Europa Universalis 3 Review
- 1
- 2
You got your Machiavelli in my Sun Tzu! - Review by Thomas Kinnebrew
A new release for those with a penchant for world domination, Europa Universalis III is the latest grand strategy title from Paradox Interactive. This impressive game allows you to rule in intricate detail virtually any nation that existed during the Age of Discovery.
Based on a strategy board game, the original Europa Universalis was released in 2000 and successfully introduced the series, followed in 2001 by EUII, which further improved on the solid gameplay.
EUIII is a quality title and will be loved by aspiring dictators everywhere. This game takes a while to learn, and if this is your first time with the series you should definitely go through the tutorials and at least skim through the 148-page manual (available as a free download from Gamers Gate if you order EUIII online).
You can spend hours on tiny aspects of the game
Or, you could decide that you're a genius and just jump in like I did. I found out I wasn't as smart as I thought I was and it took some time to grasp the huge amount of options at my disposal. I spent the first hour just tinkering with every menu and button I could find. In the process of playing for a while and resenting the difficulty, I somehow found myself completely immersed in trying to keep my Portuguese empire alive, and this was just the demo. I had to get this game.
EUIII looks like your beloved Risk board; presenting you with a map of the known world for the period you've chosen to play. There are over 250 countries you can rule and over 1,700 provinces and sea zones. There are thousands of historical characters and rulers and you can pick any starting date from 1453 to 1789. Seven 'bookmarked date' scenarios are included, including the discovery of the New World, the Thirty Years War and the American Revolution. To say there is a lot to do is an understatement.
You'll control your nation as if you were looking over this world map, with various display filters to show national borders, terrain, religious influence and so on, allowing you to assess the global situation with a few clicks. An army is represented by a single soldier (like a game piece), regardless of the size, and navies are similarly indicated by a ship piece that graphically indicates the best boat in the fleet.
Graphics are simple but give the appropriate board game feel familiar to the EU series, with nice water effects and visual representations of any construction that may be occurring in a province. You move your armies with the familiar left select and right click, and the controls are intuitive in most cases. Menu buttons unobtrusively line the edges of the screen, with further details of your empire available by clicking on your country's flag to open your national menu. This allows you to set research, impose even more taxes on your unfortunate subjects, hire and fire your court and military leaders, and even set your national religious preferences.
You're the ruler of an empire and have no business personally commanding filthy peasants. That's what your generals are for; you're responsibility is to keep an eye on the big picture.
EUIII feels like a turn-based board game, but it's real time. You can pause and give commands, and if you're like me you'll find yourself doing that often as you try to think of some way to keep the aggressive (almost angry) AI off your back. There are five different speed settings but I wouldn't recommend going faster than the third setting if you are at war, as you may find yourself on the losing end of an unexpected battle if you're slow hitting the spacebar. Fortunately, you can set autosave to yearly, bi-yearly, or monthly in case you forget to save the game.
At first this hybrid TBS/RTS system didn't feel right for a big strategy game but it grew on me. If you're not at war you can just hit the fastest speed setting and keep sharp for interesting occurrences. While it can be aggravating to monitor your speed to suit the situation, there is in my opinion one huge advantage over most games of this scope - no turn processing time. After playing Civilization IV and more recently Dominions 3, this is a refreshing change. It feels like it is turn based but without the turn processing wait.
At times it can be slow-paced and uneventful but that won't last for long. Short periods of peace are suddenly broken by huge wars involving many nations. One minute you're busy building improvements, fine-tuning your tax policy and research, and exploring uncharted territories, while the next you're frantically trying to deal with a multinational war of alliances. Now there's too much to do and you're making diplomatic deals to secure your eastern front, sending spies into enemy territory to cause trouble and raising more troops than you could ever afford using loans from greedy bankers.
Battles are resolved in an abstract fashion like CIV, where the board pieces get into a simple fight animation and the fight can take months of game time. An info panel reveals the terrain effects, various combat values, troop or ship types (of which there are many) and the amount of men or boats remaining on each side. Of course I wanted more control but that's why I play strategy games to begin with - I have control issues. Thankfully, this does provide me with a lot of 'alone time' in which to play strategy games.
That controlling urge soon passes as there's so much more to do that a war is often just one of many worries. In a popular RTS like the Total War series strategy takes a back seat to tactical control of your army during a battle but EUIII is the opposite. You're the ruler of an empire and have no business personally commanding filthy peasants. That's what your generals are for; you're responsibility is to keep an eye on the big picture.
