Europa Universalis

DEVELOPER : Paradox
PUBLISHER : Paradox
RELEASE DATE : Q4 2000

Over years of playing, strategy-gamers accumulate a long list of things that work and a (probably) longer list of things that don't. That, coupled with a predilection for long-term planning and system management that are hallmarks of the serious strategic gamer, makes it almost inevitable that at some point the idea begins to coalesce around the concept of the "perfect game".

Of course, everyone's preferences are different, and the length and width of the list varies depending on player temperament, knowledge, and experience with different game systems. Personally, my list includes historicity (I prefer playing with real-world situations and events, although not being forced to follow exactly in history's footsteps), scope (as few elements of the real world being abstracted as possible), breadth (I hate map edges) and realism.

Realism; if there's one word that's devalued by overuse in the strategy gaming field, it's realism. What IS realism? This may seem a pointless diversion into philosophy but let me explain. Chess is a wargame, of course. But few would say it's 'realistic'. To me, realism is a game system that rewards rational decisions, while not allowing the outcome to be predictable. For example, some games reward the player by giving them points for accumulating gold. To be sure, the whole concept of a 'victory point' system is in itself rather unrealistic, but assuming we have to have SOME objective measure of who wins and loses (not necessarily very clear in real life, either), there it is. But 'points' for money? Money is about as clear an example of an instrumental good as I can think of. Certainly, the more money one has, typically the more options one has and in a sense the richer can be seen to be winning over the poorer. But it's the making of those choices and the consequences thereof that are of a positive or negative value. Same for the biggest army. Sure, the biggest army allows the player's country to conquer more territory, thus increasing the player's land holdings and (typically) allowing them to raise larger armies, make more money, etc, etc, etc. But what's the player's goal? Is it to provide security from attack for the player's home areas? Is it to have access to markets? Is it to advance technologically, which (usually) costs money? Clearly, these are all decisions that have to ultimately be made by the player - his or her goal that is the focal point of their strategy. Realism is a game that doesn't make these choices for the player.

With this clearly in mind, Europa Universalis is inarguably the most historically realistic grand strategy game I've ever seen. I was able to get a late beta and run it through it's paces enough to be seriously impressed with what Paradox Games has been able to achieve. Ostensibly, EU is the computer port of a boardgame of the same name. I've played strategic board/wargames since 1978, and I don't recall ever having seen or heard of it, so I gather it's rather more a European phenomenon than an American one (Paradox is a Swedish firm). In any case, I'm here to preview EU on it's merits as a computer game, and they are many. EU is a grand strategic game meant to simulate the growth, struggles, and deaths of states from 1492 until the rise of nationalism in Europe in 1792. However, Paradox has developed such a comprehensive simulation engine that I could see it being expanded rather simply to represent just about any historical time period with minor tweaking.

The entire world (of which typically the players know only a small portion at the start) is divided up into regions such as Flanders, Naples, or Havana. The calendar ticks through the days while up to 8 players compete on this map, exploring, expanding and conquering through either the Grand Campaign (1492-1792) or a number of other smaller scenarios which are more focused, either geographically (such as the Struggle for the Baltic representing the struggles between Sweden and Russia) or chronologically (such as scenarios like Age of Reason, Age of Enlightenment, etc, each starting the players in a different geopolitical era). Every state of the times (in the old world, the new world, and across the orient) is represented, and can be interacted with diplomatically, once they have been "discovered". Up to 70 states are in the data files, depending on the scenario, including the Inca, Aztec, and Amerind states). Most of these will of course be run by the AI, as the (up to) 8 player-states available in each scenario are representative of the scenario designer's idea of what 8 states were most politically active/significant in that era. After this, it gets really complicated. :)

