Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: EU: Rome

  1. #1
    blank's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    1,893

    Default EU: Rome



    After having been introduced to the world of Paradox-gaming by the superb HoI2, i jumped at the possibility of an ancient era EU game.
    Much drool was spilled over the previews and screenshots, while glorious visions of sacking Rome as a barbarian state ran before my eyes.

    However, i found myself slightly discouraged by the pre-release demo, which to me seemed to mostly consist of endlessly chasing a renegade
    Roman legion around the Iberian peninsula.

    Nevertheless, come release day i strolled out of my dark cave and hunted down a lone copy of EU:R (an arduous task in my country).
    Righty-dokey then, my first instrument of world domination was set to be the puny tribe of Arverni. All was well: i took pleasure in idling over and finally choosing a national idea (a permanent bonus to your nation) and researchers. Although being mildly surprised that i can only afford 2000 soldiers before going bankrupt, i kept on my set course and decided to secure an alliance with my neighbors to take on the might of Rome together.
    From there on in, EU:Rome slowly started rolling downhill, with me staring the screen at first with disbelief, then frustration and finally with complete indifference. The diplomacy screen looked barren like a carpet-bombed middle-eastern schoolyard. I will take the liberty of listing the options available to communicate with other nations:
    1. Declare war (duh)
    2. Give money
    3. Demand tribute (unless you have conquered half their land, you can forget about this)
    4. Send agent - the only point of this is that when the enemies catch your agent causing havoc, they usually chop his melon off, giving you a Casus Belli (so you can declare war without a stability penalty).
    5. Create trade route
    So yes, gone are the complex diplomatic machinations of HoI and EU3.

    Ok well, on with my mission. So i was sitting there with my 2000 men and one city, contemplating what to do. I couldn't "colonize" the nearby barb provinces because my civilization and population levels were too low. Neither could i declare war on anyone because my puny band of warrior would've been quickly dispatched and my little village burned, raped and pillaged (and then subsequently annexed). This resulted in me sitting and staring at the screen with the game set to max speed. Every 2 years or so i got a message saying some random bum had become a rival of some other guy (yes, this is literally how i remember it since it isn't possible to develop a connection/affection to your overly bland family members). When 60 years had passed i finally gave up the hopeless cause. A quick gaze at the strategic map revealed that Macedonia had colonized Poland and Rome was well on their way to Denmark.

    Down but not out, i started another game as Epirus, hoping to recreate the Pyrrhic wars (but without Pyrrhus getting hit over the head with a brick).
    My hopes were quickly crushed as Rome, using their superior numbers (14 ships versus my 4 and 27 000 heavy infantry versus my 9000 militia) mopped the floor with me (aided by Carthage, who grabbed Syracuse when i wasn't looking). I did manage to create a sizable empire later on, conquering Macedonia and some little Greek states. I eventually abandoned the campaign when boredom took me from behind after playing roughly 100 years.

    I have ranted on enough, so to tie things up here is a summary of the good and bad parts of the game.

    PEACETIME. Arse-numbingly boring. There is literally nothing to do. In the first few minutes of the campaign you can set trade routes and (depending on your country) create alliances. After that, you will be near-comatose as the only actions you can take is replacing governors or choosing between two equally pointless options when pop-up windows try (and fail) to give you some idea of how your generic family members get along.

    WARTIME. Mildly fun, but hamstrung by strange design. Do you think your general's ability should play the most important part in battles? Or your soldiers' discipline or equipment? Or perhaps the terrain? All of them acting together? Well too bad, because Paradox says that the most important factor (that nearly makes all else obsolete) is some vague "dice roll". Yes indeed, both sides "roll the dice" (is this a D&D game?) for each round of combat, with results being from 0-9. You can have a better general, numerical superiority, more disciplined troops, and still lose because you got a bad roll. Absolutely horrifying.

