Europa Universalis: Rome

[Zaknafien]

Finally, a paradox made strategy game focusing on the Republic. Here is the annoucnement and then the forums:

http://www.wargamer.com/news/news.asp?nid=4647

http://www.wargamer.com/files/news/f4647_public_3.jpg

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=378

[EasternScourge]

:applause: For you for finding this information.I just startred getting into the Europa Universalis series,and now that one is coming out based on the rise of the Roman Republic makes me so very glad.Of course,theres no way it'll surpass EB in my list of favorite games.

[Radier]

Game look cool! I love paradox. Heh I saw people mentioning EB a few times over at the paradox forums.

There are no historical events. I liked those soo much in their other games. :shame:

The provinces looks kind of large btw. Sure that's a thing you can change if you want to, but it is nothing like Victoria´s or Crusader Kings mini provinces. :smash:

[Zaknafien]

well, it does say ALPHA, you know. Some of us from EB have offered to help Paradox with research and development, we will see how they respond, they're generally pretty open to suggestions and their games are incredibly moddable, anyway.

[Bellum]

What about other factions from that era? (Never played EU, so I don't know how their usually set up)

[Zaknafien]

in EU games you can play as any faction at any start date in the game period. Johan (one of the lead developers) has said at least 50 factions.



Johan on Rome having "a significant character system":
Quote:
it will


Johan on Kurek's hope of Rome having "actual CKesque characters, generals and politicians and all that republican era sexyness that goes along with it.":
Quote:
I dont want to give out all the information yet, but your hopes sounds close to our design document.


Johan on what calender will be used in Rome:
Quote:
The dates are in AUC


Johan on what AUC is, and when the game starts:
Quote:
474 Ab Urbe Condita (years since the founding)
And that is a about a decade or so before the 1st punic war.


Johan on the conclusion of C.N. that the start of Rome is before the 1st Punic war:
Quote:
Thats the intent


Johan on the chance that there will be a tactical map:
Quote:
Won't happen.


Johan on whether we'll be allowed to play as Ultima Thule(Sweden) or not:
Quote:
no


Johan describing Rome:
Quote:
A detailed strategy game with great scope. The entire game is centered on the characters featured in the game, and diplomacy is completely character-driven. People have learnt to expect a game rich in warfare from us, and they will not be disappointed this time around either. Religion also plays a big part, as [religion was] much more [important] back then.


Johan on events and starting dates:
Quote:
There are no historical events as such, but players will be able to experience the creation of empires and the rise of Rome. Players will be able to start at any date, and at the beginning of each game, [conditions] will closely replicate history, but once the game evolves, characters develop and the game will develop with them.


Johan on playable nations:
Quote:
There will be more than 50 playable nations ranging from Rome itself to smaller Gallic tribes. Of course, we have nations like Carthage, Egypt, and Macedonia as well. We chose 280 BC as our starting point because there was a type of balance between several major nations at that time, and essentially any of those major nations could have created an empire similar to that of Rome. Players will have different resources, geographical locations, characters, and governments at their disposal, which will define their strengths and the capabilities of the nations.


Johan on the possibilities for the players to customize their countries:
Quote:
Players can set up trade routes to get access to other resources, appoint characters to various positions in their nation, elect different national ideas depending on their government type...and [they'll have] many more options. The outcome of Europa Universalis: Rome will completely depend on players' strategic and tactical choices.


Johan on what sort of forces Rome will have:
Quote:
There are six different units available in the game: militia (standard peasant levy); heavy infantry (such as the legionary); archers (missile troops, such as slingers); cavalry; horse archers (Parthians); and elephant cavalry.


Johan on the map's influence on the game:
Quote:
The 3D map and improved terrain adds substantially to the look and feel of the game, and in some instances it will play into [certain] strategies. It's more difficult to open trade routes if your nations are separated by mountains, or to wage war over sea, unless you have a strong fleet. What will be visible to players will depend greatly on the strategies applied.


Johan on the mentioning of POPs:
Quote:
Well... :P I wouldn't say "no pops".. We do differences of slaves, freemen and citizens in provinces.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
The ORG heard about it before but anyway...

I've been playing EU3 for hours to extreme levels of delight. :2thumbsup: Never tried myself but the series is told to be one of the most moddable games. At least dreaming an EB for EU is joyful. :smitten:
.

