Ok, I am probably going to be flamed for this post.. but it's my true opinion nevertheless...

Ok, here's the story.. I've been playing Civ2 for a very long time now.. and I was very *very* excited about Civ3.

Until I got it, that is.. you know, it's very hard sometimes to read truly objective opinions about a game in the forum of that game's fan site. For a lot of people here, Sid Meier is God and can do no wrong. A lot of people here seem biased and so Civ-"fanatic" that they can not see what truly is the big problem with this game.

Personally, I have been *very* disappointed with Civ3. To me, after all is said and done, Civ3 is a facelift with a few gameplay changes (key word here is "a few") to justify selling a new product. No matter how much we hate to admit it, but Civ3 has failed to continue to be a "leader" in the strategy gaming world. Sid and Co. reused an old formula and took the "safe" way out. I just feel it has improved, but it hasn't *moved* forward. Make a few changes to a successful formula and sell the tin for $59 bucks. Sweet.

But we have no choice, do we? That's what I thought and I was willing to stay with it. I bought the tin box, I bought the strategy guide, everything. Then it all changed. Then I bought Europa Universalis II.

Guys, if you have not played this damn game, I *urge* you to look into it. It is an amazing strategy experience, which I think really takes the bold steps that Civ3 should have taken.

What should I talk about first.. the diplomacy model?? Geesh, it's so deep that Civ3's feels like a toy now. The trading model?? I *dare* you to compare it with Civ3's trading model. The historical accuracy?? Dead on! And I mean dead on! The historical research that has been put into this game is breathtaking. The military options?? Endless. The # of countries and provinces you play against??? The awesome (and historically accurate) scenarios?? The map?? Aaaah, the map... After you have seen the pitiful Civ3 maps, of course, *anything* is better.. But.. Just look at the EU2 maps.. Just look at them!

I don't know.. I am not exactly a history buff, but you know, when I play the English I want to be in England damn it! Is this so hard??? Civ3 has made such a mess of this that it's not even funny!

I've been playing this game for a few days now, and for me it has replaced Civ3 on my hard drive for ever (such a pity I spend $60 for the tin and $20 for the strategy guide.. want them?? I am selling them half-price. Contact me at ilias@mailbox.gr). This game is full of *style* and *atmosphere*. If there ONE word that could describe this game is: DEEP. The scope of this game is incredible. It is simply GRAND.

By the way, it *is* RTS. BUT.. don't let that fool you.. this has *nothing* to do with the Age of Empires crowd. This is clearly an RTS game made for turn-based gamers.

You know, it's funny.. I used to laugh at Age of Empires gamers who considered themselves "strategy" gamers.. To me, AoE was so shallow and light--it had no depth. I felt that even attempting to compare AoE to Civ2 was an insult to the Civ series.

Well, after having experienced EU2, that's how I feel about Civ3 now. After having played Civ2 for years, and after having played EU2, now Civ3 seems shallow and "old"--a successful but "tired" game that is imprisoned by its own success to really move forward and offer anything truly new and fresh.

To me, EU2 is the next step in strategy gaming. If you consider yourselves a strategy gamer, you really *really* OWE it to yourself to experience this game (and no, I am *not* associated with EU2 and not advertisting here! I am just so excited about it--as much as I was when I discovered Civ2)

By the way, Gamesdomain reviewed it at:

http://www.gamesdomain.co.uk/gdreview/zones/reviews/pc/nov01/europaii.html

EU2 also seems to have a very active and enthousiastic community (although I haven't really spent too much time there yet). Take a look at their forum if you like:

http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/index.php

Sid, thanks for the Civ series. You've made your *fantastic* contribution and it's has been awesomely appreciated. But now, please move over. Europa Universalis II is here.

Happy gaming!

Cheers

iLiAS

Im sure its a great game, and you have interested me enough to buy it and try it out. I will probably pick it up this week.

I would suggest not knocking Civ3 in your praise of EU2, as it probably turns away people from listening to anything you have to say. Its not really necessary anyway.

