EarlPembroke -> RE: Europa Universalis (10/22/2004 4:32:45 AM)
|
I followed the original EU on its forum for quite some time before it came out (reminds me of following EiA, in fact). EU2 is better. It is very good, as some pointed out above. If it is too easy with a large Western nation (advances more quickly technologically), try playing as Tibet (you can play with the Pueblo Indians, if you like, but they don't get much in the way of technology or money, so that makes it fairly boring to me. Anyway, great game - in my top 3 of all time (Imperialism 2, Darklands - RPG, and EU2). The fact you can mod & create your own scenarios is a big plus too. Want to make yourself a general in Napoleonic France? Fairly easy to do with a text editor. (I once created a scenario with my ancestors as Kings of Wales.) The strength of the game is not in part of history (like the Napoleonic Scenario), but in the grand sweep of the emergence of the West, exploration & colonization, Religion has an impact, alliances are done better than other games I've seen, etc. Latest beta patch was Sept 5, which is good considering it's been out for a couple years. The patches now are primarily enhancements as the game is stable. Victoria wasn't as good for me (it was too difficult to play as Texas!). I thought HOI was decent, and Crusader Kings is pretty good too (needs some tweaking that, if it follows the patterns of EU2 & has patches over time, could be even better). Back to where I started. Now I'm waiting for EiA to come out, ,so I can go back to the EU boards and say: EU is a great game for the 400-year sweep of history, but if you want a great game focused on one time period, you have to try EiA. [:D]
|
|
|
|