MTW vs EU3

[unmerged(62078)]

First, let me state I am not plugging for another game in the EU forums, that would be rude, I just want to point out some things about what is probably going to be the prime competitor for EU3 in the market.

My favorite games are the EU, TW, and Civ series. This is my first time checking out the game in depth, mostly I have just been popping into the developer diaries and looking at the screens.

Saw that MTW is due for release soon and even though I wasn't completely satisfied with their last product I was checking out some of the game features and screens in their forums.

I hate to see the EU franchise ideas getting ripped off time and again in bigger games, I guess that is what happens when you are a small fish. The 'civic' system in Civ4 smells like it was ripped pretty much from EU2 and its slider system. Also, I was sort of stunned to see a MTW screenie showing a start screen proclaiming 'The Grand Campaign', I almost thought I was looking at EU3 screen by mistake. With MTW they are moving into your turf, as far as historical period goes, plus they seem to have really beefed up the economic side of the game, with a lot more improvements available.
At this point the only lack I see in that product compared to EU3 is the event system, they even have a crude leader/general system. Of course, TW has the detailed combat, which is one of the hallmarks of the series but gets tiring as you get into the game.

Then I came here to check out EU3 and was shocked to hear that the game will not be rigidly historical. To me this has always been the trademark of EU. Now I can understand why some might want a more open and free game, but when I played EU I never minded about the rigid events because I tend to play according to history, for example, if I played Spain, then I colonized the Americas, etc. I didn't do too many things that were unhistorical like conquering France. I am really concerned about how this is going to turn out, is this just going to be a game on a map of the world? Sort of like Civ which is based on history but very very open ended as soon as you start the game? I mean if I want to conquer the whole world as the OE, I will go play civ4 because that game barely feels historical, except for the civs themselves and the science timeline which I feel is one of the games strong points.

It is too late for EU3 but definitely for 4 you guys have got to bring the good graphics. EU3 would have been just fine on a 2d map considering how much of the combat game is an abstraction. I don't mind how combat is handled in EU, if I wanted to control every unit I will go play TW, but the TW map and army movement system is definitely killer. I don't mean to disparage the hard working crew you have doing graphics and I know you don't have the resources of the big players in the industry but I am worried about how this is going to stack up against what is out on the shelf when the game releases. Hopefully the TW hoopla will have died down by the time EU3 releases or maybe they will ship it full of bugs like their last production, but I really want you guys to hit it big with this game.

I have a bad feeling that this time next year I will be sitting around playing EU3, then MTW, then Civ4, then back through the cycle again, unsatisfied with some aspect of each and hoping for the game that will merge the best of them all.

 

[Araanor]

You could argue that EU3 will be less "historical", insofar as it will adher less strictly to historical events. At the same time, it will be much more realistic. Events will happen if they make sense, there will be more cause and effect in what happens in the game. I think this approach is the right one to take, I want the flow of history make sense, not to be constrained by "historical" events that do not make sense in the context.

 

[Lucky]

The 'civic' system in Civ4 smells like it was ripped pretty much from EU2 and its slider system.

Actually that was ripped from Alpha Centauri.

 

[TeeWee]

These are all worthy games, but also completely uncomparable. There may be some superficial similarities (e.g. they deal with the "life" of an civilization/country/faction over an "epic" period of time, they have a research and an economic system), but the focus of the games is completely different.

Civ is a classical (or even the archetypical) 4X (explore, expand, exploit, exterminate) with clear victory conditions and play balance is king (all leader traits should be somewhat balanced). Tech tree is complex and moving through eras is really noticable. Random but balanced maps are a given.

TW-series is a very good tactical battle game with just enough meat on the strategy map to make it a good game. In fact, many players use the strategy map mainly as a vehicle to generate battles. Factions are set up to behave differently (not strategically, but on the battle map) but all should be balanced and sort of equally playable. There is no tech tree (well, in Rome, there wasn't)

EU is a grand strategy game where historical accuracy trumps play balance. A Balkan country will have a harder time creating a colonial empire than Spain. This is by design. To contrast, this would be anathema to Civ, where there should not be a difference this big a priori. Tech tree is simplistic, where only a few steps have a qualitative difference, the rest have only a small quantitative difference. There are only 4 tech branches (land, naval, infra and trade). The reason is abstraction.

Regarding your comments: Civics were, as answered above, already present in Alpha Centauri. And they are so different from DP-sliders that they are really uncomparable. Civics have no "direction" but are completely different settings changing different aspects, DP-sliders have a direction.

MTW is not moving into the same time period. Even if they were, they were returning to the time period. MTW2's setting is 1080-1530, so there is barely overlap with EU.

In short, three different series. All good at what they do, but very different.

