Is EUIII better than EUII?

[Ignoramus]

Being quite an avid player of EUII, I was wondering whether it's worth getting EUIII. From what I've heard and seen from the demo, it appears that a lot of the historical content has been stripped out, which is the biggest appeal of the game to me, but I can also see some important improvements over the EUII engine.

What do you guys think?

[CountArach]

I have not played EUII, but the standard reasoning is as follows:

If you want rigid historicity, play EUII. If you want historical plausibility play EUIII (Though you seriously need to download Magna Mundi...). If you do decide to get EUIII then make sure you get the expansions to go with it - they add a lot of great features and really flesh EUIII out.

[naut]

I'm also hesitant to get EUIII, I'm still quite content with EUII.

[TinCow]

I have never played EUII, but EUIII is an excellent game. From what I can tell, the vanilla release is less historical. However, there have since been two expansion packs which dramatically change the game. The latest (In Nomine) in particular adds a great deal of historical events and options back into the game. EUIII with both expansion packs is easily one of the best strategy games I've ever played. I have also seen numerous comments from older EU fans on the paradox forums which indicates that while EUII is better than vanilla EUIII, EUIII with both expansion packs is better than EUII.

[JR-]

this persuades me to rip the cellophane of my copy of EUIII which i bought about 18 months ago.

[naut]

I have never played EUII, but EUIII is an excellent game. From what I can tell, the vanilla release is less historical. However, there have since been two expansion packs which dramatically change the game. The latest (In Nomine) in particular adds a great deal of historical events and options back into the game. EUIII with both expansion packs is easily one of the best strategy games I've ever played. I have also seen numerous comments from older EU fans on the paradox forums which indicates that while EUII is better than vanilla EUIII, EUIII with both expansion packs is better than EUII.

Problem is purchasing expansion packs significantly racks up the price... and being a student I'm poor. I guess I'll stick to EUII for a while yet.

[Csargo]

EUII FTW!!!

I prefer EUII over EUIII but I've only played vanilla EUIII. With the expansions for EUIII I hear it's pretty good game like CA and TC said, but like Rythmic I'm poor and can't afford the two expansions.

[Jolt]

Problem is purchasing expansion packs significantly racks up the price... and being a student I'm poor. I guess I'll stick to EUII for a while yet.

We all should make a EU II Multiplayer session! :D

[Melvish]

As like all the late Paradox game, EUIII need all the expansion pack and patch to be a good game.
I've actually exchanged EUIII vanilla for Eastern Front II back then. Later i've re-bought EUIII collection edition (include Napoleon and In Nomine expack) and i enjoyed (a lot) the game at last. Magna Mundi mod make it even better.

[Martok]

I figured I might as well post in this thread instead of starting a new one.

To repeat a question I posed to Monk in the screenshots thread:


For those of you who've played EUIII a fair bit now, what do you think? Honestly? I'm especially curious to hear from those who have played a lot of turn-based strategy games, and how much of an adjustment it is to playing EU3 (and I suppose Paradox games in general), although I would still love to hear everyone's opinion regardless.

To give you an idea of where I'm coming from, my favorite strategy games are (in no particular order) Shogun Total War, Medieval Total War, Star Trek TNG: Birth of the Federation, Lords of the Realm II, and Galactic Civilizations 2. As you can see, I like big, epic empire-building games where I think and plan out what I want my nation/race/faction to do.

Now I've heard people say that while they are in real-time, Paradox games are played at a very measured pace just like turn-based strategy games, but I can't help but wonder just how true that is. Do they really move slow enough that a plodding old fogy like myself could still keep up? And what about EU3 specifically? I've read that it's much more accessible to players than most previous Paradox titles, but since I've never played any of their other games, I really don't have anything to compare it to.


I would really like to hear what people here think about it. As I stated in the screenshot thread, my local Best Buy has a copy of EU3 Complete for around $10.00 (IIRC), and I'm wondering if it would be worth my while to pick it up.

[frogbeastegg]

I'm more of a Paradox dabbler than a Paradox fan so I'm only semi qualified. I do think you might like certain of the Paradox stable, particularly EUIII. The games are made for a specific audience: strategy geek.

For those of you who've played EUIII a fair bit now, what do you think?

It's a game where you need both expansions for the best experience, so either you should buy everything or buy nothing. They add so much, refine, fix, tweak, and just generally overhaul the original experience.

I'm especially curious to hear from those who have played a lot of turn-based strategy games, and how much of an adjustment it is to playing EU3 (and I suppose Paradox games in general)

Give it half an hour and you will be speeding up, slowing down and pausing time as though you have been doing it for years. You can tailor the game to pause automatically for a lot of different events, and everything can be done if the game is paused. It's rather like having the turns placed where you want them.

And what about EU3 specifically? I've read that it's much more accessible to players than most previous Paradox titles, but since I've never played any of their other games, I really don't have anything to compare it to.