Each game is great in its own way, Im sure. :king:

while i cant argue with most of the stuff you said since i've never played EU2, I never knew CIVILIZATION series were suppose to be historically accurate?!?!?

I thought the whole point was to create your OWN civilization and run it any way you please.

Also, being a EU1 player, I do admit EU is more detailed but it only focuses on the colonial times while CIV expands from the beginning of time to forever! =)

I just love civ 3. I'll never leave it hehe

joespaniel you are probably right.. in reading this now, I can see that it can seem that I am knocking Civ3.. I didn't mean to insult Civ and/or Sid Meier..

I *am* very disappointed with Civ3 though.. I just thought it would be so much more, after so many years that Civ2 came out.. Civ2 came out in 1996, right? After 5 years, I was waiting so much more. I don't think I am unreasonable in that.

But you are right.. considering the majority of strategy games out there, Civ3 is a very good game, probably one of the best today.

I am just so excited about EU2.. so I probably went overboard a little :)

Cheers

iLiAS

I'm disappointed too. They basically packaged half a game and sold it for full price.

Another thing I forgot to mention is religion.. EU2 incorporates religion wonderful into the political and diplomacy models. First time I see religion being so important in a strategy game (as it should be).

Cheers

ilias

I have to agree ,sometimes. I have been very disaponted by the total lack or evident disreguard of playtesting. 2 or 3 games in this bad of buggy shape have been know to kill games and companies. Ex. Black and White. It was a great game. but a random bug in the last level would shrink your creature to rabbit size and was irreversable even when you destroyed the cause. it was months and months before they patched it. Man. I didnt see anypoint to playing it anymore because it took soo long I lost interest.
But I dont feel that the bugs in Civ3 are that devistating, very, very ,very annoying, but, really not critical to haveing an enjoyable experience.The game is still basically fun and there is no irreversable damage done. I am sure they will patch it very soon, and ll this argueing will be pointless. I still play the game daily and will continue too, Think of it like an "expansion pack" when the patch finally comes. It will make the game come out in very different ways than it does now. It will be at some points like a new game.

If Civ 3 is a minor upgrade, then what was Civ 2? Civ 2 was just a graphics patch to Civ 1 in comparison. The new stuff in Civ 2 did not force you to rethink your strategies like Civ 3 does.

I agree that Civ3 isn't the best it could be... I was amazed at how great EU 1 was when I first bought it.

As far as historical accuracy EU beats Civ. And yes, there was some level of historical accuracy in the past for civ. In fact alot of people loved the game because the used as a jump off point for learning more about history.

At this point I would rate EU1 far above CIv3. After Civ 3 is patched (based on what I have seen so far and unless they add significant playability), I would say that Civ3 will only be a couple of steps behind EU1.

Im definately buying this game. Sounds really fun.

When I was younger, we had risk and axis & allies. That was about it. Maybe stratego!:lol:

Its great for strategy players like us today, to have so many games. I liked the graphics in Age of Empires, but the game overall fell flat.

If anything, the AI in civ3 is a massive improvement. Culture and borders another. War, conquest and diplomacy are a whole new ballgame. I like the changes, and will be much happier next spring when they fix their mistakes and add MP. An editor would be nice too.

I agree, it seems they rushed it out a little fast. I dont hold a grudge though. I was getting antsy waiting for it.;)

I dunno if all the hype in this board and other Civ3 boards about EU2 is worth it. I've had EU1 since the day of its NA release... I played a few Grand Campaigns and found it all a little stale after awhile. The reason?

It is simply TOO historical and limited for me to make it one of my mainstay games... If you play any country you are limited by certain historical constraints that sometimes bug me- when you have a great monarch reigning (say Q. Eliz.) you get certain advantages that are just pre-planned. The only oddity that can happen is your monarch dies before her historical time (I had that happen once with Q. E. and it nearly stopped my expansion).

The technology is a simple pump up the numbers of the main units: Cav. Inf. Cannons. Ships.

You get you great leaders pretty much historically so no surprises there.

