Log in

View Full Version : Anyone ever tried Europa Universalis?



Graymane
10-31-2002, 18:10
I played EU1 and EU2 for quite a while and loved those games. They are very similar to the TW games except EU seems to be more strategic while TW seems to be more tactical in nature. EU is far more rich in things like diplomacy while TW has more tech tree and a good tactical system (EU doesn't really have tactics per se).

chunkynut
10-31-2002, 18:34
i didn't get on with eu2 but i only borrowed it off a friend and i didn't get the manual.

loads of ppl rave about it so i think i may try to get to grips with it again.

Rosacrux
10-31-2002, 18:37
the best strategy game ever in the aspect of modeling the governing and diplomacy side of an evolving world.

Sounds good, huh? Playes even better!

But some of you will miss the battling thing, which in EU series is abstract at best.

Kroney
10-31-2002, 19:11
i would say that the EU games were grand strategy, in that their main function was running a country, rather than running a war :P

Sjakihata
10-31-2002, 19:12
Yes, I play the no. 2!

It is great...

btw.. post off topic posts in off topic http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Graymane
10-31-2002, 19:14
I think it would be very interesting to see those grand strategy aspects of EU in TW. It would be interesting for alliances to actually mean something, for example. I stopped playing EU simply because it didn't have the tech tree and more tactical aspects of a game like TW, but I still like it. They are also coming out with something like 3 new games: Roman period, TW period (1066-1450ish) and a WWII game. I'm not sure if they will use the same engine and modelling as EU, but it will be interesting to compare =)

Rosacrux
10-31-2002, 19:17
Graymane

More info on those upcoming releases? A URL would be highly appreciated. And... all three at one time? That would be... dunno... huh... Big???


[This message has been edited by Rosacrux (edited 10-31-2002).]

Negative
10-31-2002, 20:33
I liked EU2, but by the end it seems like all you do is colonize, colonize, colonize. Needless to say it got a little boring. I think I am a little too war minded.

------------------
It's not the size of the army that matters. It's how you use it.

cihset
10-31-2002, 20:53
It took me a year to get bored of EU, it took me two weeks with M:tw....

phobos010
10-31-2002, 22:01
Rosacrux as far as the new EU games, i believe the WWII game is called Hearts of Iron and should be due out either november or december. I'm don't much about the other two games but the HoI looks very interesting. You can find out more about it at paradox entertainment website, [/url]

[This message has been edited by phobos010 (edited 10-31-2002).]

Olaf the Unsure
11-01-2002, 04:14
Every now and then a game comes out that changes things so fundamentally that it's hard to play other games that still do things the "old way." Shogun did that with its real-time tactical combat engine. EU and EU2 did that with their diplomatic model - especially the requirement that you gain ownership of provinces only through peace negotiations, not just by simple conquest. MTW with the diplomatic model of EU2 would be nirvana.

By the way, one of the new EU-like titles due out soon is Crusader Kings. Similar time period to MTW but with less emphasis than EU on simple coquest. Link here: http://www.paradoxplaza.com/crusader.asp

[This message has been edited by Olaf the Unsure (edited 10-31-2002).]

Whitey
11-01-2002, 04:23
*wishes he had moderator abilities*
*tries to think this thread into OT*

EUII

great game - needs a lotta learning, but its good. V. Good...

czaralex
11-01-2002, 07:22
I really like MTW, but it is not even close to EU2, that game is by far the greatest game in the history of gaming. MTW comes in a distant third( not bad if you think about it, I have about 350 games!)

Whitey
11-01-2002, 07:24
czaralex, about EU II, I couldn't agree more - for he game it is, it is almost perfect - and considering the millions of lines of code that goes into a game that is virtually impossible...

[this thread screaming for OT]

11-01-2002, 07:54
Hello,

I too am an avid devotee of the EU series. I would love to see their diplomatic model grafted to M:TW.

As a matter of fact, I'm returning to EU2 until the patch for M:TW comes out. I've just had the latest in a series of save game corruptions and decided to take a break.

Ciao,
V'ger gone

Shahed
11-01-2002, 07:54
AHA ! something new for me to try out !!

HO HO HO ! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Jo_Beare
11-01-2002, 08:03
I have had my new puter for a little over 2 months now and MTW and EUII are the only two games loaded on it. MTW gets about 80% of the game play.

I figured that if you let the game play in EUII at 1 minute = 1 month; it would take about 80 hours to finish a game in the grand campaign. If you had to fight all the battles like in MTW, that could stretch well into the hundreds of hours. Campaigns could take months to finish. Sounds like my kind of game.

