Europa Universalis, anyone?

Minerva · Post by **Minerva** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 3:14 pm

I've just seen a review about Europe Universalis II. I've missed the original, but both original and II are getting good reviews. It's a strategy game, similar to Civilization.

Is there anyone who played this game?

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 4:51 pm

I have, and its imo the best strategy game i've seen so far.

It takes a while getting used to though and it doesnt lack flaws... but im definatly addicted by now.

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 4:53 pm

Exactly how close is it to Civilization? Because Civ is one of my favorite strategy games out there. I have all 3 Civilization games and both Alpha Centauris, so I am a fan of that type of game aswell.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 5:00 pm

Its not that close, the whole structure of the game differ, its hard for me to give an easy explanation on just how.

One of the major differences though, is that you have to use a fair amount of diplomatic skill to win... Atleast this is true in the beggining of the game (and the end depending on wich nation you play) One of the flaws is imo that the game is abit too easy, but again you can counter this somewhat by choosing a small nation to start with.

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 5:06 pm

Originally posted by Dottie
Its not that close, the whole structure of the game differ, its hard for me to give an easy explanation on just how.

One of the major differences though, is that you have to use a fair amount of diplomatic skill to win... Atleast this is true in the beggining of the game (and the end depending on wich nation you play) One of the flaws is imo that the game is abit too easy, but again you can counter this somewhat by choosing a small nation to start with.

Sounds interesting. I might look into it.
Did you like Civ at all?

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 5:09 pm

I would answer, but im afraid Minerva might get pissed because I spam in her topic.

But, yes I enjoy Civ... to a point. Im certainly not a dedicated fan though.

Vinin · Post by **Vinin** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 5:15 pm

Could we get a link to any reviews or the such please?

Minerva · Post by **Minerva** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 5:17 pm

Originally posted by Dottie
I would answer, but im afraid Minerva might get pissed because I spam in her topic.

But, yes I enjoy Civ... to a point. Im certainly not a dedicated fan though.

I don't mind, as long as it somewhat relate to the topic.

I just want to know if it's worth getting. It seems really interesting game... It's not "Spam strictly prohibited" area.

The difference is, as far as I can see, it is a bit more related to history than CIV series. In CIV, you don't really follow history (how can Babyronians meet Americans, and fight against Russians, for example

). I don't think it is the case in the Europa Universalis, as it is strictly in Europe in the Middle Ages.

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 5:28 pm

Originally posted by Minerva

I don't mind, as long as it somewhat relate to the topic. I just want to know if it's worth getting. It seems really interesting game... It's not "Spam strictly prohibited" area.

The difference is, as far as I can see, it is a bit more related to history than CIV series. In CIV, you don't really follow history (how can Babyronians meet Americans, and fight against Russians, for example ). I don't think it is the case in the Europa Universalis, as it is strictly in Europe in the Middle Ages.

As a history person, this is really peaking my interest in the game...

BTW-sorry about the civ question, it was a question that was nagging me.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 5:30 pm

@Minerva, ok.

Its supposed to be as related to history as possible, and its set between the years 1419 and 1820 so im not sure you should call it the middle ages. The events that apear during the game are as far as I know historicaly accurate, but the the end result (especialy so in EU2) often differs from the historical, primarly in two ways; The major colonizeing nations doesnt get the hold they are supposed to, If england for example isnt played by a human, it rarely manages to capture any large part of US from the natives. The second is that far-east nations usally gets stronger then they are supposed to, this has to do with a flaw in the trade engine, wich rates goods from that area much higher (since its rare in europe). The set up from the beginning is also as far as I know rather accurate though.

a link... http://www.europa-universalis.com/eu2.asp

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jul 30, 2002 6:29 pm

I've played it and enjoyed it a lot. For a game that reduces national control down to a very tiny series of diplomatic, economic and military choices, EU2 is surprisingly accurate. What most impresses me is its alliance system, and the importance of establishing good casus belli--causes of war, because otherwise your people can end up hating you (and acting on it), quickly. Though the game runs in realtime, like SimCity you can pause it effortlessly, enter all the commands you want, and start it up again.

Minerva · Post by **Minerva** » Wed Jul 31, 2002 2:46 am

Originally posted by Tybaltus

As a history person, this is really peaking my interest in the game...
BTW-sorry about the civ question, it was a question that was nagging me.

The same for me.

Don't worry about the CIV. I mentioned it at the beginning myself.

@Dottie&fable: Is it worth getting the first one, or it's not much worth playing both 1&2? The original is so much cheaper now, while II is just published with full price tag on.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Wed Jul 31, 2002 3:06 am

Originally posted by Minerva

The same for me. Don't worry about the CIV. I mentioned it at the beginning myself.

@Dottie&fable: Is it worth getting the first one, or it's not much worth playing both 1&2? The original is so much cheaper now, while II is just published with full price tag on.

Its not worth buying both now imo, they are very similar.

The important things you will miss if you go for #1 only is domestic policies, cultural zones, ability to choose options at historical events and a few diplomatic options, like guarante a nations independence, create vassals and a few more. On the other hand #1 seems to be balanced to follow history better then #2.

The domestic policies provides a few interesting options, and gice quite a large effect on how you play your game if you use them right, but they arent that much fun imo.

Cultural zones makes it more difficult to expand since owning provinces of "wrong" culture makes them less productive.

The ability to choose different things when you get an event is very fun imo. In some cases there is one option that is clearly better than all others, but that doesnt really ruin anything.

Some of the diplomatic options are a relief, but not all are that usefull.

Personaly I would go for #2, but #1 is definatly an enjoyable game.