It's hard to explain all this, especially if to someone who's never played it before. The game IS deep, but your "identity" is wrapped up in the actual historical identity of the country you are leading- I mean the Dutch revolt against the Spanish at pretty much the same time guarenteed and the Spanish empire WILL crumble about as it did even if you were NOT playing. It's sorta like watching a history simulation that doesn't really need your input.

The AI even seems coded historically so that in one game I got frustrated and decided to just follow England's history. I went to North America and settled, I went to S. Africa and colonied, I went to India and trade-colonied and settled. NO ONE was there- I sailed past S. America and the Spanish were all over it- I sailed by W. Africa- empty, except for a few dutch places (slave traders). It was SIMPLE to follow in the footsteps of England's actual history. I don't know if this is such a good thing for game- whenever I decided to swim upstream (so to speak) and say played as Turkey and tried to maintain my power, the artificial constraints of MY research taking longer put me so far behind that- yep- you guessed it- my empire collapsed into a backwater.

Now, I know you CAN overcome the history in the game (I've done that too) but it feels SO artificial when you're doing it. Like I said, swimming upstream. The game just has so many constraints it made it tough for me to feel innovative.

I LIKED the game and will get EU2 when it's dropepd to $19 or so, but I'm also happy with the open feeling in Civ3.

Just my 2 cents.:crazyeyes

Ever since I bought EU2 last week, I have stopped playing Civ3. It is a shame that both of these games are out simultaneously because I simply don't have enough time to play them both.

I have EU1 and agree that it had some significant issues that limited my enjoyment of it. However, EU2 has addressed many of those problems (the designers actually listened to input from the players - in fact, at least 3 of my specific suggestions have been incorporated into the game :) ).

The player now has much more control over the path that his/her nation takes - it is much less of a historical simulation. EU2 has introduced cultural differences and missionaries as well as the ability to change your domestic policies. It has made the game much more difficult - maintaining stability is a real challenge now - and much deeper.

Not that Civ3 is a poor game, but it is a "sandbox" game. I do like it, but right now I'm too busy converting the heathens and heretics of North Africa to "the one true religion" of Portugal to bother finding some damn saltpeter. ;)

Thank god for Electronic Botiques 30-day return policy!!!

I think I will go trade in Civilization III for a run at EU2.

Thanks Sid for a :vomit: game!

ironfang

I purchased the original Europa U. when it came out, and found that the "overhead" or "learning curve" was way too steep for me. I tried several times, and the result was always the same: frustration. I realize the series is historically accurate to a point, but cannot be compared to Civ.

Personally, Civ3 is much more compelling. You want to keep coming back to play it. It is a program you look forward to booting up after work, or when you have spare time. It is not perfect, and a few of the glitches are frustrating, but I would not be in such a hurry to "trade up" to EU.

I am sure both programs have their place. If I had only enough money for one, I would recommend (and buy) Civ3 without hesitation.

Originally posted by ironfang
Thank god for Electronic Botiques 30-day return policy!!!

I think I will go trade in Civilization III for a run at EU2.

Thanks Sid for a :vomit: game!

ironfang

rofl :D

that's great if it were true, I'd return mine in a second.

I'm playing EU2 now and let me tell ya, it's hard as hell!
Ive never played the original EU and maybe that's why I'm having such a difficult time adjusting to it.

This game is so detailed it makes Civ3 a game for the grade schoolers, and itself the college undergrad in comparison.
The logo on the box cover says, rated for "everyone", but after having a few gos I'd say they meant to have "everyone who eats up complexity and strategy and management" but just forgot finish the phrase.

Just like iLiAS, I couldn't say enough about this game. Explaining every single aspect of it would take days. If monarch simulation is an impossibility, then buying EU2 is as close of an experience one can take from a software.

I conclude in saying, EU2 is definitely not a game for the casual strategy player. That might be a good thing or bad. So, proceed with caution.

Originally posted by whirledpeas


I have EU1 and agree that it had some significant issues that limited my enjoyment of it. However, EU2 has addressed many of those problems (the designers actually listened to input from the players - in fact, at least 3 of my specific suggestions have been incorporated into the game :) ).



