Any fembots play grand strategy games? Any suggestions?

Is crusader kings 1 better than 2?

Definitely not but it's well worth playing regardless. It plays more like EU3 with characters.

>Grand strategy
>fembots
lol fembots are too fucking vapid to play grand strategy. Dumb fucking mutt sluts.

Attached: 1525269556200.jpg (1080x1541, 175K)

Crusader Kings 2 is greater sweetie. I've always wondered why it isn't more popular with females seeing how it is just as much a family/social politics game as Sims.

I knew one girl who played grand strategy but she actually killed herself.

Attached: 1533692804031.jpg (250x250, 7K)

>low iq facial expression
>low iq vidya
>low iq prose
>across the road not down the road
Wanna know how I know this is a lying, thieving, stupid and manipulating roastie whore?

Girls like CK2 more than other grand strategy.

ck1 is better

I like CK2, but most other Paradox games sound boring to me and the other historical ones look like mostly map painters whose eras don't interest me. Even CK2 needs mods and a lot of DLC to be interesting, and even with those, it's still a pretty basic game that lacks a lot of depth that I thought it'd have (no trade, negotiation, naval combat, bad AI, bad MP, barebones diplomacy and intrigue, a lot of features feel neglected, parts of the world aren't historically accurate at all).

I tried Stellaris if that counts (the pic says it's more 4X), but it's pretty boring and simplistic and seemed like it was released unfinished, and the most fun sounding features kinda sucked or were irrelevant. I remember spending forever uplifting an iron age species and taking them as a vassal, then it wouldn't let me move their population for slaves because they were a vassal. It felt like the game tried its best not to make playing a "xenophobic" species easy (hilariously, you had an opinion bonus with OTHER xenophobic species). Maybe it'll be better after tons of DLC and mods, but eh, not really holding my hopes up.

Imperator: Rome has a cool concept, but I have low expectations from Paradox. GSG mostly seems like poorly designed games with no competition that rely on a fanbase that will defend anything they do and lap it up, and post-release content. Sounds Bethesda tier, when you put it like that.

Play older titles. You would enjoy HOI3

Be my paradrone slating gf please

I hear some older grand strategy games like Master of Orion are good, but not really gotten around to checking them out. WWII era doesn't interest me at all, so HOI3 would have to really stand out for me to enjoy it.

Biggest problem with older games is I'd be surprised if any 90s grand strategy had modding capability, and I like to mess with code or whatever else I have access to and tweak games to be more to my liking. Most games I've ran on DOSBox aren't made to do this with and I hate feeling boxed in and unable to change something.

Worst thing about Stellaris was how they made the game with multiplayer to heavily in mind and all that brought was confederation etc. Multiplayer in GS games is pretty awful in the end either way, players that play together often form friendship groups and every game is just the same groups of people fighting one another. Stellaris just made that problem worse.

You would think GSG online with others would be about managing alliances/actions based on your nations national interests, or even religious/nationalist interests but all I ever saw was petty friend groups playing against each other all the time.

The best MP games were in the early days after a games release when few people knew one another and played dedicated games. You would see alliances shift in interesting and unpredictable ways. Unfortunately these games are often ruined by friends of 2-3 joining who could coordinate and bully lone nations.

That is a fair criticism. I feel you probably enjoy 4X more than grand strategy anyway due to very limited nature of the genre. The only game Paradox made that really touched on that was Stellaris and it's kind of mediocre for a 4X anyway, but it's basically been completely remade with the latest patches. Master of Orion is indeed good if you link that kind of concept though but prefer an older 4X kind of vice. HOI3 isn't that old but it's got a reputation for not being very mod friendly at all, plus it is probably one of the most complex games ever made, or even a heavily modded Victoria 2. Problem is the space-themed games are the more simple and less interesting mechanically.

Also it goes without saying but don't give Paradox your money, torrent if you're planning on buying any game

hastebin.com/raw/moqugasume

I agree, maybe that's part of why it was so boring. Designing for MP is often an excuse for shallow gameplay, but I don't really see the appeal since something shallow still would be with others.

I think a game like that could be fun in MP, but heavily dependent on who you are playing with (like you say). But it's pointless to bother with if the game itself isn't that good on its own.

I think 4X is limited and usually really flawed too, and has a lot of the same issues, so I wouldn't say I prefer it. A lot of grand strategy seems to suffer from being sort of dry and not intricate enough, to me, and 4X is the same.

It always feels like they could use more development time, too, and there'll be all these numbers and a learning curve to pick up the basics and how to use the UI, but once you get over that, you start to realise it's not actually that deep. Just the games I've tried, though.

Don't have a preference for scifi, but I prefer it over something more contemporary. The Dark Ages and Antiquity are much more interesting eras to me than the Middle Ages or later, but unfortunately that's not a popular opinion.

My ideal video games don't exist.

Aurora is one of my favorite games, it is 4X though not GSG

Attached: aurora-6788456.jpg (1575x1003, 438K)

I am playing Total War Warhmmer 2 if that is applicable?

that is rts not gsg

>Playing any MP gsg
>One player is getting close to reaching maximum blob
>Try and rally players against the looming threat
>Many side with the blob, coaltion is defeated
>Rest of the game is the blob and his friends dominating the AI and remaining players
>They can't understand why people quit and they end up alone against the AI
>Game ends 1/4th of the way through the time limit
>Restart game with more players
>Do the same thing

Its shit like this that makes gsg mp so awful. If you remove all chance at competition and danger you might as well not be playing unless you are a sociopath that simply enjoys bullying people weaker than yourself.

Attached: 1526020399272.jpg (1073x1157, 606K)

>Playing any MP gsg
you fucked up

for me, its SuperPower 2

Attached: 3r.jpg (1024x768, 135K)

hoi 4 is fun and a good game.

Attached: getoutjew.png (500x441, 266K)

Bad taste indeed

does chess count?
i wanna play chess with some of u guys :)

1. nf3

IMO Hearts of Iron 4 is much easier than EU4

This.
It really has been a couple of decades since Paradox was worth something. And in all its time in existence, they still haven't managed to write a decent AI.

The first Master of Orion game is good. The following ones add a lot of junk, but then you are just upgrading to guns3.

>Gobal tax mod 100%
>sector tax 100%
You only need the Gobal tax mod
You are going to forget about the sector tax

that mod makes the autarky even worse than vanilla, micromanage

vicky 2 is easy as fuck; why is this complexity eco thing a meme? Managing logistics in a RTT game like say Wargame series is harder than figuring out the elementary black-box econ system of vicky 2 atleast in vanilla

it's a /gsg/ meme