The players, and the very capable AI, compete simultaneously on at least four different levels. First and probably most dominant, is the political competition. Each player-state has a stock of "diplomats", regenerating each year that are "expended" in diplomatic actions, their rate of replenishment indicative of the historical tendency of that state toward diplomatic activity. Very active states will get 6 or more diplomats per year, while more static states (such as Russia, historically more introvert than, say, Spain) might only get a couple. Diplomatic actions range from the typical alliance-forming to Royal Marriages, each influencing the specific relationship between your state and every other one on the map. Declarations of War, the perennial favorite activities of armchair generals, not only negatively influence this rating with the victim and its allies, but unless you have a good reason (a Casus Belli, as the game frequently uses the language of diplomacy), will also affect your own Stability. Each state has a stability rating from +3 (stable) to -3, clearly indicating the designers' familiarity with Empires in Arms, a strategic board wargame whose influence shows through in many places (to EU's credit, I think). Importantly, the player is NOT the ruler of their state. The actual rulers (Maxmillian, Peter,Ferdinand and Isabella or whomever) have their own stats which modify at least slightly the bureaucratic efficiency, diplomatic relationships, or even military quality of the state under their rule. Similarly, the monarch is capable of surprising acts of realistically random determination, such as your Queen deciding to improve the fortress in a certain district, giving you an otherwise-expensive upgrade for free!

This isn't the only dynamism that the player must face of course; the political landscape itself changes frequently as small states ally and disappear beneath the crushing heel of imperialist neighbors. But - in a novel feature - states can also be born in this cauldron. Rebelling provinces, if left too long alone due to inattention or circumstance, will actually form independent states that are fully independent and free actors on the international stage! So yes, it is entirely possible - and importantly, not by game script or rules fiat - that the United States can come to exist.

Of course the blunt force instrument of diplomacy is the military and certainly it is well represented here. Starting with infantry and cavalry (and artillery, once the Land Technology level of the state is high enough), states can build up their land forces for defense or conquest. Likewise, navies are made up of transports, galleys (shallow-draft ships lightly armed and suitable only for coastal travel) and warships. Armies and navies are centered around their leaders who each have ratings that can significantly affect battle results. Interestingly, most of the leaders are "standard" with nominal ratings, but each nationality will also see a sprinkling of historical figures with significantly better skills, such as Eugene of Savoy, Gustavus Adolphus (it IS a Swedish game, after all), or Nobunaga. Some leaders (such as Cortez or Columbus) have further special talents as explorers or 'conquistadors', allowing them to act as naval or land explorers - to push back the "Terra Incognita" fog of war and show new lands to conquer....ahem...I mean 'with which to peacefully coexist' of course. Heh heh. Later, when the appropriate tech level is reached, any unit can 'explore' like this but until then these individuals are priceless commodities.

A very significant element to military operations is exhaustion, reflected in the troops morale. As a unit is formed, it's morale starts at critically low levels. After time, this increases to the full level possible (depending on the funding; penny-pinchin monarchs can skimp on their military costs by as much as 50%, but don't expect those troops to have high morale, nor to keep their morale level long under pressure). When troops fight, this scale decreases as the force loses an exchange (combat is resolved in alternating rounds of fire and melee, with artillery dominating the former and cavalry the latter) usually resulting in one side breaking and running far before the last man is slain. Rebel Scum, for example, are what the game terms the forces of a provincial uprising (due to bankruptcy, instability, or whatever). They are commonly are of very low morale, allowing forces of 'real' soldiers to easily defeat rebel armies of three times their number, for example.

Of course, Karl Marx figured out that the real engine behind this activity was economics, and in EU it's a suitably powerful motivator. EU has a deep economic model, with each region producing a "manufacturing" income and a "trading" income, depending on their products. The trading income for a number of adjacent regions (in most cases not coterminous with national borders) is, moreover, funneled through Centers of Trade. Each state has merchants which, like diplomats, are an expendable resource that is replenished at a rate based on the historical mercantilist bent of the state and its monarch. These merchants are then allocated to the Centers of Trade, to try to dominate (to the benefit of the income of their own states) all the trade revenues of that area, which can be significant. Of course, the competition is made more complex by the fact that, for example, Venice is the COT of the huge (and wealthy) Danubian Basin. So naturally every state puts merchants there. Of course, the result of this is that this sizeable pie is now divided up into innumerable pieces, making it a LESS attractive place to put one's merchants!

