what strategy worked/didn't work.

-budd- · July 21, 2022, 06:43:28 PM

The games that my PBEM partner and I always go back to are Battle Academy 2, Tillers Panzer Battles series, and the Strategic Command Series.

Tanaka · July 21, 2022, 06:53:48 PM

Quote from: rwenstrup on July 21, 2022, 08:27:47 AM
Thanks for the response ... to further clarify ... looking for military strategy games like the Strategic Command series ... and I agree the World War I game is great. The World War 2 game could use a balance modifier for the Germans ... and the Civil War game a balance modifier for the South.

The Civil War game raised this question... I enjoy the historical accuracy ... and it is an excellent game... but when you play multiplayer the Southern player can't seem to win. Maybe it would be as easy as changing the victory objectives for multiplayer ...

At the end of the day ... I would like to have military strategy games for WW2 and the Civil War that are evenly balanced so I could have an ongoing series of games with my friend ... and others ... where we each felt the odds were even ...

Thanks for any help you can provide in my search!

I concur the Strategic Command games are great for MP. Curious are you saying the Germans are too strong or too weak in SCWAW? And the South in SCACW?

rwenstrup · July 21, 2022, 07:21:32 PM

Thanks everyone for your comments ... I've gotten a number of ideas from your efforts!

As to the Strategic Command comment I made ... the Germans seem to be at a disadvantage in the Strategic Command European Theatre of War and the South is at a disadvantage in the Strategic Command American Civil War.

I believe those games are great at representing the wars accurately ... and fun when playing against the computer. I've played them a number of times multiplayer and believe it would be more fun as a multiplayer game if the games were more balanced... though I know that would not be as historically accurate ...

They are great games in any event ...

FarAway Sooner · July 21, 2022, 07:58:03 PM

I find much more enjoyment in games that throw you into a bit more of a sandbox world, but play quickly. I've had some fun with the Conquest of Etherium series, just as one example. Even if games aren't perfectly balanced, they're short enough that you can still enjoy a quick walk-through.

Thomas Davie · July 22, 2022, 12:38:25 PM

Civilization VI.

There's a fine balancing act between number of civ's and map size. If the ratio of civ's/hexes is over a certain amount, your chances of an early game encounter with another civ go up.

I'd still say Civ Vi b/c every civ has unique and useful traits that can be used to advantage.

Tom