Europa Universalis III

 PC
User Score
8.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 225 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 185 out of 225
  2. Mixed: 24 out of 225
  3. Negative: 16 out of 225
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. JohnA.
    Feb 18, 2007
    10
    I think it is a shame to see low votes from people who either lack the system specifications to play the game or don't understand that "history simulation" means that it will be different from history (often excessively so) based on how one plays the game. The game play is rich and addictive, with fantastic depth. The graphics are well above par for a game like this, and the I think it is a shame to see low votes from people who either lack the system specifications to play the game or don't understand that "history simulation" means that it will be different from history (often excessively so) based on how one plays the game. The game play is rich and addictive, with fantastic depth. The graphics are well above par for a game like this, and the replay-ability, especially in light of the game's open ended modification system and active player community. Multiplayer support is not really up to snuff right now for their metaserver, but LAN etc multiplayer seems to work fine. Seeing as that will undoubtedly be fixed in upcoming patches, I could hardly let it overpower an otherwise pristine review of probably the only game I will play until the release of Spore.… Expand
  2. BarryH.
    Dec 19, 2007
    10
    Like most Paradox titles, this makes all other strategy games look sort of silly. The feeling you get when you accomplish a significant, but historically plausible goal -- like unifying Italy under your flag when you started out as a mere Savoy -- is much more satisfying than the ridiculous "conquer the entire world" goal that is the beginning and end of every other strategy game.
  3. CivforBrains
    Jun 4, 2011
    9
    Very, very good game. The sandbox play is not for everyone but I quite enjoyed it as I love historical "what ifs". It's nice to see middle market developers like Paradox continuing to put out quality games.
  4. DominickMastri
    Feb 1, 2007
    7
    I'm a big Hearts of Iron fan, but never tried this series out before. I can say I am very much enjoying it not only for its depth, but for its freedom.

    No problems running on my system - AMD Athlon x2 4200, 2 x Geforce 7800, etc...

    Not sure its fair to give this game a 0 review when you are using a Geforce4 video card that is seven years old.
  5. BenC
    Feb 7, 2009
    9
    To comment on Shaun G's review, the two expansion packs mean you can now have the historical accuarcy, from the monarchs down to the events that shook the world. The game is certainly ugly, but like its predecessor, it is a game that you will always come back to. Well worth your money if you have the hours and hours to spare.
  6. AlexL
    Oct 11, 2009
    10
    If you're into this sort of thing, this game is the ideal. It's a niche genre - most people aren't interested in grand strategy - but if you are, EU3 may be the only game you will ever need. Huge replayability, depth, and history. Check out some of the game's mods, also - graphics mods especially - to perfect EU3.
  7. Scritty
    Apr 23, 2011
    10
    Get a grip. It's "Sandbox Europe" the only thing set is the starting conditions. If that's not what you want , then it's not a game you're after no matter how much you think it might be.
    Example. As England I make a pact with Spain and Spain and England invade Portugal. Never happened, so it also means Portugal can't discover and lay claim to the huge landmasses it did, and Spain and    Get a grip. It's "Sandbox Europe" the only thing set is the starting conditions. If that's not what you want , then it's not a game you're after no matter how much you think it might be.
    Example. As England I make a pact with Spain and Spain and England invade Portugal. Never happened, so it also means Portugal can't discover and lay claim to the huge landmasses it did, and Spain and England did not war or even get a bit fruity in the new world. France backed down and (sensibly) fought neither.If we were allowed further it would in these circumstances be very unlikely that Napoloen would ever have risen above the rank of Captain.
    So I'm not allowed to do it? I can't sign a long lasting peace with Spain becasue all the preset historical events would get ruined? Course I am - it's a game, and JUST that one act, that ONE piece of paper signed in the first 5 years of the game changes EVERYTHING.The colonization of America, the incursions to India, the French avoid colonizing North Africa - it ALL CHANGES on that one piece of paper. THAT'S WHY IT'S A GAME NOT A BOOK.
    If it didn't and France just ignored the consequences of going around taking huge areas of North Africa via a stable mediteranean enforced by an Anglo/Spanish pact that would make no sense in the NEW context of the game. Not to mention the fact that Phillipe and I would just wipe them out with some considerable ease with the then puppet nation of Portugal providing the cannon fodder.
    "I want a game, but I want nothing I do to make any difference, have any effect or alter history as it's currently understood"
    That's not a game then is it - it's a history book.    … Expand
  8. MarkD
    Jan 2, 2010
    10
    This game is amazing. I don't really know what bugs or what problems people are experiencing, but this game is just amazing. Takes some patience to learn if you are new, but once you get it down, the fun just keeps on going..