The complexity is perfect for grand strategy fans
Despite having a great time, I had some minor issues with the game. Some controls were difficult to figure out, for example using ships to transport your troops. The ship must leave the port and go to the adjoining ocean province before troops can board, just like in TW. You then right click with your army to board the ships and right click to unload your men at your own port. Good so far. However, if you are invading an enemy province, you don't right click to disembark, you have to left click on the 'troop tab' of your navy panel and then right click on the province. This should be simplified to right click board, right click disembark. It's perfectly possible that someone might load their troops, attempt to invade an enemy province with a right click, and figure that it's just not possible to do without a marines upgrade or something. You could even play the game for days under this false assumption before figuring it out. Besides this little quibble, I found the controls to be pretty simple and only had to refer to the manual a couple of times. I think an advisor would have been a nice touch and will probably be needed in the future if the series is to reach new players.
Another portion of EUIII that seemed unusually difficult to accomplish was the trade system. However, I didn't devote as much time to this aspect as I did to other areas of the game and I haven't tried out all of the research. Lastly, multiplayer has some stability issues and is probably a patch or two away from being viable for large games.
I've sunk a lot of time into this title and I've only scratched the surface. This game has a lot more to it and really can't be given justice in a short review. If I had to describe this game to someone who was totally unfamiliar with it, I would say it's a combination of the board game Risk and Civilization. The graphics and sound won't wow anyone but, given the incredible scope of EUIII, this is understandable. I'd encourage any interested new players to download the free demo to try it out and if you're a fan of huge strategy games just go buy it - you know you want to.
The overall score for Europa Universalis III takes the two reviews into account.
VideoGamer.com Score
7Score out of 10- Incredible replayability
- Huge array of options
- Almost impenetrable for newcomers
- No hand holding
User Comments
ibalkid
The second review seems to be done by a competent strategy gamer and is fair and subjective. Good to see.
Smav
Anonymous
Timofmars
It's not that this game genre only appeals to a few people. It's that people who enjoy this genre would not even consider this game based on this review. I don't even want it now :-)
schmutz@ Calanor
Calanor
However, Nxs, you seem to feel that what upset everyone is the score - I don't think that's the case, although some certainly was upset by that bit too. It's not about agreeing with all the "fanboys", it's a matter of not being the right man to evaluate this particular type of game. As has been said by others, I wouldn't mind a 5/10 if the review brought forth genuine problems with the game compared to others from its genre. The reviewer complained about stuff that's quite fundamental in the genre, and as a result the credibility of the entire review went out the window. That's the actual problem with the review. I honestly don't care much about ratings in general, as they obviously just reflect a certain person's opinion. God knows that throughout the years I've found myself enjoying several games that've received mediocre scores while being bored to death by some getting top ones.
As for myself, I'm hardly a "fanboy" or in any way someone who would be fanatically protective about any game in general. Actually, this is the first game in the EU series that I've actually gotten into, though I've played some other Paradox games as well as a lot of strategy games in general. The reason why I reacted was because I felt that the review didn't really describe the cons and pros of the game well at all, due to what seems to be the reviewer's lack of interest and/or inexperience of the genre. And yeah, I _think_ there are several things that could have been implemented better in the game, but none of those things are mentioned by the reviewer. In fact, some important aspects of the game, such as diplomacy and trading, aren't mentioned at all. For all the reader knows, the game could be completely without such features.
As for the dilemma of posting a second opinion, I can certainly see your point. While some (very few) magazines actually use two different reviewers (hopefully with different tastes) to rate a game - usually a high-profile one of course - that's a different matter. In this case we'd be dealing with something published as an afterthought. I certainly can see the problem here - while I feel that the review Ian wrote is very flawed and rather much useless to people genuinely interested in the genre, a second review might at the same time prove to be a Pandora's box, as you say. :|
Anonymous
Uh, I'd like to direct you to the LINE BY LINE breakdown of what is fundamentally wrong with this review in post 32. The Anon poster fully explored where and why the review went wrong, yet you'll notice the times Ian has responded he has only fielded the softball questions of other posters.
The continued posting of concerns is because Ian has not addressed any of our legitimate gripes. I think a response to 32 would satisfy the confused readers here.
Nxs
As has been said, the review is the opinion of the reviewer and that cannot be right or wrong. I also understand that because the reviewer said that he can't understand the game that this shows vulnerability to criticism and all die hard fans of the series deem this as a reason to go ballistic.
I do not think this is a good thing! Why? I'll tell ya! Reviewers are the bane of the game industry. We are! We get a game and like it or not, our personal feelings interfere on occasion. Reviewers are supposed to be objective but, that does not always happen as frustration and the 'what the hell is this crap' sets in here and there. We are only human. There is never, ever going to be a review that everyone will agree with and in this case, it is a lot more so as not a lot of people have played this game let alone heard of it.