Exactly. Paradox --the maker of EU, established a community of their fans right on the game's offical web site! (www.europa-universalis.com)
They've got forums and everything just like ours. These people listen to their customers, which is smart. And main reason why their games do well.

Did you know EU is like Civ2. And EU2 the same as Civ3, in the respect they are both games that made few changes to their own previous installment. Except EU came out last year, and civ2 6 years ago...

Make that 9 months ago :)

ilias

About 2 weeks before the release of Civ3 I told myself that I would buy only Civ3 or EU2. Not both. I owned EU1 and Civ2 and loved both of them. When Civ3 was released I became too unpatient and bought it. Now I look at the EU forums and am actually considering buying it. As much as I resist, I look at what I have in Civ3 and relize that I made a mistake. If only I had enough money for both...

Originally posted by ReallyNiceGuy
About 2 weeks before the release of Civ3 I told myself that I would buy only Civ3 or EU2. Not both. I owned EU1 and Civ2 and loved both of them. When Civ3 was released I became too unpatient and bought it. Now I look at the EU forums and am actually considering buying it. As much as I resist, I look at what I have in Civ3 and relize that I made a mistake. If only I had enough money for both...

Wait for about a week to and visit the board then to see some of the problems. For a couple of days, it was clear sailing here on the Civ 3 boards too. Then with more playing time, the ugly bugs started to rear their heads.

EU2 could be the same as well.

Ilias, I was a big fan of EU2, as well. Can you tell me what they changed? Is there better MP support?

It seemed to me that EU, like Civ, is great for online gaming, but there was absolutely NO MP support the first time around. I just get bored of ANY game playing, er, by myslef.:eek:

What about the AI in EU2? In the first the AI was worse(!) than the civ2 ai! They would ignore your efficient seige force knocking out their capital while their 100/100/10 collossus would be attriting themselves dry trying to take out some level 3 fort 2 provinces away. That is what made me quit that game. And what about the ridiculous alliances? Spain, turkey, hafsid empire and the Mughal empire declares war on denmark-norway and the incas? All looked hopeless when I saw SS's of EU2 in beta that showed the same exact engine as EU. (not to mention a message that russia was allied with ethiopia).

Oh and whoever said that aoe was not a strategy game did not play multiplayer at a high level. There was much depth and many ways of defeating the opposition. And amoung the top, good tactical ability was paramount, setting up kill zones, balancing military/economy, knowing when to rush anti-rush or boom.

Compared to civ2 which the winning strategy was ICS, SSC, and howitzers.

Edited to add: Just checked out the EU2 forums, and it's interesting to see that the game is having a lot of the same opinions as civ3. Stuff like "Waiting for new patch before voicing opinions" and too many imbalances/bugs. Also, game released to early due to the PUBLISHERS(with x-mas around the corner what did you expect?). The major difference is that at this point in EU2 community it is all still polite and patient.

Could someone tell me what the actual bug is with air superiority? I've had the computer successfully knockout my bombers with their fighters more than once...seems to work ok for me...

Europa Universalis 2 is Europa Universalis with so many more features... It is less expensive than Civ3 and is better than Civ3 too...

OK, some background.

I followed the Civ III hype right up to the release date and on 'til today. About two months ago I decided not to be an early adopter. Fifty or sixty bucks still means something to me, especially for something that I know is going to eat up days of my time in, er, quasi-productive fashion.

I'm glad I didn't spend--partly because of the bugs (that corruption thing sounds brutal), but even more so based on the subsequent positions of Firaxis ("The President will not comment on that") and Infogrames ("You vil transchlate NUSSING unless ve say it. All uf your mods are belonk to usssss").

Screw that noise. See you in a year at the bargain bin, boys. Learn some corporate manners by then and we'll talk.

