Question For Yin

[yin26]

You're welcome! Always a good move to wait for the price to come down and for the patches to improve the game. If you enjoy history stuff at all, you'll absolutely love EU2!

[LoneWolf]

EU2 is an RTS game. The only complexity comes from the fact that all of the rules are not explained up front. Once you know the rules, its hard to imagine not winning. There are very few choices to make. Collect resources (place merchants), zip around your empire building armies as fast as you can, invade your neighbor. Repeat. One type of product in each province, three buildings and one manufactory. Do you want to build them? Well yes, there's nothing else to do (other than build armies, of course). The time pressure inherent in all RTS games makes it seems complex, but once you hit the pause button you realize there is really not much there.
But hey, if Yin and others like RTS games better, more power to them. To each his own. Some people prefer the constant stimulation RTS games provide.It clearly is the way things are moving. I like a game with a bit more substance, but that's just me.

[yin26]

Right...that's why I suggested all messages to pause...

If you never intend to understand all the information in front of you, and if you only play to take over a few provinces and consider yourself a 'winner'--great, the game doesn't really care. Nor do I.

BTW, if you simply run around attacking people and repeating that, you WILL get crushed. Though if you exit the game after 20 minutes because you conquered one province and consider yourself Mr. Khan, more power to you.

[SpencerH]

You should be able to pick up a copy much cheaper than that on the web. Mine cost $10 (OEM)!

Yin, for the most part I agree with what you've said about the feel of EU2 compared to civ. It is an interesting game (and worth buying). The concepts of alliances, religions etc in the game were much better than in civ and playing the EU2 certainly gave an immersion in the politics of Europe during those times. I have to wonder then why you still play it and I dont. In CIV style games I'm invariably a builder, but in my first game of EU2 I played as Russia which meant conquering my neighbors in order to win. By the end of the game I had conquered all of the geographic Soviet Union and Warsaw pact countries. Taken North America from the Spanish and Colonized Australia. My second and third games were played as Sweden and Turkey with fairly similar results. Perhaps if I had played smaller countries whose victory conditions did not involve conquest, the games might have gone in a different direction and I might have stayed with EU2 longer.

[LoneWolf]

People like you truly crack me up, Yin. Classic, textbook case study.

[yin26]

I have to wonder then why you still play it and I dont.

It's a good question. I think that EU2 comes across as 'work' at times in the sense that all kinds of messages are popping up demanding attention, seiges take forever, the overall pace is rather plodding as you build yourself up for the Next Stage. In other words, you need lots of time and patience to really enjoy EU2 ... that at there aren't too many bells and whistles to carry you through it all. In the end, of course, I find that while I am 'working' very hard to see the kind of progress I planned, to see it all come together after many ups and downs is very satisfying.

On the other end, Civ3 is readily accessible, pretty, full of constant tiny things to make you feel like you are progressing. In just an hour or two of play, you can see that you've made great progress (an hour or two in EU2 and you are still trying to recover stability 3 from the previous war, for example). However, I find that Civ3 offers me no real sense of accomplishment when all is said and done. Fun? Yes, in moments, not as an overall experience.

EU2 fun? More like fascinating with a good dose of having actually accomplished 'something' come the 19th century...

[Tuberski]

The story I read was about a small country making it big, it was actually quite interesting, and it told a lot of what the game mechanics are....I think.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Spook42


Invariably, a game like Civ3 is going to draw comparisons from other "civilization" strategy games.

And as this is NOT an official Firaxis site, I don't see as that such comparisons need be hampered. If a former EU player, disappointed in EU/EU2, later developed a preference for Civ3 and expressed his pleasure here through comparisons, I somehow think that less people here would discourage the comparison.

(And yes, ACooper, I know that you indicated playing EU2 earlier. But I am again referring to a hypothetical case of someone making comparisons.)

If you wish to learn more of the EU series, soaringknight, below is a link to an EU fan site, with its own "community" forum too.


Europa Universalis Site

Direct real comparisions are acceptable but saying "Civ3 sucks" and "EU2 is the greatest game ever" is not a comparision. (I do note that Yin has provided some valid comparisions even if my opinions are different than his.)

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by yin26

On the other end, Civ3 is readily accessible, pretty, full of constant tiny things to make you feel like you are progressing. In just an hour or two of play, you can see that you've made great progress (an hour or two in EU2 and you are still trying to recover stability 3 from the previous war, for example). However, I find that Civ3 offers me no real sense of accomplishment when all is said and done. Fun? Yes, in moments, not as an overall experience.

Sounds like you are softening on your Civ 3 stance a little Yin, I've never heard you say ANYTHING good about it before.

[yin26]

Hmmm. I wouldn't say I'm softening on my stance so much as highlighting that certain individual elements of the game can be appealing. The Overall Civ3 experience is actually overwhelmingly bleak, IMO, from about the 3rd or 4th game on.