 

[unmerged(62078)]

These are all worthy games, but also completely uncomparable. There may be some superficial similarities (e.g. they deal with the "life" of an civilization/country/faction over an "epic" period of time, they have a research and an economic system), but the focus of the games is completely different.

Civ is a classical (or even the archetypical) 4X (explore, expand, exploit, exterminate) with clear victory conditions and play balance is king (all leader traits should be somewhat balanced). Tech tree is complex and moving through eras is really noticable. Random but balanced maps are a given.

TW-series is a very good tactical battle game with just enough meat on the strategy map to make it a good game. In fact, many players use the strategy map mainly as a vehicle to generate battles. Factions are set up to behave differently (not strategically, but on the battle map) but all should be balanced and sort of equally playable. There is no tech tree (well, in Rome, there wasn't)

EU is a grand strategy game where historical accuracy trumps play balance. A Balkan country will have a harder time creating a colonial empire than Spain. This is by design. To contrast, this would be anathema to Civ, where there should not be a difference this big a priori. Tech tree is simplistic, where only a few steps have a qualitative difference, the rest have only a small quantitative difference. There are only 4 tech branches (land, naval, infra and trade). The reason is abstraction.

Regarding your comments: Civics were, as answered above, already present in Alpha Centauri. And they are so different from DP-sliders that they are really uncomparable. Civics have no "direction" but are completely different settings changing different aspects, DP-sliders have a direction.

MTW is not moving into the same time period. Even if they were, they were returning to the time period. MTW2's setting is 1080-1530, so there is barely overlap with EU.

In short, three different series. All good at what they do, but very different.

I agree with you for the most part. I guess what I am trying to express is my concern that Paradox is, for lack of a better word, dumbing down the game. They are removing some of the more cerebral, historical matter, for purposes of open ended gameplay. I hope it works out, I just see them shifting more towards a civ or mtw style of game when they cannot compete with the graphics of those games, mtw in particular. So when faced with a choice between two similar games, mtw and eu3, one with stellar graphics...you do the math. I hope there is enough left of the old EU to make it standout, TW isn't there yet but they have really expanded on the non-military aspects of the game in the last two titles.

As far as time period goes, it is close enough to be a problem, as TW will be heavily moddable as well, and will include that empire we dare not mention on these forums.

 

[Araanor]

I don't see where you are getting that from. Where is the dumbing down? Where is the removal of cerebral, historical matter? Events will be less straight-jacket, I don't see this as less historical.

EU3 will feature the same abstracted battles as earlier. The focus is still on large-scale deep strategy. MTW is still leagues different. EU3 will also be much much more moddable than its predecessors. The only thing I see here is TW moving closer to EU.

 

[ComradeOm]

So basically what we have here are three historical strategy games. I fail to see the comparison or cause for worry. If you think that the only difference between the Paradox series and TW is the animated battles then I have to question whether you've played either.

As an aside, this "EUIII will not be historical" crap really needs to end soon.

 

[Registered]

As an aside, this "EUIII will not be historical" crap really needs to end soon.

It will, Q1 of next year :wacko:

 

[Jolt]

With MTW they are moving into your turf, as far as historical period goes, plus they seem to have really beefed up the economic side of the game, with a lot more improvements available.

As far as TW Series go, they will never ever even get to the kneels of EU Series at least in terms of strategy because EU outdates them in years and years of work at strategy gaming, also reinforced by actually listening and taking into account what the fans have to say about the game (And on how to improve it) Something (And this I'm certain) Creative Assembly doesn't do. As far as what I've seen from MTW, it seems exactly a copy of RTW with different graphics.

 

[DukeWilleo1630]

Both series rock, I will buy both. They're not really comparable though. I've always though of EU as the more historical and strategical game, while TW is much more combat oriented of course. MTW2 is going to be just like RTW but in medieval times. Don't expect the amount of management that EU games have.

 

[unmerged(61941)]

TW is absolutely horrible IMHO since RTW in some very important respects.

1) The AI
2) Historical Respect/Accuracy
3) Flavor and Detail (other then battles)
4) Game Balance and mechanics
5) Reality

Yeah, I played that series awed by the 3D graphics and large scale battles. Then after a while I realize I hated everthing else about it. Then I did my research and saw they were marketing there game to 12 year olds. I was insulted they backstabbed there other customers to make more cash, but hey thats capitalism for yea, seems a little foolish to sink a portion of your fanbase. From what I've seen that whole series is continuing down the RTW road. Civ has always been a abstracted fantasyland type of game, I dislike that, while others like it. I like simulations not arcade games.

But then I found paradox and now I play no others games, happily ever after.

EU3 > MTW 2

 

[unmerged(52692)]

way to judge games that aren't even out yet, Three63.