JoBeare

Rosacrux
11-01-2002, 12:32
Just visited Paradox... all three sound reeeealy good. But there is a long wait ahead of us, so just play MTW and relax http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Ktonos
11-01-2002, 17:14
EU and MTW are different games. They are both strategy games, but EU is more of development and MTW is a Wargame. What the TW series really offer us is its unique tactical battle mode. I love the strat.map gameplay, it may be of more importance in the game, but the heart of the game are battles. MTW needs two things IMHO to reach the edge of perfection : 3-4 improvements in diplomacy and elimination of some critical bugs. The game in strat.map is complex enough.You do not want the strategic complexity of a game that is 100% based on, in MTW.Neither does that need the tactical complexity of MTW. IMO I strongly believe that if a game designer make a mix of those games he will make a high cost heavy game and gamers will have less fun than playing any of those seperatly.

Rosacrux
11-01-2002, 17:32
I for one won't complain... I am even willing to pay double (hell, why not triple!) the regular price for a game that mixes the strategical aspect of EU2 with the tactical aspect of MTW.

Paladin
11-01-2002, 18:35
I look forward to checking out Crusader Kings since from what I've heard, the AI of EU2 is excellent. But the beta version was supposed to be released in Fall 2002. Well, it's Fall 2002 so where's the beta?

Rosacrux
11-01-2002, 18:42
err... unless you are a beta-tester, why would they tell you if they released the beta? It's still fall though... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Anyways, even if the preliminary beta comes out one of these days, that means the game won't go gold for another 3-6 months, depending on how much "polishing" does it require and how broad the beta tester group is.

It's a long way, as I said before...

Death
11-01-2002, 20:12
EU2 is a fantastic Strategic Simulation. MTW is a great Tactical Simulation. A dream game would involve Creative Artists and Paradox getting together and marrying the two. Of course MTW would require more units since EU2 covers more technological developments and is more of a European Shock and Fire combat system where MTW/Shogun is a Sword/Spear/Cav/Archer era game. Actually now that I think of it EU2 covers the period of time after the one MTW covers. They are two independant periods of warfare. An integration of both would be an Awsome game. On EU2's boards they acknowledge that the "Combat" portion is simplistic and if you have played EU2 you can see that MTW's non tactical play is only 10% of what can be done. If some of the developers of MTW would sit down and play EU2 they might realize that the next Total War could be so much more and INCORPORATE the Strategic style of EU2.

And on another note IF the developers moved the AI calculations to the beginning of the turn but left the display of the moves till the end they would forever squash the "AI knows what im doing" rant.

Just some useful thoughts for the Developers. Keep up the good work CA.

Cousin Zoidfarb
11-01-2002, 21:35
I agree, EU1 and EU2 are great strategy games their only drawback is no tactical aspect to the game. I wish Total War 3 would have diplomacy and so forth more similar to the EU games.

sassbarman
11-02-2002, 05:41
i love eu 2's stability factor it really forces you and the ai to honour alliances. also eu s' use of manpower adds a strong realism factor that is missing in mtw. if your going to draft all the young able bodied men in your empire into your army you should take a hit to your countries economy.

todorp
11-02-2002, 07:01
CA is neglecting the strategic and the historical realism aspects of MTW in favour of the playability game. I think that EU3 will add a 3D tactical combat and it will be the great game I am waiting for.

Olaf the Unsure
11-02-2002, 08:59
I don't think MTW should be as complex as EU2. I have a hard enough time finishing a campaign in either game as it is. But I would like to see MTW offer a few more diplomatic options - meaningful alliances, vassals and territorial expansion only through peace negotiations. Just a little of EU2's diplomatic model would go a long way toward making MTW a much better game.

Olaf the Unsure
11-02-2002, 09:11
While I'm at it, there are many things about MTW - even apart from the combat model - that I like more than EU2:

1. Developing provinces. The building in EU2 is extremely abstract. In MTW, province development has more tangible payoffs.

2. Developing combat units. Again, in EU2, the differences between the various units and eras are abstract to the point of invisibility (except in the combat results). In MTW, armies have more variety and character.

3. National character. Apart from map color and a few abstract (mostly religious) differences, nations in EU2 are not particularly distinctive. In MTW, an English army can be very different from a French one and both can be very different from an Egyptian one. After fighting nothing but Western European armies, your first encounter with a Byzantine enemy can be quite a surprise.

There's more, but my point simply is that MTW has a lot going for it, even apart from the combat. Just give me better diplomacy.

solypsist
11-02-2002, 09:20
OT