Let's be honest here, it is not a mainstream game and the only ones defending it are people that play it and that brings me to my main point. Having a rereview is not a good idea! You can't have fanboys come in here and say that they demand someone else review it cause they don't like the way it turned out! If they do redo it, it will open a pandoras box cause every damn review that someone does not agree with will have to be redone! Insane!
My closing thoughts are this: If you don't like the review, give reasons why so the reviewer can make adjustments for the next time. Having the site make a second opinion review is just retarded as that will open the door for anyone else who disagrees with something to have them redo it. There is just no time for this crap. Really people, I get pissed off at stupid crap too but, nine pages of crap cause people want a new review is ridiculous! :D
Rogue_Soul
I can't wait to see this 'second opinion' review.
Timofmars
The Total War games (MTW,RTW) are extremely easy to many gamers. The game campaign portion of the game is is no way as in-depth as EU3. Ability to win in MTW/RTW is not an issue for most people. It's an issue of how long it will take. For many, 20 turns is enough time to become strong enough where the rest of the game is spent rolling over the unintellegent opponents. Simply spend your time constantly attacking everything around you as soon as you've created the units to do so.
The only single thing that can slow a player down is the high cost of maintaining a large army. And that is why attacking as soon you have a sufficient army is the best strategy. Only people who don't look at their finances to see the share of the costs that come from the army maintainence are the ones who might have trouble with the game. Though it is not longer an issue by the time you defeat one faction.
Don't get me wrong, MTW was fun for a little while during the time that I thought I that that it was going to remain difficult throughout the game. But after 25 turns and the game had become a game of clean-up duty (walk over all of the weak opponents) and micromanagement (building all those troops and moving them to the front line, among other things)... Well, its shallowness became apparent. The only thing that remains is the tactical combat, particularly multiplayer tactical combat, despite intrusive control bugs and imbalances.
In addition in MTW, the tactical combat that the game centralizes around allows most gamers to constantly overpower their opponents, and in many cases, exploit the AI through certain tactics due to the sometimes weak AI. My point here is that there is no way that MTW/RTW games are more in-depth than EU3. The fact that the reviewer did not understand the game because it was too in-depth refutes that claim. And I'm trying to show also that in comparison, it is a mistake to say MTW has greater depth. In fact, what depth is has doesn't matter if there are so few choices that will actually have a detrimental effect to your success, so much so that you start to ignore the in-depth details because of their irrelevance.
Look at each "choice" you have to make. There is very little trade-off between different choices. Recruit priests to increase your faith. Very little cost to do so, and it's all just useless micromanaging after as you have to move them around to the proper provinces. Same with spies, merchants, any agent really. There's no choices to be made. There's no harm in attempting to make alliances with everyone except your current enemy. The same with getting trading rights. You'll should always attempt to move a spy into an enemy city before attacking to attempt to open the doors from the inside. Merchants? Pure micromanagement, no negative effects to consider or alternatives to consider (you can have it all!).
Drawing a comparison to EU3, maintaining a small army also can save some money. But it is in no way the game-winning strategy it is in MTW. There are so many more variables in EU3. There is no singular game-winning strategy like in MTW. Too much of one thing can backfire in some cases, and in other cases it involves penalties in other areas. For example, you can expand through war, but you'll hurt relations, your ability to trade competitively will decline due to your bad reputation, your stability costs will rise. The things that help you militarily can have a detrimental effect on other aspects of your country. On top of that, the AI is much more challenging. Becoming stronger means it's more difficult to maintain stability, and tech costs will also scale along with the size or your country so extra income doesn't mean you can become a technological superpower. And becoming larger through force can make cause you to face more enemies at once than you can handle.
Some of the things in MTW are automatically handled in EU3 to eliminate the vast amount of micromanagement found in MTW. Taxe rates in EU3 are already considered to be maximized based on the assumption that you would want to tax as much as is reasonable possible. Combat in EU3 is actually detailed and complex, and involves the AI automatically maximizing it's chances to win, for example by targeting the biggest threat first, or the target that is the weakest against attacks. Looking closely at the combat, you'll see the cavalry naturally go to the flanks and to the rear because of their range. And cavalry stay out of assaults during seiges except as a last resort because of their ineffectiveness at it. All these things exist to make the game detailed, but are out of your control to prevent the need to micromanage so you can think about the many other things you need to balance.