    EXPANDING. You can colonize or conquer. To colonize you need an adjacent province with at least 50% civilization and 10 population. Then you need to march an army into the barbarian province and let them sit there until the barbs get upset. Regardless of whether you win or lose the ensuing battle, you can then colonize that province. I'm not entirely sure what happens to the people living there because afterwards the only inhabitants appear to be your colonists. Ironically colonizing slows your research (then again, pretty much everything you do slows research) and reduces income, so it's really only useful in the very-long-run or if you want a resource of theirs.
    Conquering is... quirky, mildly put. Let's say you occupy all of Egypt's cities, kill off all their armies and navies and maul their allies. Logic says you should be able to demand quite a big chunk of land if not annex them outright. Well you can't. Enter War Score (dum dum duuumm). You see, if you take all enemy cities you get 100% war score. It would be reasonable to assume that the score is evenly divided between province values. But it's not. So usually with 100% score you can demand 2-3 provinces. That's it. If the enemy has 30, well... it's going to take an awful lot of wars to annex them (especially considering there is a forced peace treaty for several years after each war). So the end result is: you have bashed the enemy to oblivion, and conquered all their land.
    You say: "i hereby declare myself the ruler of these land, by right of conquest!!!!".
    Enemy: "No wait you can't do that".
    You: "why not".
    Enemy: "Because I sayz so".
    You: "oh. Well then i demand most of your land and that you become my vassal!!!"
    Enemy: "let me think... no. Making vassals is not allowed and i don't fell like giving you that much land".
    You: "but i already conquered... oh hell. What can i get then?"
    Enemy: "Well... i guess i'll give you that random island and that out-of-the-way dump".
    You: "DEAL! Hahahaaa i haz conqerd... oh wait... damn"

    FAMILY MEMBERS. Paradox apparently tried to bring Crusader Kings' character system to EU, which in itself is commendable. However the result is decidedly half-assed, with there being neither motivation or reason to care about your characters, each with about 10 random traits that make absolutely no difference to how the game plays. Seriously now, it doesn't matter one bit who you assign to govern cities or lead armies, their influence is negligible.

    GRAPHICS. It doesn't say much, but EU:R is certainly the best-looking Paradox games, from the 3D map to the mostly intricate UI to the little men representing your armies.

    DIPLOMACY. Like already said, by far the most feeble diplomacy system in any Paradox game.

    ECONOMY. Not much you can do, really. It's really of no importance if you pick a governor that gives you +0,03 gold per month or one that gives you -1% revolt risk. One part that that works quite well though is the completely new trade system that allows you to trade resources between provinces (which might give you access to new units like bowmen or elephants). Also, you have to keep and eye on your army upkeep to avoid going bankrupt. After a few decades you start getting access to (mostly useless) buildings, a few of which give you better tax income.
    The population is divided to citizens (who contribute to research), freemen (population growth) and slaves (who, curiously enough, pay taxes).
    Oh, and to raise your national stability you have to spend some money, which results in stabbing a pig. After the pig has been stabbed, your citizens are happy.

    RELIGION. Religion amounts to giving you a bonus to invoking omens. If you have a Greek or Druidic religion, then the omen success chance quickly climbs to 90%, giving you a pretty much permanent bonus over your heathen neighbors. The omens themselves last for one year and give you bonuses to population growth, tax income, army morale etc.

    Ending comments (finally ).

    While the 1.2 patch fixed most of the bugs in the game, it did nothing to improve the depth of the game. Overall, EU:Rome's shallow, dull and featureless husk leaves an impression that either Paradox wanted the game to be as easy an "accessible" as possible for the dreaded Casual Gamers (y'know, the ones with the Down syndrome), or they deliberately left out features for expansion packs.