Another infrequently-implemented element of economics is inflation, combined here with the tech development tree. There are 5 tech branches to develop: Land, Naval, Stability, Trade, Infrastructure. Further, there's a macro control that the player uses to determine how much state income goes into tech investments, and how much goes into the treasury as liquid cash. And there's the crux; as a player you need cash to raise armies, but the more you put into "cash" the higher inflation your state suffers, raising the costs for EVERYTHING.

Therefore, discovering gold mines is a mixed blessing. Certainly you have the ability to quickly raise large sums of cash, a critical advantage in the political State of Nature that exists in EU. However, every time you succumb to this lure, inflation rears its ugly head and you practically weep at the sudden effect of a 3% increase to every single ledger line-item by the end of the year.

Finally, religion is the last but certainly not least of the 4 main elements of conflict in EU. The world basically starts as Catholic, Orthodox, Sunni/Shia, and pagan (for "everything else"). Religion can be a great unifier, but in more cases in EU it's a plausible excuse for violence. Differences in religion can result in permanent Casus Belli, making "those heretics over there" an awfully attractive target for your expansionist ambitions. But once you win you can have headaches, as once you start a multi-religious empire you must carefully manage your "religious tolerance" slider, or suffer constant revolts in the new province.

Complicating this even more (does it need to be?) are religious events that take place around the players like the Reformation or Counter Reformation. Provinces independently respond to these events, sometimes leaving the player with a patchwork quilt of religions with which to cope. States that (after the reformation) themselves choose the route of Protestantism will immediately lose stability and all their Catholic Allies, but also gain a substantial financial bonus as they seize the lands owned by the church, as well as some staunch allies. Conversion of provinces is possible, but not easy.

So what we are left with is a massively complicated game interweaving elements of religions, politics, colonialism, conquest, technology, and militarism taking place on a multifaceted map with layers of trade relationships, alliances and political relationships, while the map is constantly being expanded through exploration - in short, there's literally something for everyone. Wars, as is the historical fact, should typically be the last resort as their cost and consequence make the gains rarely equal the expenditure. A good player will be able to keep in mind the different venues of competition, and a weather-eye on their predicted opponents in each of these areas. Keeping ahead in this game is an extraordinary challenge, and I found myself constantly pausing the game to issue orders. The only thing I haven't been able to test in this beta is the multiplayer, but the developers have made it clear that it's been kept in mind. They are clearly aware that no matter how good the AI is - and it is, believe me (I confess I've actually asked one of the programmers if anyone has won the darn thing...and this is in beta) - this game will shine most brightly with humans running each of the player states.

One further note. Paradox readily allowed me observer access to the beta forum for the purposes of this preview. I can now see why. Looking at the comments from the individuals beta testing this game implies an extraordinarily high standard of knowledge in history. There are postings on the ethnic population breakdowns of Dutch armies in the 16th century and other obscure facts - obscure, but certainly relevant and the game will be significantly richer by this crew.

I started this brief (ha ha) preview talking about realism, and I have a final point to make. I've used the word to excess to describe everything in this game from the economics to the combat resolution to the fact that the game doesn't simply reward the most aggressive player with benefits for pointless conquest. All of these things come together when I point out that teachers of history would be well advised to examine this game as an educational tool as well. In the United States particularly, students of primary and secondary education come away with a "who cares" response to history. With a tool like Europa Universalis, it's possible that not only could students learn a lot about a (generally) little-known time period, but it just may awaken a lifelong love of learning. Not bad for a game - potentially one of the best games I've ever seen.

If you like to comment on this review, please post a message at the forum.
Previewed by Steve Lieb