  9. JohnB
    Jul 10, 2009
    0
    Just don't buy this game. It's buggy as hell. Not the "Well, some users experience issues" buggy. The "I run into bugs every play session, the game crashes for multiple reasons, the patch introduces new issues, your save can get borked, the tutorials don't even work and aren't likely to get fixed ever" sort of buggy. And in a game where your average game session can Just don't buy this game. It's buggy as hell. Not the "Well, some users experience issues" buggy. The "I run into bugs every play session, the game crashes for multiple reasons, the patch introduces new issues, your save can get borked, the tutorials don't even work and aren't likely to get fixed ever" sort of buggy. And in a game where your average game session can easily last dozens of hours, running into a bug every hour or two really adds up. While it's true that the game is built for a very small fan base, and some of that fan base really loves it, I wish they'd vote with their pocketbooks and go buy something from Strategy First instead.… Expand
  10. andreai
    Apr 23, 2009
    2
    This game is easy to understand and to menage, imo too much to be called a real strategic, but the heavy issue is about bugs. As many ppl told before, it does not match the historical simulation that is supposed to be as all the "factions" seem to operate quite random during time. Personally i could pass by that historical fake giving a sufficient rate or better if the game was a good This game is easy to understand and to menage, imo too much to be called a real strategic, but the heavy issue is about bugs. As many ppl told before, it does not match the historical simulation that is supposed to be as all the "factions" seem to operate quite random during time. Personally i could pass by that historical fake giving a sufficient rate or better if the game was a good one, but bugs and frustrating situations happens too often. Trying to be sintetic when you start to be used to the game you also start to understand that all the messages shown in boxes as results of various actions are completely random, sometimes very funny as you are supposed to ally with yourself or discover a new area that you never tried to reach. But that random mood happens for discovers, economic or war matters. In example a box shows that your merchant beaten one another in a specific trade area and took his place, than you see.. first your merchant is not listed there, second that the merchant of the other country who was suppoesed to be beaten is not there too. So basically that game is random for everything that count in a strategic game. Also you can add the nearly zero possibility you have to negotiate with other countries, expecially asking or recieving an offer of peace during war. Every single battle AI usually ask you to surrender paying a tribute even if you did not start the war and even if you are defo winning. Other things made me wander if they have beta testers that played in their life something on a PC.. like you cant know in game how many regiments could be stored in a fleet of transport boats before trying it one by one, or worse then this, you cant load troops on boats when the boat is docked, but ony if you move it on the sea, really WTF situations. I really cant understand some scores and reviews about that game.… Expand
  11. Paul
    Jun 24, 2009
    0
    This vote isn't about the game play - though, the game play is not so hot, it really didn't change all that much from EU2, it feels more like they slapped on some bad 3D graphics and shoveled it out the door with minor updates. What this vote is about is about how buggy the game is and the terrible tech support. The tech support forum -which you can only access with a registered This vote isn't about the game play - though, the game play is not so hot, it really didn't change all that much from EU2, it feels more like they slapped on some bad 3D graphics and shoveled it out the door with minor updates. What this vote is about is about how buggy the game is and the terrible tech support. The tech support forum -which you can only access with a registered copy - Hmmm does someone not want the general public to be able to see how many bug reports there are? I think so! - is full of reports about issues that generally point to data corruption and save file issues - yet the typical response by the unpaid, non-technical 'support' staff is "What are your graphics settings" "Update your drivers" "Check to make sure your system is over heating (WTF??? This game is not FarCry2)" Needless to say, it's completely unhelpful and useless tech support that, if you try to go along with it, has you running around spinning your wheels - most people seem to just give up. One thread I saw had a guy who took their machine to a computer lab to test the chip heat (guess what, it was fine, yup, definitely a wild goose chase). One issue that actually HAD gotten resolved had you manually editing your save file, looking for a broken entry among 1700 province records. And given the small user base + the number of bug postings, you WILL run into bugs if you play this game. End result : Get EU2 from the bargain bin if you want to play this sort of game. Don't support a company that's shoveling out bad merchandise.… Expand
  12. CharlesH.
    May 24, 2007
    3
    Outdated, nerfed, less years then EU2(1419).
  13. ShaunG
    Oct 9, 2008
    3
    John A's review hits the mark (albeit unintentionally)...a historical simulation that deviates from history, often excessively so. I can't think of any greater condemnation of a historical strategy game, and IMO the ones who "don't understand" are Paradox themselves. Simply unfathomable. In any case, to each his own...for those who don't care for actual historical John A's review hits the mark (albeit unintentionally)...a historical simulation that deviates from history, often excessively so. I can't think of any greater condemnation of a historical strategy game, and IMO the ones who "don't understand" are Paradox themselves. Simply unfathomable. In any case, to each his own...for those who don't care for actual historical accuracy in their historical strategy games, this won't be a bad game to play. For the rest of us, this is astonishingly overrated garbage.… Expand
  14. Alexa
    Jul 14, 2009
    7
    Once the two expansions are installed the game is great. (the unpatched vanilla is barely enjoyable, if not playable). The only problem is that it takes 200 hours to complete a game. And I am not lying.