    In any case, Rome is sadly a big pile of missed opportunities, and unlikely to captivate anyone for more than a few hours
    My pony jumps ever so high

  2. #2

    Default Re: EU: Rome

    Well written. I sure wish you had written it prior to this past weekend. I received EU:Rome as a gift as it was on a short list of mine, of titles I wanted to buy. I've been having a blast playing EU3/In Nomine and as a Classical/Roman Era nut, I was looking forward to playing this. I figured if it was anywhere near as good as In Nomine, I would enjoy it considerably. Playing In Nomine though, I kind of had my reservations as to how that platform so to speak would translate to a Roman Era version? For the time period covering EU3 I think it's great. But wasn't so sure it would translate very well to the Roman Era. Prior to reading your review I had in fact not read any reviews. Your observations seem to fall in line with some of the reservations I had about a Roman Era game with the EU platform in a manner of speaking. Since it was a gift, I'm not really out anything per say and of course I will play it when I can pry myself from In Nomine sometime down the road. But I have the funny feeling when I do play it, I'm gonna be telling myself.... "Bah!!, I should have asked for HOI2 and Victoria, or held out for Supreme Ruler 2020."

  3. #3
    NaptownKnight's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Posts
    8,558

    Default Re: EU: Rome

    Yeah I agree. I spent a good bit of money on it, and it's been sitting on my shelf ever since. The barbarians having to colonize to expan their territory was just short sited of Paradox, it's literally impossible to expand as a barb minor. Anwyways, there is still hope guys. Paradox always does a good job of patching their games, and releasing expansions that add depth and fix problems. the question is, is it worth twenty to thirty more bucks to find out if EU: Rome is fixable?

  4. #4

    Default Re: EU: Rome

    I'm still upset I bought this.
    we are beautiful
    we are doomed

  5. #5
    Sosobra's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Oregon , USA
    Posts
    2,240

    Default Re: EU: Rome

    Eu:Rome is a giant turd wrap in moldy cheese , covered with maggots. Probably the worst purchase I have ever made.
    I find most people irritating
    SteamID:Sosobra

  6. #6
    Faenaris's Avatar Son of Dorn
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Terra.
    Posts
    1,903

    Default Re: EU: Rome

    EU:Rome has the same problem that EU:III had. The game just isn't "finished". It took two expansions (and some patches) to have EU:III feel complete and really fun. A great concept from the start, but it needed some polishing to be great.

    I'm pretty confident EU:Rome will be fun with some patches and an expansion. Then again, EU:Rome seems a bit "simpler" and more of a "warfare-game", so I do hope that some of the more complex diplomacy-features return.
    Son of Acutulus, member of The House of the Wolf / Signature by King Mong

  7. #7

    Default Re: EU: Rome

    Quote Originally Posted by zznɟ ǝɥʇ View Post
    I'm still upset I bought this.
    Agree.

    Anyone else feel an eu3 in nomine total conversion would've been way better?

    - Colonisation could be fixed (I.E. nerf macedonia so it does hardly or none of it, make it possible although hard to do it as a uncivlised civilsation and buff Carthage/Rome by sliders and the fact it costs money.

    -The whole asia minor situation would be way better (hopefully) because the ai pontus and armenia might actually ally for once since its in their best interest.

    -A Judea that actually appaers since teh jews aren't insta converted by egypt (that and rebels).

    -Tolerance+Missionary system is much better than the eu rome (lack of) one.

    Hordes would be a bit tricky. The fun stuff in EU:Rome (Pops, Civil wars system, The odd interesting thing to do with characters) is far outweighed by the stuff left from EU3 (Lack of fully relevent map[Selecud empire doesn't get all its territories], culture/religion that doesn't matter, lack of sliders, retarded reputation, your friends friend who slept with his cousin's lovechild for an ai). Avoid. Eu3 (especially with in nomine) is great though.
    Last edited by Darkarbiter; June 22, 2008 at 08:57 AM.

  8. #8
    Edelward's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Foreign student of yoga in India
    Posts
    2,984

    Default Re: EU: Rome

    The main(and MAINEST) point is omitting of nations west of Belgium.
    Like they don't have import etc.
    But they did; Cimmerian refugees initiated cultural revolution in Halstaat-culture resulting in emergence of Celtic culture
    Greeks have borrowed lyre and musical theory from Thrace
    and latest's Orpheism hugely afficted vitally important Pythagorean and Platonic teaching.
    Fitz Salnarville, Duke William's favourite knyghte,
    To noble Edelwarde his life dyd yielde;
    Withe hys tylte launce hee stroke with thilk a myghte,
    The Norman's bowels steemde upon the feeld.
    Old Salnarville beheld hys son lie ded, 235
    Against Erie Edelward his bowe-strynge drewe;
    But Harold at one blowe made tweine his head;
    He dy'd before the poignant arrowe flew.
    So was the hope of all the issue gone,
    And in one battle fell the sire and son
    .

