Re: EU3 vs ETW
True enough, you can't compare all parts of the two games. But you can't compare all parts of different games with any two games. For example, you can't compare everything in M2TW to ETW because ETW has significant buildings outside of settlements and no city assault battles... to compare strategy games I think the primary concern is whether or not the game rewards thinking, problem-solving and good decision-making. If the game does not do this, it's simply not a good game for me. For a strategy game to even really deserve the name, you should have to develop strategies that lead to victory, growth or survival (depending on the goal), rather than these being guaranteed. So you can compare all the parts that require you to make a decision and whether that decision has relevance (where relevance is impact on a resource).Originally Posted by KippyK
I actually think its a little more complex than that. "Grand Strategy" is a genre that is terribly difficult to define; there are areas where ETW and EU3 can/should be compared (like campaign AI), and then there are areas that they shouldn't be compared (like military - eg I like your earlier point that EU3 simulates the outcomes of wars and battles better than ETW, but as for the battles themselves, you really can't compare; it wouldn't be fair to EU3).
But your analogy is a bit misleading - I think comparing two "Grand Strategy" games is more like comparing two "War" games. "War", as a genre, is uber-broad. It could refer to WWII shooters, WWII RTSs, etc. etc. However, you can still compare them, where comparisons are valid. You can't compare Call of Duty to Company of Heroes very well; but you can compare aspects of certain other games in this manner. While I agree the "Apples and Oranges" argument is a massive over-simplification, it really needs to be taken into account. All Total War games have been turn-based, and EU3 is real-time. Those make for VASTLY different experiences. Same goes for having abstract vs. 3D battles. But that doesn't make the games incomparable, as I've already stated. Both have functioning Campaign/Diplomacy AIs, but clearly one is superior.
Also, for Humble Warrior: Yes, Empire has its ahistorical travesties, but so does EU3 (to the untrained eye, it would suggest that, for instance, Longbowmen were a widespread military tradition across the entirety of Europe). I'll agree, it is a MUCH more informative game (I've learned bundles just looking at the starting map!), but you can learn plenty from Empire as well. I really don't think that it will ruin someone's informative experience if their chainshot flies 50 meters too far. Most people touching Empire probably have never had ANY prior knowledge of the era; even if the knowledge isn't perfect, I think the fact that their learning about it (and perhaps striking up the desire to pick up an actual book of history?) is a good thing. Ninja ropes, however, are an awful, awful thing.
For that, the game needs some things that are bad, some things that are good, and it should be up to the player to find out what works for him. In economy, for example, you can decide in ETW whether you focus on trade, on improving your provinces, or on conquest - which works better for you depends on your style of play and your goal.
One thing is definitely a point in favor of ETW, in my opinion: It's much more immersive. EU3 is much more abstract and complicated. ETW also has better graphics which ties a bit into this.
Edit: @ForlornHope: I have to agree on the rebels thing. Rebels are in principle historical and make sense gameplay-wise but the whack-a-mole game is very annoying. This part of the game could do well with an automation like putting some troops somewhere, assigning them to an area, and have them whack the moles automatically. However, that's not a bad basic design. In ETW, on the other hand, you don't have to keep garrisons at all because rebels are 100% predictable.
Random numbers have a huge role in strategy games because they make things more unpredictable. If you can always foresee all the consequences of an action, the game becomes very chessy - and a good portion of decisionmaking processes is actually aimed at reducing randomness or unpredictablity in reality.
Reply With Quote