 

[unmerged(61941)]

way to judge games that aren't even out yet, Three63.

I'm not playing the judge on MTW 2, I was talking about RTW and RTW:BI. Then I guessed that MTW 2, for better or worst that depends on your taste, would be more of the same from the clues I've seen. Sorry if I've upset anyone with my humble opinion.

 

[tretii_sleva]

I am not even gonna talk about CIV4, it's for kiddys. As for RTW, it is known for it's notoriously damb AI, but the battle part is great. By the way, you can get a mode of TRW created by real historians, which called Europa Barbarorum. It is more historic and visually sound.
By EU series beat them all by far. Even with 2D graphics. It felt, at least in the past, very "historical" and in my opinion it's one the succefull components of a game. I hope paradox preserve this for EU3.
By the way MTW2 is just RTW with sligthly better graphics.

 

[unmerged(8915)]

the fact that in mtw1 england can conquer france and spain in the space of 20 years totally put me off the game~ the battles are fun, but even CK is more historical than mtw. a LOT more historical.

 

[jmschaub]

All of the TW games get boring after a while. But of course I just stick to the strategic level. This isn't where they concentrate, they concentrate on the actual battle level.

 

[Casluerj]

First, let me state I am not plugging for another game in the EU forums, that would be rude, I just want to point out some things about what is probably going to be the prime competitor for EU3 in the market.

My favorite games are the EU, TW, and Civ series. This is my first time checking out the game in depth, mostly I have just been popping into the developer diaries and looking at the screens.

Saw that MTW is due for release soon and even though I wasn't completely satisfied with their last product I was checking out some of the game features and screens in their forums.

I hate to see the EU franchise ideas getting ripped off time and again in bigger games, I guess that is what happens when you are a small fish. The 'civic' system in Civ4 smells like it was ripped pretty much from EU2 and its slider system. Also, I was sort of stunned to see a MTW screenie showing a start screen proclaiming 'The Grand Campaign', I almost thought I was looking at EU3 screen by mistake. With MTW they are moving into your turf, as far as historical period goes, plus they seem to have really beefed up the economic side of the game, with a lot more improvements available.
At this point the only lack I see in that product compared to EU3 is the event system, they even have a crude leader/general system. Of course, TW has the detailed combat, which is one of the hallmarks of the series but gets tiring as you get into the game.

Then I came here to check out EU3 and was shocked to hear that the game will not be rigidly historical. To me this has always been the trademark of EU. Now I can understand why some might want a more open and free game, but when I played EU I never minded about the rigid events because I tend to play according to history, for example, if I played Spain, then I colonized the Americas, etc. I didn't do too many things that were unhistorical like conquering France. I am really concerned about how this is going to turn out, is this just going to be a game on a map of the world? Sort of like Civ which is based on history but very very open ended as soon as you start the game? I mean if I want to conquer the whole world as the OE, I will go play civ4 because that game barely feels historical, except for the civs themselves and the science timeline which I feel is one of the games strong points.

It is too late for EU3 but definitely for 4 you guys have got to bring the good graphics. EU3 would have been just fine on a 2d map considering how much of the combat game is an abstraction. I don't mind how combat is handled in EU, if I wanted to control every unit I will go play TW, but the TW map and army movement system is definitely killer. I don't mean to disparage the hard working crew you have doing graphics and I know you don't have the resources of the big players in the industry but I am worried about how this is going to stack up against what is out on the shelf when the game releases. Hopefully the TW hoopla will have died down by the time EU3 releases or maybe they will ship it full of bugs like their last production, but I really want you guys to hit it big with this game.

I have a bad feeling that this time next year I will be sitting around playing EU3, then MTW, then Civ4, then back through the cycle again, unsatisfied with some aspect of each and hoping for the game that will merge the best of them all.

Unfortunetly, I agree

 

[Xoxxon]

Weren't these sorts of comparisons discouraged in other EU forums in the past, or is my memory failing me?

 

[EUnderhill]

Weren't these sorts of comparisons discouraged in other EU forums in the past, or is my memory failing me?

Probably after the games are released - assuming the marketing plans aren't finalized it gives a few nuggets for data-mining.

 

[unmerged(9145)]

Rome: Total War was a good game, and it looks like MTW2 is shaping up to be even better. Of course, I had to mod the crap out of RTW to make it playable and I'm sure I'll have to do the same with MTW2, but then I had to do that for Paradoxes games as well (and no doubt will have to do it again for EU3). I've come to accept the fact that pretty much no non-FPS game is worth playing these days without extensive modification.

Me, I'll be happy if the AI in MTW2 and EU3 doesn't suck. That's what I want more than anything else from both companies. Everything else I can fix, but a bad AI is what ultimately convinces me to toss the game in the trash or give it away.

Max