  9. #9
    NaptownKnight's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Posts
    8,558

    Default Re: EU: Rome

    IMO they are planning a steppe themed expansion, why else would there be need for the terra icgognita in Russia.

  10. #10
    Big War Bird's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    12,256

    Default Re: EU: Rome

    There just isn't enough in this game.
    As a teenager, I was taken to various houses and flats above takeaways in the north of England, to be beaten, tortured and raped over 100 times. I was called a “white slag” and “white ****” as they beat me.

    -Ella Hill

  11. #11
    John I Tzimisces's Avatar Get born again.
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New England, US
    Posts
    12,494

    Default Re: EU: Rome

    I am pretty disgusted with this game. The vast majority of factions, and this is pretty much a first for paradox, are essentially unplayable. Diplomacy between factions is decided almost entirely by the religion and culture of that faction, making historic alliances between gallic tribes and rome (or for that matter, Rome and ANYONE but Masillia), and pontus and armenia totally impossible.

    Certain mods do make steps towards playability but this game needs a massive overhaul from the inside out.

  12. #12

    Default Re: EU: Rome

    Yeah, I feel the same.
    When EU: Rome was announced, It was a wet-dream come true for me - already in love with Europa Universalis, and a bit of a classical-era enthusiast.
    I was completely ecstatic on receiving the news that I, along with just 99 other people, had been accepted to participate in the beta. (which I still cannot impart any information on)
    I soon realized that the problems with the game wouldn't be adressed over the 4 months of beta, the problems were with the game design itself. I therefore do not believe that any amount of polishing can save this game from being a fundamentally shallow and unsatisfying simulation.

    Anyway, I soon lost interest, and proved to be an awful beta tester, I barely even participated.

    I hope paradox manages to recover from this, but it seems to have sold well, and a lot of people seem to like it.

  13. #13
    Dutchpower's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands.
    Posts
    1,142

    Default Re: EU: Rome

    paradox did this to themselfs, tried to cash in to fast.
    Batavorum miliaria.

    "Tits or GTFO. You know the rules and so do I."

  14. #14
    Aetius's Avatar Vae victis
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    9,782

    Default Re: EU: Rome

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchpower View Post
    paradox did this to themselfs, tried to cash in to fast.
    And it worked, didn't it?

    All you fanboy's took the bait.$$$

    Paradox remains strong.
    Blut und Boden

  15. #15
    blank's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    1,893

    Default Re: EU: Rome

    Quote Originally Posted by Aetius View Post
    And it worked, didn't it?

    All you fanboy's took the bait.$$$

    Paradox remains strong.
    ...and a lot of the "fanboys" will now think twice before buying another Paradox game
    My pony jumps ever so high

  16. #16

    Default Re: EU: Rome

    yeah, I'm glad I steared clear on this one, and avoided it, mainly because I thought to my self what a wonderful world that their aren't enough nations; while on EU:III I am currently locked in an epic struggle over the control over the Baltic coast as saxony, and have previously burnt French colonies as England and on HoI2 I'm locked in a Soviet - Allied war for control of the world, EU:Rome just seemed to be 'empty', and somehow lacking this epic scale, what always impressed me about paradox games was that they basically included the whole world at that time in history, playing as anyone from Nazi Germany to Sinking, from France to Manchu, but the restricted map and piss poor celtic nations made this game one to avoid, an unfortunate first for Paradox.

    when the Europa Barborum mod gets past alpha I might get this of gamersgate, but until then I think I'll keep to EU:III
    Hammer & Sickle - Karacharovo

    And I drank it strait down.

  17. #17

    Default Re: EU: Rome

    EU Rome can be normal and non-boring (in face of another Paradox war-games) only after modding.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •