For those who've read my panegyric on EU(1), they know that I was much taken by this game. With Europa Universalis (I) you had a computer history game in which the players took the roles of the various Great Powers from 1492 to 1792, a much-ignored but intensely interesting period of history.
Let me be clear from the very beginning: EUII is essentially the same game. The graphics look pretty much the same, the map is unchanged. So a shopper making a casual comparison would think: Why bother? I've got EU already.
Answering that is both simple and complicated. On the one hand, EU2 is a pure evolutionary development of EU1, and in that sense they did not attempt to fix what wasn't broken. The subject is the same, the actors are largely the same, the essence of the game is BASICALLY the same: it still is unmistakably EU. Where it diverges, well, there's the rub.
The EU fan community has always been deeply involved with the development of the game (to Paradox's credit). After EU1 was released, the hordes of forum-posters took over, dissecting the engine and assumptions in detail. In most ways, the game system survived the harsh scrutiny of internet critics: a notable achievement for a board-game ported to a computer game in its first generation. There are game franchises that are in their nth generation that still aren't as well received. Invariably, however, there were certain things that were omitted or didn't work precisely right.
When you start a game of EU2, the title splash screen gives you Paradox's response to that community: "This game is dedicated to our fans." It doesn't get any clearer than this. Almost every single issue of substance that was raised in the EU1 forums (that I recall) has been addressed in EU2. For example, I myself discussed the lack of mercenaries; for a game set in the 16th to 18th centuries, the failure of the game to allow the hiring of mercenaries was serious indeed. In EU2, historicity is satisfied and mercenaries are generally available. We asked for them, Paradox gave them to us (along with privateers).
The music is another example: if EU1 had sucked, nobody would care about the limited background music. As it was, not many people left the music on during the endless hours that they played - those 3 tunes got really, really repetitive. This is no longer an issue: Paradox apparently made a deal with a Swedish record company and EU2 is blessed with dozens (51 selections, over 200 megs to be precise) of high-quality mp3 tunes for background music (with contextual playlists for the different eras), from classic baroque to middle eastern- and asian-flavored music. As an aside, the music is good enough to make a good Winamp playlist in its own right - they're that enjoyable.
Finally, the game is eminently stable. The first EU had some buggy patches, and while I didn't suffer as badly as some, I too had the occasional crash-to-desktop, etc. until the most recent patch. EU2 has run with only one crash for weeks (and that was a multiplayer online game, so could be the connection soured) and if you have the horsepower for it, it runs really smoothly.
If Paradox had confined themselves to a re-issuance of EU1 with some fixes, it would hardly rate a review and would certainly not be worth purchasing. They decided that "Europa" Universalis wasn't enough. They wanted to give players a longer game that covered the entire world.
First, EU2 has expanded the chronology of the game. Rather than the 300 years (1492-1792) of EU1, we now can play from 1419 to 1819. This may seem a slight change but it involved the introduction and broad expansion of the tech development aspect (not rightly a "tech tree" per se, as the player's development is linear and not branching).
A hundred years is a long time, but you might not think it that significant to the gameplay. You'd be wrong. Rather than starting the game at the cusp of the Age of Exploration, you are beginning at the end of the Renaissance. The difference in state goals and aims between 1419 and 1492 is striking and has a broad impact on play. I've seen many games of EU1 develop into a precursor of 19th century colonialism, as the great powers all race to seize territories worldwide. Whether this is smart or not is another matter, but the availability of explorers and conquistadors in EU1 from the very start induces players to USE them.
Because of the different nature of 1419 vs. 1492 the EU2 Grand Campaign feels like an entirely different animal, although you may not recognize the subtle difference right away. Explorers and conquistadors are rare and precious. Exploration will not be available as an outlet for the aggression of a powerful neighbor. States are forced to position themselves amongst each other and settle into a sustainable balance immediately, rather than exhaust themselves on foreign shores. The distinct difference in time period didn't even really strike me until I was playing England and I realized - that great general I've got in France is Henry V!
The second way that Paradox expanded the EU system is that they've moved more toward the Universalis, and away from a focus on the Europa. You are no longer confined to the 'great powers' or the 8 states that the scenario designer decided were important. Want to play a quiet campaign game? Play the Manchu of China and dominate your neighbors while trying to keep the foreign barbarians out. Interested in a challenge? Play as the Nubians and try to maintain your tiny state against the rising tide of Islam. Or play the Incas and develop the New World before the Europeans show up.
You may play any of the 140 extant states in the game (as well as up to 7 other humans in
a much stable state, a smoother internet multiplayer code that CAN cope with 56k connection speeds - hooray!), with full lists of historical personalities and rulers. The classic inhabitants of the scenario list, such as the Wars of the Roses and Joan of Arc's crusade against the English, are joined by wonderful new challenges: yes, finally, we can play the Napoleonic Wars in EU2. For all those who could never get a game of Empires in Arms finished: despair no longer. You may also play the Japanese Civil Wars of the Ashikagi Shogunate. Of course, this would hardly be authentic unless Paradox revised the religion rules to include Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism.
All this comes at a price of course, especially in RAM. My 64 meg RAM laptop could struggle along with EU1 (which is why it will stay there probably forever). It is now KIA even trying to load EU2. OK, sure it loads, but the wave of war declarations and events in the first few years of a campaign bring it quickly to its knees and hang.
The development team for EU2 didn't stop at revision, neither did they stop at simple expansion (if one could call encompassing the whole world simple). More territories, more countries, more religions is one thing, but Paradox took a hard look at the limitations of the original EU engine and made some very significant gameplay changes.