And I think that's what the reviewer is missing. He's looking for the immediate flashy explosions that he's used to seeing in games, but he's missing the intricacies that make this game so challenging. The fact that he's losing his battles and thus feeling that it is out of his control shows that he doesn't understand what factors are affecting the combat. I can understand that the battles might seem boring if you don't understand them. But after you understand them, you'll be excited even just manuevering troops during war just because you know the advantages and disadvantages involved like troop composition, morale, prestige, manpower, terrain bonuses, generals, tradition, technology, shock and fire, war score, attrition... Everything is so inter-connected that after learning the game, you can think back to every decision you made and how it is affecting where you are now.
But to review a game without taking the time to understand at least the basics, there's no way you can tell someone about how good the gameplay is. You don't know if it's flawed and a certain strategy is overpowered. You just think it's flawed because didn't take the time to understand it.
Regardless of the fact that your opinion is based on a lack of understanding of the game, there are some items in the review that are just factually false and should be edited. A major complaint is about the game speed being both too fast and too slow!!! But the speed is absolutely adjustable!!! You did not mention this. It can even be paused! Now everyone reading this review things that this is a boring game because you are stuck waiting for "70 day" to create and move an army.
Also, I imagine the reasoning behind having to move a ship into the sea square to load men onto them is because you cannot move your ships into an enemy controlled port. This means you have to load and unload out at sea in order to to attack from the sea. This allow enemy ships to prevent you from doing this by attacking you. Otherwise, maintaining naval superiority to protect from sea invasions wouldn't work as well. And a naval blockade of your own ports wouldn't stop you from loading up troops and just "fleeing" your way to the enemy lands.
So learn how to play the game, and do the review again. The replay value alone should bump up the score a few points!
DTN
As a sidenote, reviewing niche gaming has always resulted in diehard fan retaliation when it does not go their way. This I believe is was not unexpected when they were reviewing EU3. Lets stay away from the personal comments.
Estonianzulu
Ian's review begins in the correct way:
"Europa Universalis III is more than a little tricky to review." This is without a doubt true, and I commend him for taking on the task nonetheless. He is correct in his assumption that large numbers of fans of the Starcraft era-RTS games will not easily translate into this system.
The reason so many people have had such a vehement reaction to this review is not because many of the things you say are untrue. The game is, compared to most, unduly complicated and difficult to grasp quickly. It can have a slow pace, especially for people used to FPS's and RPG's.
I believe that most fans of the game have felt that your review did not do the game justice, and will convice people to avoid the game. Those of us over at Paradox tend to be a niche group of gamers. Many do not consider ourselves RTS gamers (though many do play traditional RTS games). EU, Hearts of Iron, Victoria, Crusader Kings and the like are games of their own genre, which really do not neatly fall into a category.
The fallacy in this review is not so much what you said (in my mind) but how it was said. Concerns over complexity and speed are legitimate. However, qualities such as slow build time, and long-time grand strategy are the corp elemants of the game. Saying that this is a poor quality to have in a game is saying that this type of game is not one you enjoy.
I do not like games that overly simplify the progress of time and civilization, thus I would not review a game such as Civilization, or Sim City. In this case, you do just that. The main qualities of EU are not what you enjoy, thus the game appears to be of low quality.
Your criticisms about the clunky interface and huge number of menus and sub-menus is likely legitimate, I cannot comment to that regard. Although I can say much of this developed from experiences in previous games, a quality that I applaud Paradox for. The long and detailed list of information and statistics has become necessary for those gamers who really love to become deeply involved in the game. Likewise, the inability to control troops and armies, similar to the fighting style of games such as Civilization, is a staple of this genre of games, thus neither can really be a target of criticism.
The parallel to flight sims vs. aircraft fighting games has been drawn, and it is appropriate. Microsoft Flight Simulator X really cant be reviewed in the same vein as Over G Fighters. While both descending from the same video game lineage, they are completely different genres of game.
So while I agree your criticisms can be made of the genre itself, targeting this single game is unfair (thus this, and all the other posts). You cannot blame Starcraft for the fallacies of RTS games, likewise you cannot blame EU3 for fallacies inherent in all games of its genre. I think the above attacks on you and this site were out of line, but I must agree that your review does not do the game justice. However, by prefacing your review with your first line, you do absolve yourself of much blame. This game is terribly difficult to review, because there is very little like it. Parallels to Civ 4 and MTW are the closest that can be drawn, but even those really deny the levels of depth that EUIII is formed to cover.
So, thanks for the review, it is an interesting take on the game; and hopefully you will get to experience a better take on the game in the future. If not, thats ok, this genre of games is most specifically not universal, not even among strategy gamers.
Thomas
TomO
Strategy Gamer
Anonymous