Europa Universalis: Rome

To my mind, the crucial test of a good strategy game is whether it effectively hooks you in. Does it succeed in submerging you into its world and keep you playing until the small hours of the morning?

If you struggle to tear yourself away, always wanting to play just a little longer, that’s when the game has worked. This does not have to mean the game is perfect, but if it has that immersive, addictive quality then you can overlook a surprising amount of imperfection.

Europa Universalis: Rome is not perfect, but I definitely found it hard to stop playing. Once you get into it, this is the kind of game that can cause you to show up at work all bleary eyed and spend the day trying not to fall asleep at your desk.

As is quite often the case with this sort of grand strategy game, getting to grips with it can initially be quite tricky. The tutorials are, as usual, a tad brief, and, while they explain the concept of the game pretty well, they do not offer any real insight into how to go about playing it. Add to this the inevitability of forgetting almost everything you’ve just been told and you have a problem.

If, though, you’ve played any of Paradox Interactive’s previous strategy titles (EU1 to 3, Hearts of Iron and so on) then you shouldn’t have much trouble with EU: Rome. It follows much the same formula, with minor tweaks here and there, but nothing that radically changes the gameplay.

If you’re new to this series of games however, you might have your work cut out. There are in-game tool-tips which will explain most of the myriad of options, and in combination with the tutorials these should at least allow you to begin playing the game, but it will take time, effort and a hefty dose of trial and error before you understand what’s really going on.

If you can face doing this then the game will reward you, but it is a sad fact that a lot of gamers out there will probably give up in frustration pretty quickly.

Those who persevere will find themselves taking the role of the ‘power behind the throne’ for one of fifty different factions. This, without getting too ridiculously detailed, represents pretty much every ‘nation’ which existed at the time. You must then lead your chosen state through 300 years or so of ancient history.

Taken as a game isolated from its peers, the scale is impressive, and EU: Rome does indeed offer far more options than your average strategy game. What goes against it is, ironically, its own forebears.

Fifty factions do seem like a lot to choose from, until you remember that the previous games in the series had five times as many. Maybe this reviewer is a bit spoiled, but what is now on offer seems like a regression. Take into account the fact that, where once you had the entire globe to explore, EU: Rome now gives you only the standard ‘European’ map so curiously beloved by games developers.

Again, there should be nothing wrong with this. It is still a large map with plenty of provinces, but after knowing what came before it does feel a little confined. I can understand leaving the Americas out of an ancient world game (Ed – let's have EU: Mesoamerica next time, please), but it would have been nice to have a little more of Asia and Africa included.

EU: Rome cannot be entirely blamed for this. It would be unfair not to point out that there were a lot fewer states in existence in 280BC than there were in 1453AD when the other games took place, so the developers effectively had a smaller world to start from.

Similarly, increasing the size of the map may have added more factions, but it would also have added a lot more empty space. Given this I can understand why it wasn’t done, but it still weakens the appeal of the game.

Despite these obvious drawbacks, the gameplay itself has been largely improved since previous incarnations. The trade system in particular now makes far more sense and has a greater effect on the outcome of the game.

The diplomacy system has barely changed, and quite rightly so. It remains the most detailed and comprehensive of any strategy game I’ve seen. There are a wide range of different options with which you can interact with other states. Almost uniquely for a game of this type, warfare truly is an extension of policy rather than the sole aim.

You may find yourself engaging in warfare as infrequently as possible. Combat is a hollow experience when contrasted with the extraordinary depth of the rest of the game. There is an improvement over the combat in the other EU games, with more options and a (slightly) less arbitrary feeling to the battles. As usual, however, this remains one of the greatest weaknesses of the series.

For example, there will still be occasions where you fail to understand why you keep losing battles. This is unavoidable, and I can only stress that you should save frequently in order to mitigate the teeth-grinding, eye-gouging annoyance that will inevitably ensue.

EU: Rome is rather good looking for a strategy game. It boasts a 3D campaign map that does look very attractive, although personally I preferred the simple, parchment style map of the first two EU games. There can be no doubt that, graphically, EU: Rome is way ahead.

I was somewhat disappointed to see that the excellent ‘historical events’ of the original game have not been reintroduced. They made a shock disappearance with the release of EU3, and although I had hopes that they might return it was sadly not to be.

There are many comparisons between this game and EU3, and I don’t think it unfair to suggest that they are basically the same game in different historical periods. This is no bad thing, as the formula for these games works well enough to create a thoroughly enjoyable (if at times frustrating) experience.

Although it is nice to see the good features of the games remain throughout the series, it is a shame that greater improvements cannot be made to their weaker aspects. I believe that if Paradox were to develop a truly engaging combat system for one of their titles then they would have created the ultimate historical strategy game. Unfortunately, with EU: Rome they haven’t.

Paradox should be commended for their continuing attempts to correct the flaws in their games, and EU: Rome has addressed many of the series’ problems. It is more playable and accessible than any of the EU games before it, but a lot of the core frustrations are still present and correct.

If you enjoy strategy games and have not yet played any of the EU series then you should give EU: Rome a try. If you know the series already then you will enjoy this incarnation of the game too. It won’t show you anything revolutionary, but the new setting will give months of play while we wait for Paradox to fix the combat system in their next instalment (Ed – we can but hope).

7.5/10

Steven Rees