Europa Universalis III

[fable]

Just a head's up that EU3 is due to hit the stands in the next week or two, depending on which state of mind you reside in on this weary old planet. Here in the US it's going to hit on the 23rd. I'm looking forward to it, because it appears to have a number of new and interesting strategic features. I've been a big fan of EU2, so the move is a natural one.

[Monolith]

I've yet to play any of the Europa Universalis games, but from what I've heard about them they are superb. I thought of getting EU 2, but now that EU 3 is so close - and practically just an updated and expanded EU 2 (or not?) - I think I'll go with that one.

[fable]

I downloaded the demo from Gamespot, and it feels a lot easier to get into, but also, deeper, than EU2. The interface is more logically arranged, and support for larger resolutions means a much easier time handling a lot of information without interfering with the main screen. More buildings, more techs to research, advisors who bring special advantages in exchange for cash (as in Railroad Tycoon II, of all things), a few more diplomatic options, a whole new spying system, far greater flexibility in the AI when it comes to ignoring the realworld historical timeline and responding instead to immediate changes. (I criticized Paradox's last game, Victoria, in a review for its nations being unable to meet changes, such as alternate results to wars, or things you did to your own government--and was pretty much told I was an idiot. )

I expect there will be bugs, given as complex as game as this is, but Paradox is pretty good about patching quickly and repeatedly.

[Monolith]

Sounds rather good to me, thanks. Where are your/those reviews you always talk about by the way?

[fable]

Originally Posted by Monolith

Sounds rather good to me, thanks. Where are your/those reviews you always talk about by the way?

Mine? In a variety of print and Web publications since 1987. I'd rather keep my identity private, like most of us, so I don't post my name, here. The only reviews whose contents I'll post are those you can no longer find around, like the King of Dragon Pass review I did years back.

Currently I'm doing very few game reviews. I've got a historical column on electronic developments in the 20th century, a monthly interview feature, occasional utility package reviews, and some more generic problem-related stuff (such as what to do when your CD won't burn). Keeps me busy and out of trouble.

[DesR85]

I've heard of the Europa Universalis series before but never played them. What type of game is it? And about the demo, yeah, I've seen it a few days ago on Gamespot.

[fable]

Originally Posted by DesR85

I've heard of the Europa Universalis series before but never played them. What type of game is it? And about the demo, yeah, I've seen it a few days ago on Gamespot.

Turn-/readtime strategy, historical simulation of, well, the world. You can play any of nearly 200 countries, starting in the late 15th century. It plays in realtime (which can be made much faster), but because there's so much to watch and control, you can stop it and enter commands, and check out any of the info you've got. Let's you form or join alliances, create marriages, declare war (but you better have a cassus belli, or risk internal revolt and lowered prestige abroad), build up to 100 different kinds of troops, pour funds into six different kinds of research, add buildings to provinces, send merchants and missionaries, launch navies, etc.

I'd suggest downloading the demo, and checking out at least the tutorials. I've really liked the earlier pair of releases in the series.

[Noober]

How does the Europa Universalis series compare to Civilisation/Space Empires IV & V/MoO 2?

I always wanted to get EU 2, except I couldn't find it so I just went off to play Champ/Football Manager.

[Coruel]

Originally Posted by Noober

How does the Europa Universalis series compare to Civilisation/Space Empires IV & V/MoO 2?

The historical context gives a nice twist and I find that your choice of country and starting time period makes for more variety in play and required strategy to win than your initial choices in Civilisation. Much higher replay value I'd say.
On the other side Civilisation give you far more possibilities to develop your provinces/cities (but that seems to be improved in EU3).
Diplomacy is somewhat richer in EU as in Civilisation, but aspects of diplomacy in Civilisation I'd like to see in EU is the possibility of proposing exchanges (of territory for money for instance) and threatening (give us this or else it'll be war). But I don't know about EU3.
And you are limited by your territory how well you can expand. For "peaceful" expansion you will need to colonise overseas since you're surrounded by other countries in your starting position and not by empty territory as in Civilisation, and colonisation is a long term enterprise. The only other option is to wage war (or get territory through historical moments - e.g. if you play Austria you can choose to inherit parts of the Burgundian domains after the death of the last Duke of Burgundy). Which makes things more interesting in my view.
And EU has random occurrences which also spice up things.

[fable]

Diplomacy is somewhat richer in EU as in Civilisation, but aspects of diplomacy in Civilisation I'd like to see in EU is the possibility of proposing exchanges (of territory for money for instance) and threatening (give us this or else it'll be war). But I don't know about EU3.