With Paradox accessability is a relative term. They are badly documented, complicated, and some parts are just downright uninituitive. Furthermore, the procession of patches alters the game so much that guides etc from an early version are quite useless for a later one.

You will be to be prepared to spend a lot of time reading the official forum. You will need the patience to engage in trial and error, and to forge on when you feel completely lost. It's gonig to take a comparatively long time to learn, and longer still to understand the higher levels of the game.

Generally though, once someone survives their first full campaign they have found their feet.

It's a time consuming game. You can't play for a couple of hours and then expect to understand most of the gameplay. Campaigns take a long time to complete, and the replay value is massive due to the ability to play many different nations and starting eras.

As I stated in the screenshot thread, my local Best Buy has a copy of EU3 Complete for around $10.00 (IIRC), and I'm wondering if it would be worth my while to pick it up.

If you have the time to give it, I'd say go for it. I would recommend it to you ahead of EU: Rome, despite your preference for Romans over guns.

[Xiahou]

Just to add to what Froggy already said. Real-time instead of turn-based is pretty much no concern at all. I was worried about it too coming into EU3, but my concerns were misplaced.

I would also agree that if you want EU3, you want all the expansions. If you're getting the Complete Edition for $10, I'd do it without a second thought. Too bad they didn't have that when I got the game- I think I paid $60 total...

When I first started playing, I found the game to be a little intimidating- but in a good way. I really enjoyed the challenge of trying to find out how the various game mechanics worked.... how to conquer territories, forge alliances, keep inflation low, ect. I'd say that playing a few hours a day, it took me about 2 or 3 days to get comfortable enough with everything to feel like I was doing well. I mainly used trial and error, combined with the EU3 wiki and some Googling when all else failed.

Sadly, I've gotten away from the game lately- partly due to a lack of time, and partly due to being distracted by other games. But I still think it's a great game and look forward to playing again.

[Monk]

I can say with confidence that I have gotten hooked on EUIII, in a similar way I was hooked on STW many years ago. I feel as if I've discovered an entire new genre of games and am going to start looking into much more paradox games the moment EUIII becomes boring. The only catch is I don't foresee EUIII getting boring anytime soon!

When I first started playing, I found the game to be a little intimidating- but in a good way. I really enjoyed the challenge of trying to find out how the various game mechanics worked.... how to conquer territories, forge alliances, keep inflation low, ect. I'd say that playing a few hours a day, it took me about 2 or 3 days to get comfortable enough with everything to feel like I was doing well. I mainly used trial and error, combined with the EU3 wiki and some Googling when all else failed.

I think the biggest change of pace, going from TW to EU was the fact that you can't just declare war against everyone in sight like you can in Total War. That alone took a lot of getting used to. You have to balance your realm's stability, economy and revolt risk factors all while trying to deal and wheel in order to obtain just causes for war so your people won't revolt if you get into an offensive war! At first it seemed contrived and far too difficult, but thanks to a friend who knows the game and a few nights of just playing with buttons I developed a good understanding of its features.

Once I got the understanding I found a very fun game. The tutorials helped a lot in teaching the interface, but not really so much with the features. For that I just played a few throw-away games and learned by doing. Annexation and diplomatic dealing was also another hurdle, but I have to say that once I got used to it it felt very fluid and straight forward (even though it didn't seem that way from the outside looking in).

I will repeat what I said in the screenshot topic. For $10 EUIII -Complete is a steal, and if you have the time to devote to learning the game it will reward you greatly with its hours of gameplay. The only downside is how much time it can suck up.

[Jolt]

That alone took a lot of getting used to. You have to balance your realm's stability, economy and revolt risk factors all while trying to deal and wheel in order to obtain just causes for war so your people won't revolt if you get into an offensive war!

While in EU 3 you can actually win a war with those problems relatively unsolved, Victoria is the hallmark of what you have just said. Its quite fun to see that if you go to war there without having your economy (Budgets, Tariffs, Taxes), Industry (Producing and lucrative factories and railroads), Society (Making sure the vast majority of your Population or POPs are getting their daily goods with being forced to poverty due to taxes or tariffs) and Military (Starting force ready, looking over at the terrain, which plays a huge role in warfare, and reserves) completely balanced and controlled, going to war will collapse your entire country before you can say "What the ?"

On the other hand, being the World's leading exporter, with such a power as to paralyze world trade and sending several countries to bankrupcy due to shortage of resources, on a whim is quite an awesome feeling.

[frogbeastegg]

Vicky is possibly my favourite out of the Paradox stable. Despite that it's the one I recommend most sparingly, for the same reason I don't play it that much. It's just so big: so much to do, so many decisions to make, so much to monitor, so much time involved, and so very many paths you can take. It's not something to approach lightly. One day I should probably buy the Revolutions expansion; it's more of a heavy duty patch than an add-on.

I have a 4 year old AAR which documents my first game of Vicky. If you can tolerate the wonky writing it gives a very good idea of the learning process.