[The Celt]

Wow this is awesome! I loved EU3 and the CKesque character system sounds equally good! I'm kinda disappointed that the map doesn't go at least to W.India but they might be saving that for some sort of "Alexander's Ambition" add-on.(However, if the date on the screen shot calender isn't just some random date for Alpha testing then Alexander is within the games time frame.)

[Zaknafien]

well, I think not, the dates are in AUC.. AFAIK, the period covered is 280 BCE to somewhere around Augustus' time. of course, this would be moddable if ever there were to be an EB for EU:R

[Lusitan]

What about other factions from that era? (Never played EU, so I don't know how their usually set up)

"factions" is something Paradox games are never short of. Imagine for ex eu3, where you can play with any country in the planet, real or hypothetical, from 1453 to 1793.

Or Hearts of Iron 2: Doomsday, with again any country on Earth, during ww2, plus some fictional nations (scandinavia, arab federation...)

If you're curious about how that works, try to find EU2 in the bargain bins - still the greatest game ever IMO (sory CA & EB teams) and with the mods avaliable at the Pdox forums, it will probably remain so for years to come.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
So, do you favour EU2 over EU3? I heard that many fans do so. Do you think I'll enjoy it as much as I do EU3? (Stupid question but anyway... :wacko:)
.

[The Celt]

well, I think not, the dates are in AUC.. AFAIK, the period covered is 280 BCE to somewhere around Augustus' time. of course, this would be moddable if ever there were to be an EB for EU:R
Yeah I just found that on the official forum.(Woops!) Which could mean that an expansion about either the Empire or Alexander would be logical.:2thumbsup: I wonder if the Goidils will be playable?

[Zaknafien]

I would almost guarantee they will be

[Tretii]

About the upcoming Rome game. If Paradox will make it look as ugly as EUIII, then good luck selling it. I am big fan of Paradox games, from CK to Viki and HOI series, but EUII was by far the biggest disappointment. If they use the same "graphics" in Rome as they did in EUIII, then I just settle with waiting another ten years of next EB release and be happy.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Don't know about the graphics (don't care much) but the interface of EU3 is simply b a d !

The rest is a marvel, though I know nothing at all about any other Paradox stuff to compare.
.

[pseudocaesar]

whats the deal with it? is it like RTW with battles etc...can someone explain the basics of this game?

[CountArach]

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=325959

Just saw the announcement Zak! :bow:

@pseudocaesar - Think the RTW Strat Map with Great AI in Real time. Very great games. Incredibly immersive.

[Lysander13]

whats the deal with it? is it like RTW with battles etc...can someone explain the basics of this game?
No...It's nothing like RTW. Battles in EU3 are pretty much highly abstracted. EU3 is not just about war. It's a grand strategy game were you can select one from over 200 countries to run during the Renaissance and Reformation periods of history. You literally handle everything from warfare, religious turmoil, trade, exploration, colonization, scientific deveplopment....you name it...not to mention diplomacy. Ahhh...If only Total War games had EU diplomacy..Now that would be a game!!

I've just received EU3 as a gift recently so i'm still learning my way around sort of speak but i have to say it is absolutely outstanding. I've never played any EU games before so a initially the learning curve seems a little high because there is so much going on. However, if you like strategy games mixed in with history, you may want to give EU3 a try.

I just read the announcement for EU: Rome and that the team will bring the world of EB for that game as well. Outstanding !! You fellas are sure gonna be busy for the next few years....:2thumbsup:

[Underhand]

.
So, do you favour EU2 over EU3? I heard that many fans do so. Do you think I'll enjoy it as much as I do EU3? (Stupid question but anyway... :wacko:)
.
I preferred EU2 to EU3, with the caveat that I played many dozens of hours on the former and few on the latter. I found that states seemed too similar to each other in EU3, with the differences more or less being how big and wealthy you were, your religion and government type and how hindered by tech groups and other variables you were. In EU2, on the other hand, states that were important enough really felt different, due to their unique events, leaders and monarchs, and unique situations shaped by such things as cultures and cores (in EU3, these are quite mutable; you can gain or lose any culture if its provinces make up a sufficiently large or small proportion of those you own, and you can gain cores on your border in a random event). I should note that I didn't much like playing the minor states with few or no events and leaders, for basically the same reasons I didn't like EU3. I will freely admit that I don't think I have given EU3 a fair shake yet, however.