Diplomacy is richer in the EU series than in Civ, since you can create more than bilateral alliances, negotiate with the enemy as the leader of the alliance, create and free vassals, and arrange royal marriages. Exchanges of territory for land were in EU2 but eliminated from EU3 as cheesy and subject to abuse. Threatening is in already, if I recall correctly.

The game's release has been delayed here until the end of week. I might get it then, or wait to see how the patches pan out. Typically, Paradox has been good with these, but Victoria was such a shambles that it threw my faith in them.

[Dottie]

Originally Posted by Coruel

The only other option is to wage war (or get territory through historical moments - e.g. if you play Austria you can choose to inherit parts of the Burgundian domains after the death of the last Duke of Burgundy). Which makes things more interesting in my view.
And EU has random occurrences which also spice up things.

Actually I believe you could also get new land by diplomatic routes. It took a lot of time and money (and luck) though.

@Fable: In EU2 you were able to exploit money lending to a great extend. Do you know if this is the case with EU3 as well?

I also remember that the Chinese nations were severely overpowered due to a Eurocentric trade model, is this fixed too?

Don't have the opportunity to check out the demo right now. But I am definitely drooling over the game. If you going to play one paradox game it should be the EU series imo, the other settings: Victoria and Hearts of Iron doesn't fit as well in their game engine.

[fable]

Originally Posted by Dottie

Actually I believe you could also get new land by diplomatic routes. It took a lot of time and money (and luck) though.

@Fable: In EU2 you were able to exploit money lendering to a great extend. Do you know if this is the case with EU3 as well?

I also remember that the Chinese nations were severely overpowered due to a Eurocentric trade model, is this fixed too?

Don't have the opportunity to check out the demo right now. But I am definitely drooling over the game. If you going to play one paradox game it should be the EU series imo, the other settings: Victoria and Hearts of Iron doesn't fit as well in their game engine.

I don't think the demo is really representative of the state-of-the-game at this point, and Paradox has promised further patches that will change things. So I'll have to wait to answer you until I get a crack at the full title. Was hoping to pick it up tomorrow, but it looks now as if it won't start shipping until then, which means no product before Monday or Tuesday.

[Dottie]

Originally Posted by fable

I don't think the demo is really representative of the state-of-the-game at this point, and Paradox has promised further patches that will change things. So I'll have to wait to answer you until I get a crack at the full title. Was hoping to pick it up tomorrow, but it looks now as if it won't start shipping until then, which means no product before Monday or Tuesday.

I'll schedule a "bother fable" session on wednesday then.

@Noober: One of the things that makes me prefer EU over Civ is that smaller nations can and does exist. In Civ there is really no reason for a large empire to eat it's smaller neighbors, which makes the game increasingly dull as time progress imo.

EU isn't perfect in this aspect either, I really hope they add more destabilizing factors for large empires in this release, but it's far better.

[fable]

Originally Posted by Dottie

I'll schedule a "bother fable" session on wednesday then.

Fair enough.

@Noober: One of the things that makes me prefer EU over Civ is that smaller nations can and does exist. In Civ there is really no reason for a large empire to eat it's smaller neighbors, which makes the game increasingly dull as time progress imo.

EU isn't perfect in this aspect either, I really hope they add more destabilizing factors for large empires in this release, but it's far better.

The biggest destabilizing factor, IMO, was always the "Bad Boy" tag that you'd earn as you gradually began eating away your neighbors' territory. Stability in the EU series is internationally valued, so anybody who goes on a rampage gobbling up states invariably ends up being attacked on all sides. Civ, for me, was fun, because I prefer strategic building, but the diplomatic end of things was handled poorly.

[Dottie]

Originally Posted by fable

The biggest destabilizing factor, IMO, was always the "Bad Boy" tag that you'd earn as you gradually began eating away your neighbors' territory. Stability in the EU series is internationally valued, so anybody who goes on a rampage gobbling up states invariably ends up being attacked on all sides. Civ, for me, was fun, because I prefer strategic building, but the diplomatic end of things was handled poorly.

That is true, however there were numerous tactics that enabled you to create a large realm without earning a lot of bad boy points. The bad boy thing was an excellent feature in EU, but I would like to see some internal destabilizer as well. Revolts had far to low chance of succeeding against a decent human player imo.

Religion and culture was surely another limiting factor, but it was not enough.