Printable View
Which do you feel is a better game? I know this will skew towards M2TW since we are on this forum. I feel this game captures the feel of the era, there is more to do with minor players (spies, assassins, etc.) in between battles, and it is far less complicated than EU2. I could never get past its steep learning curve.
What say you?
Hoi2DD
God I miss the good ole days when I had 6 friends also in college who could devote 40 or so hours over a 3 day weekend to playing HOI1 ;p
never heard of it...what is it?
M2TW > EU2 IMO.
Not that there aren't some things that the TW series couldn't learn from EU. The diplomacy is much much better in EU2, alliances mean something and you get a clear indication (and means to affect it) of how every other faction feels about you. The slider system in EU2 is also very nice.
On the other hand EU2's battles are... well lets say... simplistic. I like them both but prefer TW. For comparison's sake though i'd say that EU2 is a medieval kingdom sim while TW is a medivial conquering sim. :P
ps:- aye, ach to that learning curve. EU2 took me a couple of abborted attempts and a few winces and much cursing before it all started to sink in.
Nothing to compare with. Its like comparing Civ III to Doom III. The only common thing is that they are both strategy games. M2TW is 40% a strategy game and 60% a tactical game. At this 40% EU2 is a better game. As a whole the two games are uncomparable. They even dont have the same era. EU II is a renessance (SP) and Napoleonic game (1400-1850) and M2TW is a ... medieval game (1080-1550).
I had been equaly addicted with EU2 and MTW, if this is something relavent.
IMO they can´t be compared. EUII is THE best scripted strat game on the market but a bore graphics wise. IF EUII had the TW battle engine then I´d never had bought another game for the rest of my life.
Although they are both historically-based strategy games, they aren't really comparable.
Total War is all about fighting battles. The campaign is a means to an end as it's raison d'etre is to give you a reason to fight a battle and a structure that creates variety. The campaign isn't supposed to simulate the role of a medieval ruler at all, and it doesn't. It provides a strategic challenge and adds some depth.
The Paradox Games (Crusader Kings is a better comparison as it's set in the same period) makes an attempt to simulate the role of a ruler in that time period. World domination is a lot harder, and the economic and diplomatic aspects are more complex and challenging. Battles are secondary in the Paradox games - being a good general is not what it's about, being a good ruler is.
I enjoy both types of games. As a fan of medieval history, the Paradox games are far better simulations - but there's nothing like fighting a medieval battle in 3d.
Incidentally, a better comparison for M2:TW is Knights of Honor which is virtually identical in structure and does have a stab at battle simulation (not in the same league as M2:TW in this respect though).
I think EU2 might have been the most unstable game i've ever played. Even after god knows how many patches, it still used to just exit to the desktop at random - no warnings, error messages, lock ups, or even beeps. Just all of a sudden i'm staring at my desktop when i was about to click on a province.
God, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by PseRamesses
If TW borrowed the diplomacy and economics (but especially the diplomacy) for EU2 then it'd really, really rule. Isn't EU3 planned for next year?
EUIII is supposed to be out in January 2007. Looks a bit prettier from the screenshots.
I'm in the Beta group and it's a lot of fun. Basically EU2 with 3d engine (eye candy) and a lot of new options.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Montfort
True, aye, true. Otherwise, it's different leagues, can't compare them.Quote:
Originally Posted by PseRamesses
They are different type of games and can't be compared.:yes:
I'm looking forward to it (although I personally prefer Crusader Kings to EU).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringeck
I would agree with what a few people have said - a game that incorporated the Paradox campaign and the CA battles would be truly awesome. I don't think it'll ever happen though as the EU campaign would scare off a lot of TW punters who just want to fight. TW's campaigns are designed to make battles frequent.
Total war and Paradox series are my favorites! They are very good at different part: Total war for battle, Paradox for diplomacy/economy.
Once I dreamd of someone making EU2 with Totalwar battle engine. Perhaps knights of Honor was such kind of a challenge, which failed.
I believe EU2 system is so complicated that no other game may imitated - it costs too much effort & money just to recreat realistic medieval simulation, which I doubt is attractive for casual gamers.
I mean, to make money, developers should make Total war-like games. That being said, I sincerely admire Paradox's effort & its success to make it realistic and enjoyable.
As someone has indicated above, Paradox games are famous/infamous for its never-ending patches - mostly due to such a lot of pactions involved as many as around 50~100(?). So that they need to give pactions appropreate status, core provinces, events, leaders.
IMO, Total war's Crusader system was just failed imitation of Paradox'. But most serious problem is that it can not handle diplomacy of dozen pactions properly.
I love battle in M2TW, but if a game combining EU2 campaign + M2TW battle can be created, it must be by Paradox.
Signed... let's hope a CA-Paradox acquisition-merging then :PQuote:
Originally Posted by cambrax
OK, question asked and answered. Let's keep discussion of Paradox games to the Arena, where they have several enthusiastic fans.