I think that EU:Rome could end up as bland as I think EU3 is, but I really hope that it doesn't. I've dreamed of Paradox doing a game covering this period for years, and I hope that they'll use their ingenuity, as well as the experience gained from EU3, to strike a good balance between allowing many possibilities and making the different states feel different. Having the different societies and military styles affect each other and other aspects of the game and be very hard to change would go a long way towards this, I think.

[Bava]

Whoa, nice, finally a paradox game in an interesting timeframe - everything since the 1800´s is just...gah. And EB is taking care of it, too. Makes me all warm and fuzzy ~D


But this really makes me wonder if there´s ever going be a game with good strategic and battle map AI. I mean, the concept´s around since the eighties (Def of the Crown, North&South). Since "The freakin´EIGHTIES" (tm) !!!

[Sakkura]

Whoa, nice, finally a paradox game in an interesting timeframe - everything since the 1800´s is just...gah. And EB is taking care of it, too. Makes me all warm and fuzzy ~D


But this really makes me wonder if there´s ever going be a game with good strategic and battle map AI. I mean, the concept´s around since the eighties (Def of the Crown, North&South). Since "The freakin´EIGHTIES" (tm) !!!
I couldn't agree more. I love paradox's grand strategy games (especially EU2), but it would be even more awesome combined with battles like you get in EB.

And, let's face it, the grand strategy aspect of RTW is really not that good. EB does the best it can with it, but it's nothing compared to EU2.

[Bootsiuv]

It has to be incredibly difficult to make both a strategic map ai and a battlemap ai that is intelligent and balanced.

That's probably why games that have only strat maps have superior ai...they can focus all of their efforts and testing on one aspect...

[Mouzafphaerre]

I preferred EU2 to EU3, with the caveat that I played many dozens of hours on the former and few on the latter. I found that states seemed too similar to each other in EU3, with the differences more or less being how big and wealthy you were, your religion and government type and how hindered by tech groups and other variables you were. In EU2, on the other hand, states that were important enough really felt different, due to their unique events, leaders and monarchs, and unique situations shaped by such things as cultures and cores (in EU3, these are quite mutable; you can gain or lose any culture if its provinces make up a sufficiently large or small proportion of those you own, and you can gain cores on your border in a random event). I should note that I didn't much like playing the minor states with few or no events and leaders, for basically the same reasons I didn't like EU3. I will freely admit that I don't think I have given EU3 a fair shake yet, however.

I think that EU:Rome could end up as bland as I think EU3 is, but I really hope that it doesn't. I've dreamed of Paradox doing a game covering this period for years, and I hope that they'll use their ingenuity, as well as the experience gained from EU3, to strike a good balance between allowing many possibilities and making the different states feel different. Having the different societies and military styles affect each other and other aspects of the game and be very hard to change would go a long way towards this, I think.
.
Thanks. :bow: It seems like I'll give EU2 a try. ~:)
.

[Big_John]

Mouz, i think that strat game buffs generally consider Victoria and Hearts of Iron 2 to be the best of the paradox games. i've never played Victoria, myself. might want to look into those.

[Victor1234]

Mouz, i think that strat game buffs generally consider Victoria and Hearts of Iron 2 to be the best of the paradox games. i've never played Victoria, myself. might want to look into those.

Victoria is 1836-1936 (with Revolutions addon, which adds alot to the game). Essentially, it's good if you like economic depth/complexity, nation-building, many diplomatic options and a greater focus on internal politics. The military system is notable for being much more basic than HOI2, but everything else (including diplomacy) is much more in-depth and there's alot of focus on military recruitment, loyalty and maintenance. As said, the Revolutions expansion adds alot to the game, extending the end date to 1936, providing a built-in savegame converter to HOI2, making internal politics and party policies have a greater effect, and representing private ownership/investment of the economy in a much better way than before. The private investment and military recruitment restrictions are the two biggest game changes with the expansion IMO, but there are lots more.


HOI2 is 1936-1948 (-1954 if you have the Doomsday expansion, and I think up to 1960 or further with the new Armageddon "booster pack"), focusing mainly on the military side of things. The internal politics of your country is not as intense as in Victoria, but you have a set amount of policy options, a cabinet, with each minister affecting aspects of your country and historical/hypothetical replacements for minister positions. Diplomacy, economics and internal issues are likewise more abstract, but espionage is now introduced into the game with various options and the military representation is the best you'll find in any Paradox game. Doomsday introduced the espionage element and extended the time-frame, Armageddon extends the time-frame and offers various bug-fixes for existing issues (airforce problems, mainly) and new features for the naval side of things.