Anyway, I realized in the aftermath that my two all-time favorite games, CivII and the flawed but perfect SMAC(X), both had one thing in common. Namely, Bryan Reynolds (and the team he poached from Sid). I am very excited to see what he and BHG are quietly up to while this thing is blowing up in slow-motion in his ex-employer's face.

In the meantime, EU2 sounds like a possibility, especially since Best Buy is letting it go for 30 bucks this week. However, I have one reservation, which you can maybe help me overcome.

That is: I don't like real-time. I'm turned-based to my bones.

A few weeks ago, speaking of the bargain bin, I found a cheap copy of the Starcraft Battle Chest. The design was smooth and the gameplay was smoother. A nice piece of work. But I just don't like that feeling of being on the clock. So I carefully re-boxed it and plan to put it under the tree for my son, who is a big Age of Empires fan.

So based on your love of EU2, what do you think? Will I be spending the 30 on another future Christmas gift? Or will I be hoarding it for my selfish xenofungus-loving self?

I have a statement and a question about EU and EU2. In EU1 I found it very difficult to trade, impossible actually. I could not figure out what I was doing and the manual was no help. I do not consider myself a dumb person.....did anyone else have this problem? The second question hinges on the answer for the first, is the trading improved in EU2?

What you mean as a trade in EU?..

Bump for Pellaken.

I've already talked about this this game on some anther thread.
Whats the deal on all the pop-ups when you speed it up?
I just bought the game two days ago and i feel like I'm on a porn site.
Doe's this not bother any one?

iLiAS, you've hit the nail on the head :goodjob:. I recently bought EUII and it truly makes civ3 look like a joke, a complete and utter joke! I don't want to go over the top, but everything in it, the tactics, the atmosphere, the accuracy, the maps, etc, make civ3 look like it was made 2 decades ago.

On the one hand I'm happy to get the gaming experience on the other hand I'm sad that I had thought civ has fallen so far behind. Now, I no longer imagine that behind the civ project lie people of vitality, eager for innovation and gaming quality...all I imagine now are greedy, lazy, decadent fat-cat developers cynically squeezing money out of the gamer by releasing a rehash of a previously brilliant game.

EUII shows firaxis up. They had years to develop civ3 from civ2 but the game title has almost stagnated; in many ways it's behind CTP2, a game that was made years before. If the EU title expands to encompass all ages - as it surely will- then only ignorance on the part of gamers or a complete overhaul of the civ title can keep it alive. Unlike civ2, Civ3 is not a benchmark in strategy game history...perhaps only a sad lesson on how success can rip the vitality out of any project.

EDIT: this is only my feeling!

Originally posted by calgacus


On the one hand I'm happy to get the gaming experience on the other hand I'm sad that I had thought civ has fallen so far behind. Now, I no longer imagine that behind the civ project lie people of vitality, eager for innovation and gaming quality...all I imagine now are greedy, lazy, decadent fat-cat developers cynically squeezing money out of the gamer by releasing a rehash of a previously brilliant game.

I really don't blame the developers as much as the publishers and the direction the gaming industry in general has taken. Game's are 'scheduled' for release it seems before they are even technically specified. The idea that customers want to buy the title, instead of the content, rules the way games throughout the industry are marketed. Some games are able to escape this trend (EU, Sims, small independent projects such as OG3 (http://www.orbital-inc.com/) ). But the situation is tragic right now.

Originally posted by calgacus

EUII shows firaxis up. They had years to develop civ3 from civ2 but the game title has almost stagnated; in many ways it's behind CTP2, a game that was made years before. If the EU title expands to encompass all ages - as it surely will- then only ignorance on the part of gamers or a complete overhaul of the civ title can keep it alive.


I don't even know if this can help. Releasing a huge game like Civ III in the state it was in not only hurt the Civilization name, I think it hurt the gaming industry in general. There are literally millions of customers now far more skeptical of this title and any game released in such a blind rush. Maybe in the long run this will be good for the industry as they will see that they must win the respect of the people from whom the money comes (the customers) right from the start. But I think there is going to be some real suffering before that comes about.

I am looking forward to the time again when innovation rules over Profit motivation.