Paradox Entertainment

[alanschu]

The multiplayer of EU2 was great. I was England, one friend was France, and another was Spain.

 

After Spain started making absolutely retarded amounts of money with the trade in the new world, France and I attacked them. Prior to the war though, we continued to fund pirate activities in his unprotected sea zones, to mess up with his trade empire.

 

One of the most fun things about the game (and Hearts of Iron 2) is the events that happen. On occassion, huge events come up that allow you to alter history, or perhaps follow it, that just make the game so much fun. They also lend a little bit of predictability to the game, which for the most part can be played out in insane ahistorical situations. I remember playing one game as the Ottoman Empire and having a blast pushing into the middle east, as well as Eastern Europe. But after a while, the countries got pissed off (I had accumulated a ton of "badboy" points since I was a major aggressor), and pretty much all of Europe declared War on me.

 

The combat can be pretty tactical too (though pales in comparison to HOI...given the limited unit types). I think copying from Risk, they have basic Infantry, Cavalry, and Cannons (though they are different in EU, unlike risk). Cavalry is great in open fields, and very fast. Infantry is more versatile, and so on. Plus, weather can play a key role, with heavy storms slowing units down. Winter is a monster! Certain provinces can only support armies of certain sizes, and if you are an aggressor, a winter province in occupied enemy territory suffers from insane attrition. It makes fighting battles in the north more strategic, as well as a ton of fun! Nothing like hearing the guy scream because the Russian winter has saved Muscovy from annihilation. You could also research improvements in your land units, convert "heathens" to your religion (useful when conquering places), and so on. Discovering gunpowder was a TSN turning point, as it gave you a "free" attack against non gunpowder nations, before you engaged in melee combat.

 

I prefer HOI2 because of it's increased strategic diversity (much more difference in unit types), and I'm a WW2 buff. But my experiences with EU2 made me look at HOI2, because I really enjoyed my experiences with EU2 first.

 

 

The biggest knock on the game is the interface. Though I felt they made a world of improvement with HOI2, so hopefully the trend continues.

 

 

As for people calling it a TBS game....I'm not sure why. I mean, unless you conisder each day to be a turn, with the fact that the days move ahead automatically on their own! I'd call it an RTS game first, but not like a standard RTS game. It's actually strategic, rather than tactical. To be clear, I typically consider TBS games to be games where you have to click an "end turn" button to proceed to the next turn. EU2 was definitely not that.

[Hurlshort]

Hmm, I only played the 1st one, and it was years ago. I thought it was turn based, but I could easily be wrong.

[Jorian Drake]

Last I checked, I thought Stardock was making Galactic Civilizations 2. Is Paradox publishing it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yes

[Jorian Drake]

Hmm, I only played the 1st one, and it was years ago.  I thought it was turn based, but I could easily be wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If someone only played EU1, those should play EU2. They improved the game data and added lots of new events to it.

Edited February 20, 2006 by jorian

[Llyranor]

Whoa, apparently HoI2 allows you for multiple players to coop as one nation. Neato. Hopefully, EU3 will follow suit.

 

How would you compare those series to Civ? Is it mostly 'Civilization + Risk' because of preset world territories? What else sets it apart? Which features better strategy, and in what ways?

Edited February 20, 2006 by Llyranor

[Jorian Drake]

Whoa, apparently HoI2 allows you for multiple players to coop as one nation. Neato. Hopefully, EU3 will follow suit.

 

How would you compare those series to Civ? Is it mostly 'Civilization + Risk' because of preset world territories? What else sets it apart? Which features better strategy, and in what ways?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's hard to say these in english for me. I just suggest you to buy (or get the demo, but I think it's easier to buy the game, and download patches to fully enjoy the game) :

 

HoI2 (becouse it has anything what HoI1 had and more)

 

EU2 (becouse it has anything what EU1 had and more)

 

CK (becouse you play in that a noble family, not a Nation, and has an other aspect of the medieval in it between 1050 and 1450 , or so)

 

...GalCiv2 You will LOVE this sci-fi game

 

AND of course the upcoming EU3.

 

 

 

PS: I suggest you also to try out the hungarian made game...not becouse I'm hungarian too ( :D ), becouse it's real good.

[Oerwinde]

Well, GalCiv was what Master of Orion 3 should have been, so I'm looking forward to GalCiv 2. Apparently Stardock is going to be working on a fantasy one next, either a true sequel, or spiritual sequel to Master of Magic, depending on if they can get the rights or not.

[Llyranor]

Only found a demo for HoI2. Ardennes offensive, played as the Germans. I didn't really know what I was doing for the most part, it was mainly positioning units. I was playing on normal speed, because I didn't really have time to look up specific gameplay details yet. Later on, later on. Ended up with a marginal German victory anyway.

