Europa Universalis 1

[Llyranor]

Okay, Gamersgate (Paradox' digital distribution system) has EU1 for 1 whole freaking dollar. Is the game worth trying out, given that EU2 is apparently better and that EU3 is coming along soon?

 

1 freaking dollar isn't much of an investment, so I'll gladly shell it out if the game warrants it.

[Tale]

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/452...a%20Universalis

 

Average rating, 80%.

[alanschu]

I'd give it a whirl. It can't be much worse than if you dropped a loonie somewhere.

[Llyranor]

Yeah, anyway, I'll get it, but I probably won't get around to playing it in a long while. If anything, it'll give me some idea of what EU3 will be like, maybe even convince me into getting that. We'll see.

[Hurlshort]

I enjoyed it 5 years ago. I'm not sure how well it aged though.

[kormesios]

It's a simpler, in some ways cleaner game than EU2. It does less, but will give you a very good taste of what the game's like.

 

If you pick it up, download the latest patch (of course), and don't be tempted to try the "fantasy" scenario.

[Jorian Drake]

Okay, Gamersgate (Paradox' digital distribution system) has EU1 for 1 whole freaking dollar. Is the game worth trying out, given that EU2 is apparently better and that EU3 is coming along soon?

 

1 freaking dollar isn't much of an investment, so I'll gladly shell it out if the game warrants it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Buy EU2, not 1, 2 has anything what 1 had, and a LOT more.

 

EU3 will be a huge difference to EU2, so its worth to have those both.

 

I enjoyed it 5 years ago.  I'm not sure how well it aged though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

There are a lot easy-to-use mods( roman or mongol as example), it aged well, lot of people still play it.

Edited December 22, 2006 by jorian

[alanschu]

EU2 doesn't cost $1

[Llyranor]

Yeah, EU2 doesn't cost $1.

[thepixiesrock]

Are you seriously this cheap to have to ask if the game is worth a dollar?

 

What, the crap.

[Morgoth]

EU3 huh? Never played those games. How historically accurate are they? Am I able to cheat a little bit? Because I want to turn Imperial Vienna into the World biggest sausage supplier instead of playing as a ruler.... this would make so much more fun and action! (w00t)

[Rosbjerg]

well since you can take control of a nation at about 1450 (ends in 1819)- and then get free hands - you can imagine how accurate it is (or should I say - becomes)!

 

but the different starting ages shows, quite accurately, where the nations had colonies and which kings were in charge etc. + somewhat accurate how their internal policies were..

 

and the entire world is available for you to conquer - at least what was discovered before 1819..

Edited December 22, 2006 by Rosbjerg

[Morgoth]

Meh, I don't have the time and patience for such games.... Maybe one day when I'm getting old, boring and senile you'll remind Uncle Morgoth of picking up a copy, will ya?

 

Wait, what was that thread about again?

[Rosbjerg]

It does take som patience to get familiar with the game .. since it's a pretty steep learning curve - but it's a game that's still good even if you only play it once or twice a week.

[baby arm]

If anything, it'll give me some idea of what EU3 will be like, maybe even convince me into getting that. We'll see.

Why is a HOI2 fanboy even having to consider such things. Of course you'll get EU3.

[Llyranor]

Because I just want to kill things. EU3 looks too diplomacy-based. Or if I just go for straight warfare, the combat doesn't look as appealing.

[Tigranes]

EU's combat is slightly superior to Risk's.

[Checkpoint]

Har har.

 

I never played EU1, but from what I gather it's a light version of EU2. EU2, in turn, was a good game with a bunch of flaws and it was also very poorly balanced until the umpteenth patch came about. EU3 sounds promising in many ways, although there are some features I don't like the look of, that might turn out unplayable or great, probably going from the former to the latter over a patch-ridden few months/years.

[Tigranes]

No, really.

 

I played a little bit of EU1 and a lot of EU2, I loved trhe games but to pretend that the combat is good is .. yeah.

 

It's simple and does a goodj ob at using the limited variables like morale to good effect, but it devolves into movement point arithmetics and has some randomness about it which gives you all the frustration of being a real armchair general and not much else. I play EU2 for its campaign, not its combat.

[Checkpoint]

But the game is about strategy, not tactics. The point is that you aren't the general, so what more do you expect of combat? The thing I can find a bit stupid is that there are no "battles" per se, where the two sides round up on a sunny day and you have an outcome, but generally I don't expect to have anything to do with the actual combat when my task is to run the empire and not single battles.

 

On that note, I'd love a TW game where you'd get to play battles in the EU era, but they might get a tad too large given the bigger number of troops involved. I suppose its my urge to get to kick some butt with Sweden in a TW game.