Tweet
I've been wanting to write this up for some time now, so before I post it to the EU forum, I want to try it out here...
Over the past year, I have heard talk about comparisons/features from Imperialism II as they might apply to EU and Civ3. I finally picked up this title and have been playing it for couple of weeks now. IMO, Imperialism II is a far better game than EU (and one that perhaps Civ3 is moving towards). With both games covering the exact same period, here are my reasons in saying that Imp2 is better than EU:
1. Imp2 has a resource/trade model where resources mean something. EU has just a Center of Trade with specific commodities not really meaning much.
2. Imp2 has a clearly understandable resource productions (e.g., 1 tin + 1 copper = 1 bronze). EU has, ummm, a Center of Trade and taxes.
3. Imp2 has a clear unit-building model where you know the cost of building. EU has units that just appear.
4. While both games have a cost of war, Imp2 costs are clear where EU costs are vague, not to mention an awkward attrition model.
5. Imp2 has a clear cause and effect Technology Tree. EU can research technology buts its effects are vague.
6. Imp2’s combat model clearly shows the benefits of having specific units and how they would be used tactically on a battlefield. EU just has two units fighting with a vague idea of how and why the results come to be.
7. Imp2 is consistent as to the level of micro-management (e.g., all units are transported the same way). EU has various levels of unit micro-management from the nebulous adding of merchants in the CoT to the needless detail of boarding units on ships.
8. Both maps are of similar scale even though EU covers a greater extent and has more provinces. Imp2’s provinces, however, are more detailed (like a Civ2 map).
To be fair, there are two areas where EU is much better:
1. EU’s Religion model is revolutionary and very clever. Imp2 has no religion model.
2. While Imp2’s Diplomacy is perhaps the best for a TBS game, EU has added more depth to it.
As I have said when we were talking about EU here when it first arrived in the US, I prefer a more measurable model when playing a game of this nature. EU’s vagueness in its presentation and use of resources/units/technologies does not suit my strategy game style. I didn’t know it at the time, but Imperialism II was the game that I wanted EU to be.
Over the past year, I have heard talk about comparisons/features from Imperialism II as they might apply to EU and Civ3. I finally picked up this title and have been playing it for couple of weeks now. IMO, Imperialism II is a far better game than EU (and one that perhaps Civ3 is moving towards). With both games covering the exact same period, here are my reasons in saying that Imp2 is better than EU:
1. Imp2 has a resource/trade model where resources mean something. EU has just a Center of Trade with specific commodities not really meaning much.
2. Imp2 has a clearly understandable resource productions (e.g., 1 tin + 1 copper = 1 bronze). EU has, ummm, a Center of Trade and taxes.
3. Imp2 has a clear unit-building model where you know the cost of building. EU has units that just appear.
4. While both games have a cost of war, Imp2 costs are clear where EU costs are vague, not to mention an awkward attrition model.
5. Imp2 has a clear cause and effect Technology Tree. EU can research technology buts its effects are vague.
6. Imp2’s combat model clearly shows the benefits of having specific units and how they would be used tactically on a battlefield. EU just has two units fighting with a vague idea of how and why the results come to be.
7. Imp2 is consistent as to the level of micro-management (e.g., all units are transported the same way). EU has various levels of unit micro-management from the nebulous adding of merchants in the CoT to the needless detail of boarding units on ships.
8. Both maps are of similar scale even though EU covers a greater extent and has more provinces. Imp2’s provinces, however, are more detailed (like a Civ2 map).
To be fair, there are two areas where EU is much better:
1. EU’s Religion model is revolutionary and very clever. Imp2 has no religion model.
2. While Imp2’s Diplomacy is perhaps the best for a TBS game, EU has added more depth to it.
As I have said when we were talking about EU here when it first arrived in the US, I prefer a more measurable model when playing a game of this nature. EU’s vagueness in its presentation and use of resources/units/technologies does not suit my strategy game style. I didn’t know it at the time, but Imperialism II was the game that I wanted EU to be.
Comment