Europa Universalis III instead of empire?

[mangaissofun]

I don't know quite were to put this thread so move it mod or admin if you feel the need but in a ign podcast they said Europa Universalis III was a game similar to empire, they said it was good but not as good as empire, does this mean its shiter than empire or is it a sort of mirror image so Europa Universalis III is but not as as empire? Basicaly is it worth buying is it any good etc.

[Jaketh]

EU3 is campaign only, no battles and the graphics really suck

[Yorkie]

EU3 is campaign only, no battles and the graphics really suck

Apart from that EUIII is a dam good game...

[Rockstone]

Apart from that EUIII is a dam good game...

Agreed, I've played EUIII for ages (I'm a veteran all the way back to EUI), both with and without expansion packs. Its a great game.

[Tony83]

Have a look at this. It's a whole forum on TWC devoted to Paradox games, including EU III.

You'll not find a better, more in depth campaign than EU III but, as has been said, the graphics are not as good, and there are no battles.

[alpaca]

I can definitely recommend it, especially with the Magna Mundi mod (which paradox has given a subforum in their official forums) you can get many hours of fun out of it. It's much better than ETW in my opinion because it's far less arcade - and the AI is actually able to conduct naval invasions...

[mcantu]

wow...thanks! i've never been to that part of TWC

Have a look at this. It's a whole forum on TWC devoted to Paradox games, including EU III.

You'll not find a better, more in depth campaign than EU III but, as has been said, the graphics are not as good, and there are no battles.

[Slaists]

EU3 is a game very different from ETW. I think, the only thing that is 'kind of similar' in both games is that both take place in the world theater.

EU3's focus is on the strategy map where it excels (much more depth than in ETW) but be forewarned that the campaign play in EU3 is borderline tedious - read: boring for most players; However, the combat part in EU3 just plain sucks... If it was up to me to make requests: I'd like the two games merged. EU3's strategy map + ETW combat... + a better AI on both (but the latter is a completely different wish).

Note, that the strategy map action in EU3 is actually real-time; not turn based.

[edi1972]

Completely different kind of game.If you enjoy TW real time battles not gonna find it in EU3.
In plain words is not as inmersive as TW series.
I got bored too soon with EU

[skepticCS]

But diplomacy, realism, and general meaningfulness of the experience is FAR better than Empire. Paradox is one of my all-time favorite developer/publishers. I have very rarely been disapointed with what they put out. For instance, I have played their Crusader Kings game (with the Deus Vult expansion) way more than Medieval I or II (even with all the cool mods that have come out with it). Really But Jake is right, you are completely uninvolved from the battles (apart from recruitment, choosing commanders, and telling them where to go) and the graphics are unimpressive (something that I've never cared about in a game anyways). I'd say its worth picking up.

[Naufragus di Scion]

I used to play EU3 a lot. Thats why I was so disappointed in ETW. I was hoping they had built on that. I mean its not like CA had to reinvent the wheel.

There are some good mods for it and some of that community is more historiclly obsessed.

The downside is there are no actual battles; its just a turn based numbers game. The pope and HRE are also a pain. Think excommincation in MTW on steriods. The Magnus mod someone suggested makes it more intense in respect to limiting where you can attack.

Other than that is very immersing. It has royal marriage so you can inherit thrones. Or become a vassel of another nation when your leader dies. Had one game where I finally inherited the throne of Austria after 200 years marrying into it. That gave me most of the world between my holdings and theirs. Every free state immediatly declared war on me.

They also have a more robust colonial system but most of that takes place before the time frame of the 18th century. You have to set up and develop the colonies. Deal with the natives and fight for resources

I have always thought the best thing to do would have been for SEGA or someone to buy that franchise and just add the TW action.

The campaigns are also verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry long. You start off at like 1300 or something and end in like 1815.

[mangaissofun]

well thats the thing to be honest although I love the battles I found them a bit long and drawn out (to be concerntrating on one battle for 40 minutes isn't all that fun to me, its its a small skirmish with not more than 10 units ill play it, any bigger than that it takes to long) I usualy let the AI resolve the big battles for me so EU3 seems pretty damn great

[Homeros]

I know developers can buy stuff from other devs. Lots of studios use the Unreal engine to power their games. Even a company like BioWare uses the Unreal Engine in MassEffect. Why can't CA do this? If they used the gameplay & AI of UE3 and/or Civ4 they had a great campaign game. CA only needed to concentrate on the 'looks' and the battle AI (both of them are pretty good) to make ETW a great game.

[Mikelus Trento]

Besides the above descriptions, I would add....one works, the other....well (cough).

[mangaissofun]

Besides the above descriptions, I would add....one works, the other....well (cough).

XD L...M...A...O...

[mp84]

Besides the above descriptions, I would add....one works, the other....well (cough).

Well, let's not go to far though. When EU III first came out IT was an extremely buggy game and the community there, which is just passionate as ours, was complaining like crazy.

It honestly took several, several patches, and 2 expansion packs to get that game truly right.

We'll see how Empire will fair a few months from now before judgment is given out.

However, I wouldn't mind a EU III AI type map, with Total War battles, that would be a dream game

MP

[Ojf]

Empire cannot even compare to EU3, EU3 beats it in every aspect EU3 has

[Casusbelli]

They are pretty different games. Or at least I play them for different reasons. Play EU3 when you want an authentic historical game, with a focus on grand strategy.
Total War is more about the tactical battles, and grand strategy basically consists of spreading you color to the other side of the map (mostly because of the lack of a supply system, a simplistic diplomacy etc.).

[Snapshot]

I liked the ideas and scale of EUIII, but I was just never able to get past it not being turn based. It always struck me as a game which would be perfect for turn based instead of real time. Its a personal taste issue of course, not a slant on the game, its really just that I like my strategy games turn based not real time. Probably because of all those avalon hill board games I played in my younger days.

[Daeger]

the main difference between EU-series and TW-series is, that ETW is a lot more fun, EU is a lot more serious.

I'm not saying that EU is bad, it's just that EU is too "hardcore" to be as fun as ETW is. I don't play EU with the same menthality as I play ETW and I don't think its meant to be played in that manner.

I prefer ETW over EU anytime, although I play EU quite often too. You really can't compare the two at all. In ETW you can literally beat the sheet out of the a-hole neighbour country of yours in a battle, while in EU, you can just get pissed with the crappy battle system.