Europa Universalis 3 and Anno 1701

For some reason, i guess because i’ve been reading about the Ottoman Empire, i just caught the bug to play EU again, and remembering that there was a sequel due, looked up the main site.

Apparently you can now pre-order EU3 with Anno 1701 in a combo package. Either that or get the collector’s edition.

http://www.paradoxshop.com/frameset.asp

EU3 looks really interesting. I haven’t seen Anno 1701 in action at all.

I own EU2 and could never get it off the ground. The initial learning curve seems VERY steep, and this from a guy that loves stuff like Imperialism and the strategy parts of Rome:TW and Medieval 2:TW. It’s like I really want to enjoy playing EU2, if only I could figure out HOW!

I don’t remember how i figured out how to play the EU series; i don’t think i found it terribly hard to understand however. The main problem for new players are menus hidden in completely unexplained places unless you take the time and read the manual. I didn’t have much trouble with Dominions either, though, so, i guess i’m just an interface grognard or something.

I’m just dying to try and make a decentralized empire today though. It always bothered me that it seemed as if most of the nations in EU2 hadn’t had much thought placed into their initial government policy settings, esp. with regards to the plausibility of their historical accuracy.

Anno 1701 is a gorgeous little strategy game. It’s lacking a bit in depth and the military game is unpolished, but I certainly had 30-40 hours of fun with it before I got distracted by something new and shiny. And it certainly is a lot easier to pick up than EU2.

With EU2, there’s the tutorial. And there’s a steep learning curve as you work out the interface, and to a lesser extent figure out “what the hell happens if I do this?”. Sadly, it might require quite a bit of time before you grasp it. Speaking only for myself, I’d say EU2 is totally worth it though, especially so if you like roleplaying history.

I never liked EU or EU2 as I just didnt have a desire to try to change a BIT of history…its not like you could take over the whole world so it really didnt hold a lot of interest…for me. It IS an interesing game and full of historicity and I think its worth trying out for anyone just to see how unique it is. I enjoyed the tighter focus of Hearts of Iron quite a bit more. Saying all that, I’ll probably try EU3 as I’m an addict.

As sad as it sounds, the official forums are really the best place for the basic stuff on how to play EU2. Lots of newbie questions in there and unofficial tutorials. Because the Paradox games are very poorly documented, Hearts of Iron 2 excepted. The EU games are actually very, very easy once you get past the first “what the hell do I do now?” moment.

Insofar as documentation and interface are concerned, EU3 is a big step forward, as you can tell from the screenshots and beta reports.

Troy

Oh, you could take over the whole world. Or at least all the parts that matter - I usually left the Philippines alone. And parts of interior China.

In fact, a big problem with most of the Paradox titles is that a small advantage can be easily transformed into a world shaping triumph. Any of the great powers could achieve insupperable mastery of Europe by 1700 - and you still have a third of the game to go.

Troy

Actually, taking over the world is entirely possible, though it does require a lot of planning and a very good understanding of how the game works.

[edit: curse you Troy]

I liked EU2, but the AI was horrible. Just horrible. I could take over all of Europe and the middle east with just about any country.

The Imperium of Ragusa shall not be denied!

Great, now I have yet another game I need to revisit. Sounds like a little RTFM and a visit to the official forums may cure my problems with the learning curve. “WTF do I do now?” was exactly the issue I had when trying to play EU2 the first time around.

I like the Ottomans too. In general, whenever playing the Turks is an option, I do it, even if they’re not the Ottomans.