Don't have Armageddon, so I can't comment on that, but these two with their relevant expansions (or even stand-alone) are very fun games. Victoria is sadly neglected in the modding aspects, as VIP (Victoria Improvements Project) is essentially the only big one out there, but it's got several good conversion mods too (Rise of Napoleon mod, Elizabethan Times mod, etc)

HOI2 has a ton of mods, most focusing on the WW2 era, with a number of conversions as well to different time periods, and alot of ahistorical mods. I'd say HOI2 is by far the most heavily modded game (featuring a large number of small nation improvements packs, adding lots of depth to the smaller nations that the larger mods neglect)

Edit: Oh, the savegame converter added in V:R also means you can technically play any nation from the 1836 scenario, straight through to 1954 (or on to 1960's with HOI2:DD Armageddon). With the large number of unofficial savegame converters already in existence, it's actually possible at the moment to play a country from 1066 to 1954 (or beyond to 1960's). Such games are called mega-campaigns, and are played in the order of CK --> exported to EU2 or EU3 --> exported on to Victoria or Victoria:Rev (although the EU3 --> V:R converter is still being worked on atm, the EU2 --> V:R one is done) --> exported on to HOI2 or HOI2:DD.

[Sakkura]

Mouz, i think that strat game buffs generally consider Victoria and Hearts of Iron 2 to be the best of the paradox games. i've never played Victoria, myself. might want to look into those.
No. Freaking. Way.

EU2 is an absolutely awesome game, if you can come to terms with the dated looks. Hearts of Iron 2 is good, I'll give you that. Victoria has lots of detail, but it's almost like it's trying too many things at one time. Plus it was stuffed full of bugs for ages; the release version felt like a late alpha version.

I played all three, and spent by far the most time on EU2, although HoI2 got quite a few of my hours too.

[AntiochusIII]

Warning: Victoria is hardcore. Not recommended for any casual gamers.

It's complex and with it both the goods and the bads of being complex. Micromanagement is hell in this game; I can't stand checking on every one of my [flowery] pops every [Samuel Jackson] month to make sure everything's alright so I kind of stopped playing at some point...after getting Revolutions, which kind of made things even more complex on the economic side [now you have to keep up with the AI's factory building schemes instead of controlling it on your own -- meaning even more pop management hell.]

HOI 2 is a wargame at heart and is, IMO, much more fun.

So it's like, my opinion for the major Paradox games:

- EU2/EU3 does the best Grand Strategy. Hands down the best of the group.
- HOI2 is the best wargame of the lot. I like this best.
- Victoria is the most complex...at the cost of playability IMO.
- CK is all about characters...at the cost of "stability" on the map, which kind of weakens verisimilitude very much.

So when I heard they're doing the rise of Rome period I'm excited, but when they said it's about characters like CK I'm disturbed. I *don't* want a CK map in an ancient world. It's already barely tolerable in the notably fluid Feudal Europe, if the Roman Empire's going to look like that then I *will* have a problem with it.

But considering how far away that is all I'm really doing right now is just whining. :sweatdrop:

On the EU2 vs EU3 issue...I think AGCEEP did wonders in enhancing the EU2 experience, kind of like what EB is doing to RTW -- prior to that it was just as random as EU3 is. Hopefully Magna Mundi will do the same to EU3 in time. Although I didn't get Napoleon's Ambition so Magna Mundi Gold is out of question for me.

Events Events Events -- that's the best thing in all Paradox games, yet it seems the devs are kind of wary at adding too many events in, so it's up to the modders to do so.

[Sakkura]

Edit: Oh, the savegame converter added in V:R also means you can technically play any nation from the 1836 scenario, straight through to 1954 (or on to 1960's with HOI2:DD Armageddon). With the large number of unofficial savegame converters already in existence, it's actually possible at the moment to play a country from 1066 to 1954 (or beyond to 1960's). Such games are called mega-campaigns, and are played in the order of CK --> exported to EU2 or EU3 --> exported on to Victoria or Victoria:Rev (although the EU3 --> V:R converter is still being worked on atm, the EU2 --> V:R one is done) --> exported on to HOI2 or HOI2:DD.
I love the way you can play from 1066 until the middle of the 20th century in one continuous savegame line. Pretty impressive, that. Plus the game style changes along the way, reflecting the difference in society across that millennium.
But I never got past Victoria with my 1066 game.