 

Hmm, I definitely see the potential in this game. That was actually a lot of fun, despite having no idea what I was doing. Hehe, I'll keep an eye on EU3.

[Pidesco]

I found EU1 to be a lot deeper and more tilted to the realism side of gameplay than Civ. However, the interface destroyed the game for me.

[baby arm]

"Apparently Stardock is going to be working on a fantasy one next, either a true sequel, or spiritual sequel to Master of Magic, depending on if they can get the rights or not."

 

Very interesting. I hadn't heard that. Something to keep my eyes open for.

[Llyranor]

So, if I am to get this right, EU is more a strategy 'simulator', whereas Civ would be more a 'game', hmm?

[alanschu]

Only found a demo for HoI2. Ardennes offensive, played as the Germans. I didn't really know what I was doing for the most part, it was mainly positioning units. I was playing on normal speed, because I didn't really have time to look up specific gameplay details yet. Later on, later on. Ended up with a marginal German victory anyway.

 

Hmm, I definitely see the potential in this game. That was actually a lot of fun, despite having no idea what I was doing. Hehe, I'll keep an eye on EU3.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It's a ton of fun.

 

Tanks rock, but are expensive to build, and also supply as they also need oil. Few things suck worse than having your tanks immobilized because of insufficient oil. There are some nuances to the game, but once you wrap your head around them it is sooo much fun.

[Tigranes]

Pretty much. EU is much more exciting if you like reliving history (or alternative history), whereas no civ, while fun/addicting, could ever give me that sort of immersion.

[Pidesco]

So, if I am to get this right, EU is more a strategy 'simulator', whereas Civ would be more a 'game', hmm?

 

 

That's what I would say. Bear in mind though, that I've only played EU1 and I haven't touched it in years.

[Llyranor]

Yeah, hundreds of nations and provinces sounds pretty appealing.

 

Hopefully EU3 will follow the trend of HoI2 in terms of allowing (single nation) coop. That would kick major butt.

[alanschu]

I have yet to play the single nation coop. I could imagine the entertainment as two people try to fight over where that unit goes :D

[Llyranor]

The gamespot interview is promising, anyway. Making it more user-friendly seems a noble goal, though hopefully that doesn't mean dumbing down.

 

"We will be announcing a more complete feature description next month, but this is what I can reveal right now: The game starts in 1453, right after Constantinople has fallen to the Turks, and continues up until the revolutions in France and America. It is played out on a map with about 1,700 provinces and sea zones covering the entire world. The game will let you play any of over 250 different historical nations."

 

Looks like I'd be playing as China during the Ming dynasty ^_^

[alanschu]

Heh, I'm not too worried about dumbing it down. I mean, they CAN improve it quite a bit :D

[Jorian Drake]

Only found a demo for HoI2. Ardennes offensive, played as the Germans. I didn't really know what I was doing for the most part, it was mainly positioning units. I was playing on normal speed, because I didn't really have time to look up specific gameplay details yet. Later on, later on. Ended up with a marginal German victory anyway.

 

Hmm, I definitely see the potential in this game. That was actually a lot of fun, despite having no idea what I was doing. Hehe, I'll keep an eye on EU3.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, HoI and Victoria is quite confusing for the first part, but HoI2 has a very good help to know the game(don't remember the word for it)..sadly Victoria not.

 

You should also considering the 'Doomsday'expansion (or what)

[Jorian Drake]

I found EU1 to be a lot deeper and more tilted to the realism side of gameplay than Civ. However, the interface destroyed the game for me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

EU2 is better...and what EU3 will be...whohooo

[Tigranes]

Wait, wait, STARTS in 1453? Meaning no Byzantines?

 

travesty.

[Jorian Drake]

So, if I am to get this right, EU is more a strategy 'simulator', whereas Civ would be more a 'game', hmm?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

That's what I would say. Bear in mind though, that I've only played EU1 and I haven't touched it in years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

umm...nope, EU is a strategy sim game, you don't need to play the History, also have many un-historic possible events (as when Germany defeats Russia they have a party :D )

 

You do as you like. But with Historical correct starting Nations and technical power/research...and you can make not historical new ones, or 'remake' not anymore existing ones , as Flandres, or Siberian Republic

[Jorian Drake]

Yeah, hundreds of nations and provinces sounds pretty appealing.

 

Hopefully EU3 will follow the trend of HoI2 in terms of allowing (single nation) coop. That would kick major butt.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't think it will happen, in this timeline there are Kings and other rulers...its more difficult to kill them :ph34r:

Edited February 20, 2006 by jorian

[Jorian Drake]

Wait, wait, STARTS in 1453? Meaning no Byzantines?

 

travesty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sadly, it seems so...but many don't agree with starting time (including me) , so we always say that to dev-s...always

[Jorian Drake]

some concept arts for EU3 :

 

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/europa...creenindex.html