The first and most obvious is the Domestic Policy slider. Composed of eight sliders, you may change one of them one point once every ten years (which may not sound like much, but in a grand campaign that's 40 points of change!).
Each slider represents a spectrum of positions in a specific context for your state, and each position on the slider grants you bonuses/penalties in everything from settler creation, specific army unit costs, and even troop morale. For example a state with a setting high on the centralization scale is going to be efficient with bonuses to production and tech investment, but will be more brittle and see more frequent revolts. These sliders also simultaneously offer a wonderful texture for each Great Power that was lacking in EU. Everyone knows that historically Russia was a land power, England a sea power. Certainly, their sliders start as such as one forum poster succinctly put it "playing a country is now more than just a political situation and a religion" (sorry, I'd attribute you if I knew who you were). But with your determined effort you can radically change these positions over time and this can significantly - but not abruptly - change the course of history.
Religious and political rules have seen thorough rewriting, allowing the forcible (if expensive) conversion of a heretical province within your realm. Many more diplomatic options are available, including the much needed ability to allow/force access through a province (thus ending the "aagh, we went to peace and my main army is trapped in Kleves!" syndrome). The consequences for religious change are much more subtle as well: it's no longer a race to become Reformed as fast as possible. Each religion has been tweaked so that the consequences - good and bad - are better-balanced than in EU1. I've played games where a too-hasty switch of religion has caused me almost irrevocable stability problems more than FIFTY years later, leaving me to consider the error of my ways.
Paradox has thankfully disposed of the "stars" mechanic leftover from EU's board game roots, and replaced it with a far better percentile system. Military victories, provincial conquest, etc. all raise the victory percentage and this is (similar, but more flexible than the "star" system) then traded against for money, territory, or other things like forced military access. This results in a more satisfying peace resolution as you are now also free to offer (or be offered, if you are winning) provinces that haven't been conquered. Get your tail kicked by Poland? It might be wise to give them that crummy colony you established in Madagascar - if they're stupid enough to take it, it might lead them to conflict with other colonial powers (and away from you).
It also appears that alliances act far less monolithically in EU2 - the smaller, more distant members may be less enthused about a war than alliance members actively engaged, and thus more willing to accept status-quo peace. This means that as the aggressor, you have to ride herd on your allies and be far more careful about what conflicts that you draw them into. As the
aggressor, you have more options for trimming down the opposition and turning an overwhelming situation into something you might survive. It also means you can't pillage a large alliance's smaller members with pre-positioned navy troops in a pre-planned war as they are less likely to jump into a distant conflict in the first place. Either way, this is far more realistic behavior and increases the lifespan of smaller states, both player and non-player.
Longtime EU1 players will likely be startled by their first run-in with the event engine, as well as tweaks which make stability a much more precious commodity. No more world-conquest games while you stay safely at +3 stability revolt-free. Now not only are most states going to sit at 0 or +1 most of the game, the event engine will throw real-life historical and generic events at you that are sure to test even the most capable ruler's patience. They all seem to have nasty tradeoffs - they goad you into an action you don't usually want to take, unless you're willing to the pay the financial or stability hit to ignore it. "Nobility demands ancient privileges" is a good example - either pay them a lot of money to shut up (and who has spare cash lying around in EU?), or accept a bump on the domestic policy slider toward decentralization.
This event engine is well-integrated into national goals, the DP slider, religion, and all aspects of the game. It can be infuriating (actually, you can turn it off if you're a pansy) but with it, you really feel involved with your country - for better or worse. It even has economic effects: I think just about everyone in EU1 spent most of their cash-on-hand and bumped their economics settings to minimize inflation. Sorry; in EU2 that's suicide. With the more opportunistic AI states, the event engine, religion, and general tweaks it's a good idea to keep at least 50d in the treasury for a rainy day. Not that it's ever that simple, of course.
The AI is better, but still not par with the better human brains. The computer seems to weight its strategic options more accurately, defending capitals and breaking
sieges if it can. Tactically it still lacks finesse, unable to clearly distinguish a significant threat from a feint. Using relatively short-term goal seeking behavior, the AI can be tricked by a patient enough person, but it will provide a sturdy opponent to most players (face it, it's going to gang up on you if you start doing too well, and even a crummy AI can do well when it's 139:1 against you).
It does seem a bit TOO sturdy at times - occupy every Scottish province with a 15,000 man army, take away all but their capital, cut off their diplomatic ties and the bloody Picts STILL refuse to join your benevolent empire. Bug or feature (it's not just the Scots by the way, so it's not some sort of ethnic obstinacy scripted in), it seems that the computer controlled states are nearly immune to less-violent forms of persuasion like diplomatic annexation.
Even when their situation is hopeless, AI states will resist. In one sense, this makes it more challenging, but in another it breaks the realistic feel - humans can read handwriting on the wall and will cut short their losses to fight another day. The AI doesn't appear to ever consider this tactic. It does make them superficially tougher, since you can't intimidate them. Of course you CAN simply pummel them and annex them militarily as always, but just like in EU1 there are subsequent diplomatic repercussions that make this a tactic that can only be used sparingly to be of benefit.
EU2 looks a great deal like EU1, and this is intentional. EU1 was a great game, and the developers were justifiably reluctant to stray far from a formula that worked well. They didn't hesitate to improve that formula where they saw it lacking, however, and there are significant if not obvious changes that make EU2 a distinctly better game. EU1 was lauded as a complex, realistic, historical game that - if you were willing to take the time to learn it - was challenging and deeply rewarding. EU2 has even more to offer in terms of subtlety and nuance, and a number of additional features that both broaden and deepen gameplay at all levels.
If
you like to comment on this review, please post a message at the forum.
Reviewed by Steve Lieb
Europa Universalis II