PS: I hate POPs.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Thanks Big_John, Victor1234, Sakkura and AntiokhosIII. I've noted the Paradox titles for my future targets. ~;)

The conversion thing sounds amazing! Playing a faction from 1066 to 1960 would be an experience worth trying at the least. :yes:
.

[CountArach]

I read a Polish Mega AAR once and I must say it was amazing! He become the sole powerhouse in Eastern Europe, then the Mongols came and wiped him out over about twenty years. He was reborn some years later as a minor nation, then built hsiw ay up to a regional power again. Truly awesome stuff to read.

[Gigau]

I won't even try to compare Paradox games with RTW for two reasons :
1/ they are completely different games
2/ i never played RTW :laugh4:
I'm more a strategy player than a tactical one.

On the debate about which is the best game made by Paradox... i'll never hesitate : Crusader Kings. It needs a lot of improvement, but in terms of historical experience, it's a must-have.

On the debate of EU2 versus EU3... one can't compare. I'd say that a lot who prefer EU2 miss, in EU3, the historical events. Beyond that, if it's true the 3D map is not as eye candy as Civ IV... i can't play EU2 anymore, due to the depth of EU3. And the game is even greater with the Napoleon's Ambitions expansion.

As for my coming in your forum... i should be joining the EB team for EU:Rome, as i've been working on a map mod for EU3:NA. It should be rather quick (and i stress on the "rather") to make a new map that fits the ambitions of EB.

[bovi]

Welcome Gigau :balloon2:. You may want to try EB just to know what you're trying to recreate, if nothing else :beam:.

[Gigau]

Welcome Gigau :balloon2:. You may want to try EB just to know what you're trying to recreate, if nothing else :beam:.
Thanks a lot :2thumbsup:

I shall whenever i get to buy RTW... i think my wife is going to yell... she already thinks i spend too much with Paradox games :laugh4:

[bovi]

I think you can find it in a bargain bin somewhere, you could probably write it off as gasoline and pray she doesn't notice the difference from the Paradox games :laugh4:.

[Clegane]

I won't even try to compare Paradox games with RTW for two reasons :
1/ they are completely different games
2/ i never played RTW :laugh4:
I'm more a strategy player than a tactical one.

On the debate about which is the best game made by Paradox... i'll never hesitate : Crusader Kings. It needs a lot of improvement, but in terms of historical experience, it's a must-have.


I would have to be inclined to agree here. I've gleaned countless hours of entertainment out of the Paradox games over the past 5 years or so, but Crusader Kings really tops them all. Its the sort of game that would likely appeal to the same people who are really motivated by 'roleplaying' individual character development in EB.

I'm posting this mainly to mention that they also just released (for digital download only) the first official CK expansion in three years. I realize that the time period may not appeal to many fans of EB, but figured it wouldn't be grossly inappropriate to mention the CK expansion here, since this is more or a less a Paradox thread anyway. And the game really is par excellence. :2thumbsup:

[PSYCHO V]

Yeah.. I wonder if the Goidils will be playable?

I doubt it ....unless they extend gameplay to the 3rd C AD



Some of us from EB have offered to help Paradox with research and development, we will see how they respond, they're generally pretty open to suggestions...

Yup, were happy for me to help out doing the research for Australia in HOI


my2bob

[CountArach]

Yup, were happy for me to help out doing the research for Australia in HOI


my2bob
My compliments, I quite enjoyed playing as the Aussies - a very good representation.

[Starforge]

EU3 modded with Magna Mundi Gold is decent but vanilla isn't so great IMO. Basically - it's a multiplayer game that you can play singleplayer but the AI has been tweaked in anticipation of multiple human opponents making it EU:Total War in many ways without the nifty battle map (and damn un-historical for the time period.)

Glad to see them making a game for that era but I'm guessing I'll be waiting for the mods to get it. Personally, I don't like the direction they are taking their new games but that's just me.

Of their titles I probably spent the most time on CK and EU2. Both good games but not near as fun as EB or even vanilla RTW from a pure playability standpoint. Very good given the size of the developer and the niche they service though.

