Rating: - Not bad.
If you like the "europa" series, you will like this, other wise it might not be for beginners.
Rating: - Historical accuracy, yet open-ended game
First of all, this game has a steeper learning curve than most strategy games, but it is worth it. To overcome the initial frustration, I had to read the manual and some online resources. There is a friendly, loyal community at the Paradox Interactive's forum that can help.
Once you get the grips of it (read the manual), the game has a lot to offer. It has an amazing amount of historical detail, especially for little-known places and people of the medieval times and a very complex gameplay model that offers a convincing historical simulation. Yet, if you are willing and capable you can lead the world to un-historical situations, leading minor nations to become empires. A typical favourite for example is to raise the Byzantine Empire from its deathbed to survival, or even leading superpower. The AI is very good and can handle diverse scenarios and strategies, from colonisation to unifications. In a single game you can become trading power, a military powerhouse, an Empire, but if you are too successful in expanding, the world might see you as a global threat and then you will face huge alliances against you. That last feature preserves a challenging aspect even later in the game.
Compared to other Paradox games, it is easier to learn than Victoria and harder than Hearts of Iron. It is more deterministic than Crusader Kings and less than Victoria. It has seen several patches that assure a balanced game. Along with Hearts of Iron it is the most popular in forum posts and After-Action-Reports (AAR).
Note: In January 2007 Europa Universalis 3 is getting released, which is going to cover more or less the same timeline and is expected to have improvements and innovations on the existing model.
Rating: - I hate those rebels
Europa Universalis II has a large cult following among players of Paradox Entertainment, the Sweden-based company that has produced strategy games like "Hearts of Iron," "Crusader Kings," and "Victoria." One of their first big games, it has a lot to offer. It takes place during the time period of 1419 to 1820, taking players through the ages of exploration, enlightenment, the Renaissance, and well on to the Napoleonic Wars. You can play ANY nation during this time, from France to England to the Ottoman Empire, even any minor nation in Asia or Africa. (I actually played a decent game as Zimbabwe)
Diplomacy is fairly advanced, compared to other games in this genre. You can offer other nations royal marriages, you can improve relations through various diplomatic efforts like a "letter of introduction," and you can even sign trade agreements. (don't get too excited, all this means is your merchants won't compete as much) The trading aspect of the game deals with regions of interest, such as the major trading area of Venice, and placing your merchants in the hope of gaining wealth from profitable business. Monopolies are even possible, depending on how high your trade technology is. Speaking of which, technology is based on researching your army, navy, stability, (how stable your nation is, which can affect income and battle results) trade, and infrastructure. The higher the go, the more advanced your nation is in each regard. Higher infrastructure can allow you to build improvements like refineries, and depending on the resource of the province you build it in you can earn more income.
Religion and government also take affect. Every ten years or so you can choose to change your government's standing on ideas like plutocracy or innovativeness. Religion plays a big part in this time period, and if your government is a different religion than your people you will find yourself dealing with religious revolts. You can set the tolerance towards the different faiths to ease people's anxieties, or you can hire missionaries to
From what I've described above, one would imagine this would be an amazingly fun game to play...but as much as I try my hardest to get into it, I keep getting disappointed. I have to say my main aggravations are towards the general game system as well as Paradox's own lack of skill in perfecting a game.
As others have described, the game attempts to follow historical accuracy a little too much. Native countries are SOL as far as exploration goes, while major nations of the time period will have lots of events that give them the chance to explore new lands. (sometimes you get explorers through random events, but these are rare) And, as another reviewer pointed out, your gameplay doesn't affect historical events at all. If you play a nation your best, make friends with all your neighbors, and generally play a peaceful existance, but your nation had a massive political/economic crash in that time period, then it's going to happen any way. One really notices this playing as America and trying to stray away from what happened historically, only to get events that are irrelevant to how you've played thus far.
I also have to say the battle system is extremely aggravating. Peasant rebels, traditionally poorly armed militia, are somehow far superior to your own troops, as if the cyborgs from "Universal Soldier" went back in time and were hired as mercenaries. I also cannot understand how I can have a superior army rating, a good government, good stability, an organized rating for my forces, and full army funding, yet I am constantly defeated by smaller and weaker enemy armies. I also agree with other reviewers that the constant revolutions can get on your nerves. I realized that it depends on your "Free Subjects" or "Serfdom" rating, which means if you don't want any peasant revolts at all you have to at least get a middle rating towards Free Subjects. As a result, you waste your first few government reforms just to avoid those annoying revolts. They wouldn't be so annoying if they made sense - you could have a good government and you'll still get a revolt event that basically justifies it with "Revolts happened a lot back then, so ha!"