[BerkeleyBoi]

My favorite paradox game is Victoria, but it really is very hardcore. Micromanagement drove me crazy in the beginning, but once I got used to it, I loved the realistic representation of countries and the detail of POPs. This is the reason why I don't like EU3 too much. It just seems a little simplistic at times. For example, an African province with 10,000 native POPs. Send one colonist there and all of a sudden, revolt risk disappears and the culture changes from African to your own country's culture. Combat in EU3 also seems more simplistic than Victoria...

I guess my favorite thing about Victoria (with the VIP mod) and EB is that there's a huge amount of details put into the game. To me it is much easier to get immersed into a game when the concepts are more realistic and there is more historical background to what happens in the game.

[matte89]

The alpha shot is pretty old now, heard about it months ago. Big fan to the series and i just waited for this era to be made, cant wait to play as macedon and take on the challange once again of empire building and survival. I allways imagend the series whit a battlemap mutch like in RTW, woud be great but it relly woud take away some of the core of the series gameplay. Imagen your king/emperor whit no military skill points and a losy army bust a superior army on the battle map just becuse we know the flaws the AI can make and howe they react, its not realistic, insted you have to plan out logic, chose generals and make decisions overall.

[palmtree]

I pretty much felt Paradox lost their way with EU3. I loved all their games up to EU3 but the change in direction they took just turned me right off. Which isn't to say it's necessarily a bad game, but it doesn't come close to EU2 IMO.

Every country plays the same is pretty much the main issue I have. In the interest of creating a sandbox of history they removed all the flavour that makes history interesting.

The 3d engine is also slow as hell while simultaneously being plain ugly compared to EU2's seven years older 2d graphics. And then there's the EU:Rome screenshots. Here with a handy comparison to Rome:TW.

http://sjennings.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/589390_20040922_screen002.jpg

http://sjennings.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/public_3.jpg

That said, I hope they make a great game. Paradox used to be one of my favourite developers, I hope they can get back to making games I'll love. I just won't be preordering the CE of Rome like I did with EU3.

[Starforge]

The alpha shot is pretty old now, heard about it months ago. Big fan to the series and i just waited for this era to be made, cant wait to play as macedon and take on the challange once again of empire building and survival. I allways imagend the series whit a battlemap mutch like in RTW, woud be great but it relly woud take away some of the core of the series gameplay. Imagen your king/emperor whit no military skill points and a losy army bust a superior army on the battle map just becuse we know the flaws the AI can make and howe they react, its not realistic, insted you have to plan out logic, chose generals and make decisions overall.

Basing battles on die rolls of between 0-9 isn't exactly what I would call realistic either. Relatively easy to exploit (unless they fix the ability to leave combat at any time) and if you plan on a military career merely conduct battles in a manner to generate generals that will mod the roll by 5-6 (or wait till the AI hits you with said experienced generals since they can war constantly with no cost to the AI country.)

It's one of the reasons I prefer the modded version with historical events and quite a few changes to how the game plays. It's more suited to a RP style when modded in that way and quite fun but vanilla has quite a few issues including:

Total war: Want to take that Carribean Island from Spain? Make sure you take half their country and their capitol - destroy all their armies around the world because if the AI percieves it can still fight - it won't give you anything. Doesn't matter if the troops are in Lower Siberia and have no realistic way of getting to the island to take it back.

Unrealistic happiness management: Ming - being a large country - will be pushing into the back end of Europe in nearly every game as the AI. This is facilitated by the fact that religion, culture, governmental happiness, etc. have no real impact on country stability (try keeping 3-4 separate religions happy in EU2 without doing some major slider adjustment and management. Guess they figured that was too much work.) It also means - as the player - you can equally keep your Christian and Muslim populations fully satisfied and happy (not just tolerated mind you...but FULLY satisfied.)

Anyone can colonise: So expect to see Venice and the Teutonic order setting up in North America (or any other small country with a border to an ocean.)

Easily duped natives: As the player when playing single player unless you roleplay (which has the drawbacks of being at the mercy of my first point) your first move is to take over the Mexican natives. Successful conversion to your religion converts them to your own culture as well making them extremely lucrative one time rewards (quite a few gold / high trade value provinces.)


Some of these drawbacks are fixed with mods (I can only play it with Magna Mundi personally anymore) but some are like RTW such as the Warscore or the abstract combat rolls (0-9) which really can't be modded making combat problematic (though at least MM mod limits colonization as much as possible for historically non-colonizing nations.)

All in all - if you enjoy grand strategy games and some micromanagement (I do personally) I'd recommend it even with the problems though I'd also recommend modding with Magna Mundi if you like it to be just a tad more historical.

[Starforge]

The 3d engine is also slow as hell while simultaneously being plain ugly compared to EU2's seven years older 2d graphics. And then there's the EU:Rome screenshots. Here with a handy comparison to Rome:TW.


Get your pitchfork everyone.....that's a screenshot of Vanilla!!!!
:hmg:

Banned!!! :whip:

:beam:

[pseudocaesar]

Get your pitchfork everyone.....that's a screenshot of Vanilla!!!!
:hmg:

Banned!!! :whip:

:beam:

You could just call it EB, RTR, or RS or any mods very first BETA thats all :P

[matte89]

Basing battles on die rolls of between 0-9 isn't exactly what I would call realistic either. Relatively easy to exploit (unless they fix the ability to leave combat at any time) and if you plan on a military career merely conduct battles in a manner to generate generals that will mod the roll by 5-6 (or wait till the AI hits you with said experienced generals since they can war constantly with no cost to the AI country.)

It's one of the reasons I prefer the modded version with historical events and quite a few changes to how the game plays. It's more suited to a RP style when modded in that way and quite fun but vanilla has quite a few issues including:

Total war: Want to take that Carribean Island from Spain? Make sure you take half their country and their capitol - destroy all their armies around the world because if the AI percieves it can still fight - it won't give you anything. Doesn't matter if the troops are in Lower Siberia and have no realistic way of getting to the island to take it back.

Unrealistic happiness management: Ming - being a large country - will be pushing into the back end of Europe in nearly every game as the AI. This is facilitated by the fact that religion, culture, governmental happiness, etc. have no real impact on country stability (try keeping 3-4 separate religions happy in EU2 without doing some major slider adjustment and management. Guess they figured that was too much work.) It also means - as the player - you can equally keep your Christian and Muslim populations fully satisfied and happy (not just tolerated mind you...but FULLY satisfied.)

Anyone can colonise: So expect to see Venice and the Teutonic order setting up in North America (or any other small country with a border to an ocean.)

Easily duped natives: As the player when playing single player unless you roleplay (which has the drawbacks of being at the mercy of my first point) your first move is to take over the Mexican natives. Successful conversion to your religion converts them to your own culture as well making them extremely lucrative one time rewards (quite a few gold / high trade value provinces.)


Some of these drawbacks are fixed with mods (I can only play it with Magna Mundi personally anymore) but some are like RTW such as the Warscore or the abstract combat rolls (0-9) which really can't be modded making combat problematic (though at least MM mod limits colonization as much as possible for historically non-colonizing nations.)

All in all - if you enjoy grand strategy games and some micromanagement (I do personally) I'd recommend it even with the problems though I'd also recommend modding with Magna Mundi if you like it to be just a tad more historical.

Well the game has it limits, this is as far as it can streach i guess, it is micomanagement and not all options can be open. Often in history, peace was sign after a grand battle. But the game dosnt work that way, once its war its total war. If you whant to reside to small gains you should try diplomacy or attack that nation once its in a weak state. The napoleon expansion + the patches makes the vanilla very playable. Once i pick up the game again im sure i will try a respected mod for the game.

The dice 0-9 issue is solved once you chosen your general and you location of battle. Thiere is after all Shock,Fire,manuver,sige skills the general uses during the battle whit its own traits of 0-9. Then its the terrain witch can favor the defender whit river -2 ec. After that we have quality of the army and morale, least but not last the diffrent units the world uses, its not the same random for all nation, its historical. Playing as ec holland & sweden during the 1700th century you get the best trained troops in the world.

Battels in this period was usaly decisive like the old days, during the day or days a battle was played out it was allways one army that had the upper hand, the roll dice is pretty good in that way. The better the general and army and location in your favor the more chance you strike a crittical blow towards the enemy. Small things matter aswell, you have the army tech, if you have longbow upgrade to your infantry and your enemy has alot of knights then the infantry fend them off easyer.

Woud like to argue alitle more but i got to go. :shame:

[Starforge]

Well the game has it limits, this is as far as it can streach i guess, it is micomanagement and not all options can be open. Often in history, peace was sign after a grand battle. But the game dosnt work that way, once its war its total war. If you whant to reside to small gains you should try diplomacy or attack that nation once its in a weak state. The napoleon expansion + the patches makes the vanilla very playable. Once i pick up the game again im sure i will try a respected mod for the game.