The economic system also fails to keep your interest. It's difficult to raise funds, and even if you get a good economy you will still have problems as soon as things go a little bit awry. Sometimes I'll be sitting there staring at the computer screen, just waiting for my coffers to fill up. This limits not only how much you can use your military, but even your diplomacy and trading - all three need money to be used. While this is expected in "the real world," in the game system of EUII it limits how much you can really do. If your nation's economy goes down the toilet you might as well quit the game and start a new nation, unless you want to watch your treasury increase by 1 gold every ten years.
I also have to say there are few nations you can really have fun with. Even though it brags about the 200+ nations, the non-European nations, with some few exceptions, will stay backwards most of the game and raise their technology at a slower rate. (even with government reforms to make it go faster) Because you're not allowed to explore undiscovered terrain without an explorer or conquistador, many nations with a lack of map knowledge are stuck in their own isolated world, which is great for historical accuracy but terrible for gameplay. It makes one look for the cheat code to reveal the entire map.
My other aggravation is towards Paradox's inability to perfect their games. Their games as of late have been getting buggier and are feeling more rushed. Europa Universalis II came out nearly a decade ago, and at the time of this review has been patched nearly 9 times...yet the game STILL CRASHES ON ME!! Paradox apologists often say, "Oh, just turn the music off" or "Just save a lot." Those are absurd excuses. Every other game I've played has never crashed because music was playing, and I should have to save every second because any small reform I do might be dashed because a Swedish beta tester was lazy.
I have had fun with this game, admittedly. When you play European nations, even smaller ones, you can have fun, and some of the bigger uncivilized nations are fun as well. The game system does allow for creative gameplay, such as forming alliances against your foes and attempting some serious political play on the international scene. I have to also admit that the AI never does the same thing twice in terms of long-term strategy. I've seen things happen like Poland conquer all of Germany, only to have the Germans rebel and liberate themselves, and I've seen England fall into chaos and the British Isles become various small city-states. These aspects are enough to make me load the game up every week or so to give it another go.
Europa Universalis II will interest the people who enjoy this time period, or those who want to play a different type of strategy game. Casual gamers are advised to stay away, and people first hearing about this game should be warned some of its hype has been overblown. I give it three stars for fun, but two stars for overall.
Rating: - Very cool game
If you like history and computer strategy games then EU2 is for you. In this game you take control of ANY nation that existed between 1420 and 1820 (that means the big ones, like England, France, Spain, etc. - and also strange ones like the Manchus, Cherokee, and the Byzantine Empire) and guide it to great power status through war, diplomacy, politics, economics, religion, and culture.
Now, the graphics aren't the flashiest, and the controls and menus might take a little while to figure out, but once you master the controls this game becomes very addictive. Easily one of the best historical strategy games I've ever played, and quite replayable, too.
Just make sure you get the latest patch, to fix any bugs that might be lurking in the game.
Rating: - Great, In Depth Game
This game is for those of us looking for a little bit more of a thinking-strategy game. While most strategy games center around building up armies as quickly as possible, this game centers much more around building a successful civilization. The fact that it is in real time gives it some advantages over the Civilization series in that it is not quite as tedious. The game also takes place in the real world, with the players playing as real countries that existed historically. Historical events add spice to the game. The game lets you control many different aspects of a civilization. Not only are military and expansionist aims represented, but how much freedom you give your people, what economic system your country will be, and what role nobles, serfs, or the middle class will play in your country are only a few of the things you get to control.
There are only a few problems with the game. The graphics aren't the best in the world, which is not that big of a deal, depending on what you are looking for in a game. It is a little buggy (the game freezes once in a while), so save your game often. The game can get a little boring if you are not playing as one of the major world powers. And lastly, the choices of diplomatic maneuvers are limited, and don't represent the wide ranging options diplomats have in real life.
Despite these downfalls, I recommend this game to anyone looking for something different from the typical RTS games.
- Historical accuracy, yet open-ended game
- I hate those rebels