The dice 0-9 issue is solved once you chosen your general and you location of battle. Thiere is after all Shock,Fire,manuver,sige skills the general uses during the battle whit its own traits of 0-9. Then its the terrain witch can favor the defender whit river -2 ec. After that we have quality of the army and morale, least but not last the diffrent units the world uses, its not the same random for all nation, its historical. Playing as ec holland & sweden during the 1700th century you get the best trained troops in the world.

Battels in this period was usaly decisive like the old days, during the day or days a battle was played out it was allways one army that had the upper hand, the roll dice is pretty good in that way. The better the general and army and location in your favor the more chance you strike a crittical blow towards the enemy. Small things matter aswell, you have the army tech, if you have longbow upgrade to your infantry and your enemy has alot of knights then the infantry fend them off easyer.

Woud like to argue alitle more but i got to go. :shame:


Well, at least you didn't tell me that "if you don't like the AI, play multiplayer" like most of the folks on the Paradox forums when you point out the flaws :).

The game is OK but has some serious flaws in Vanilla. Paradox also has it's small but very dedicated bunch of folks who will defend their products like they are Knights holding Rhodes from the massed Ottoman hordes....

Hitting a country when they are in a weak state doesn't really work as I'm sure you know if you've played it a bit. The instant you attack someone (be they at war or otherwise) they instantly end all other wars to fight the player and the other nations sharing a land border with you are very likely to pounce on the player even your allies (something every RT:W fan should recognize :p.)

Want to make 100% stable borders? Easy! Play as the Ottomans (for example) and force vassalize the balkans so that you only share borders with vassals. This will confuse the AI since they now no longer share a border with you and won't attack vassals of even countries they despise since you can't take a vassal away from another country simply by conquering the vassal.....

I understand that many of the changes were made to address the fact that in EU2 people were blitzing the AI and it was a tad too willing to surrender and make peace but the corrections simply pleased one set of fans while alienating those who played EU2 for a fun semi-historical simulation (mostly single-player folks.) Magna Mundi gold, however, does a very good job of adding the old EU2 single player flavor back in save their inability to mod the peace / warscore / diplomacy system save in certain areas such as the Holy Roman Empire and even there it's scripts for member country behavior - not changes to the underlying system itself.

Again - I have it and play it occasionally and it might hit people on here in the right way especially if they didn't play EU2 to color their opinion of the series. Like most games, it has it's flaws and warts but overall it's an interesting simulation within it's limitations.

[matte89]

Indeed it has it flaws like all games, still i dont complaine against the AI, playing as sweden and waged war for dacades the AI can indeed plan ahead and use weak spots, the russians attacks once you declared peace whit your enemy and your are weak at that moment for exampel. However if you have peace, build up your prestige your neigbors wont be willing to bakstab you so easy and exampel royal marrige will keep thier land hungry kings in check. Its indeed a game where you need to take many actions to get your will trough.

moust people forget howe to play the game to make it intressting, they build up armys and storm europe, i however set upp diffrent goals depending on what king is on the throne, it is abit of roleplaying. Some may be crasy and other war nuts wile some lives in peace. The game requires its part of imagenation at least in my point of view.

I dont play mutiplayer mutch though, it takes to mutch time and its allways trouble or people drop out. 1on1 matches i bare myself to play though.

Anyway back to topic:

The game looks to be great, its intressting to see what chages they make to the diplomacy settings sense its after all another story in this time period. Im not very intressted in Rome though, allways more on other factions, indeed the power balance is even in 280BC but they better not screw up whit the AI this time, it woud be sad if (dont kill me EB team) the romans stuck back on thier peninsula like in EB or that they get pwed by other powers.

[Gazius]

I think Victoria: Revolutions was probably the best out of any paradox game. I completely understand their move to 3d graphics, but, please, RTW had better ones. Give me the old paradox 2d that I've been rather fond of, or quality 3d graphics. I'll probably buy it once it comes out, since despite their successes and flaws, overall they still make a interesting game. If they could just merge the characters of CK, the trade of Vic, and the war detail of Doomsday they'd have a interesting game. Never played any of the EU games.

I'm glad to hear EB is moving onto EU:R since the only time I step in to tactical battles anymore is usually when a heroic victory is needed in a otherwise doomed situation.