  15. Coeco
    Dec 15, 2012
    3
    For all it's intense depth, length and re-playability, EU 3 ultimately fails to deliver a solid combat experience which can be a lethal blow for games like this. One example would be on how combat ends with your enemies once either your morale or theirs gets too low, ultimately causing one side to run away even with deaths that can be as small as 300. So for an 12,000 man army to rumpleFor all it's intense depth, length and re-playability, EU 3 ultimately fails to deliver a solid combat experience which can be a lethal blow for games like this. One example would be on how combat ends with your enemies once either your morale or theirs gets too low, ultimately causing one side to run away even with deaths that can be as small as 300. So for an 12,000 man army to rumple over an army of about 3000, you would pretty much need to chase them around the world in order to actually kill the unit off. This develops hair-pulling frustration when you are engaging more than 2-3 different enemy troops, while not big, stray too far from repeatedly kicking the same unit away and he'll grab your territory. Same frustration can also be found in the "Tech" bars, where you have production, navy, government and stability to pour funding into without knowing what the rewards will be in the slightest. And if you want to become especially precise in a certain field, you'll have extremely heavy draw-backs due to the tech being discovered "Too early", leaving you wasting years of in-game time to get a small 1% bonus. Of course you can choose to not spend this money like a proper sane individual but then the game will punish you for "Inflating" your currency, pretty much giving you an guaranteed chance to fail later. In the end, this game has too many angles and I certainly don't blame them for balance-issues but dropping the ball on combat? Come on now.… Expand
  16. ForceMagic
    Aug 17, 2011
    0
    I love historical games and I really like simulation/strategic games too. Looks like everything is in place to have a great game play experience. Unfortunately, it wasn't the case, I pick up Aztec for my first game and it was horrible. I read a lot of stuff on the internet in order to have an idea what to do to get out of this stupid tribal political system. I had to westernize, which II love historical games and I really like simulation/strategic games too. Looks like everything is in place to have a great game play experience. Unfortunately, it wasn't the case, I pick up Aztec for my first game and it was horrible. I read a lot of stuff on the internet in order to have an idea what to do to get out of this stupid tribal political system. I had to westernize, which I haven't been able to do after seven attempts and 37.4 hours of play time. And what is this annoying behavior of those "riots army" who flee when I WON?!? They run everywhere and I have to play cat and mouse all over my territory to fight over and over again until they finally get all killed. Ridiculous, it's as if they had not even tried to play their own game.… Expand
  17. Col.Cathcart
    Jan 25, 2007
    1
    The vote does not so much reflect gameplay as it does my disappointment with the new user interface. It's supposed to do glorious 3D justice to the gameplay underneath. It doesn't. It's 2D with ugly edges. It looks like you're playing Tetris with country sized blocks and that Ireland might drop onto Portugal at any minute. And the price? Prohibiting anyone with a The vote does not so much reflect gameplay as it does my disappointment with the new user interface. It's supposed to do glorious 3D justice to the gameplay underneath. It doesn't. It's 2D with ugly edges. It looks like you're playing Tetris with country sized blocks and that Ireland might drop onto Portugal at any minute. And the price? Prohibiting anyone with a not-designed-for-gaming system to play. And that should be quite a large chunk of core Paradox fans. For shame.… Expand
  18. MarioG.
    Feb 1, 2007
    4
    Graphics: Very poor. We are in 2007, not in 1997. Sound: Very good music. Game sound is normal. Gameplay: Incredible complex. The interface is poor for the user to control the game. The game is very slow and choppy. At first I thougth the game was historic but after the first king history is not relevant more. Final Word: If you like to look at spreadsheets with 3D very poor graphics and Graphics: Very poor. We are in 2007, not in 1997. Sound: Very good music. Game sound is normal. Gameplay: Incredible complex. The interface is poor for the user to control the game. The game is very slow and choppy. At first I thougth the game was historic but after the first king history is not relevant more. Final Word: If you like to look at spreadsheets with 3D very poor graphics and not historic at all, in spite of the title, buy this game.… Expand
  19. KurisuD.
    Jan 27, 2007
    0
    Never would launch the game even with the patch... requires a 128 MB video card or won't even start.. first time I have ever experienced such an issue.... incompetent programmers... I've heard ATI cards have issues with this game... lol the company expects you to buy a card specifically tailored for their game( which I hear doesn't even have spectacular graphics)... I would Never would launch the game even with the patch... requires a 128 MB video card or won't even start.. first time I have ever experienced such an issue.... incompetent programmers... I've heard ATI cards have issues with this game... lol the company expects you to buy a card specifically tailored for their game( which I hear doesn't even have spectacular graphics)... I would buy a new card, but considering Doom 3, Half-life 2, and Black & White 2 run fine on my system why bother as this game may stink anyways..so I've given it a 0 and got my money back.. 2ghz Pentium 4 Gefore4 TI....… Expand
  20. ToddC.
    Jan 25, 2007
    6
    After installing it, as a historical strategy game, I feel a bit cheated. The game has a historical setup but once you start playing all types of random and silly things happen. For instance, in my game (already patched) by 1480, when Historically nobody had set foot in the new world, I have Spain colonizing Canada, the Teutonic Order colonizing the US and Aragon together with Genoa are After installing it, as a historical strategy game, I feel a bit cheated. The game has a historical setup but once you start playing all types of random and silly things happen. For instance, in my game (already patched) by 1480, when Historically nobody had set foot in the new world, I have Spain colonizing Canada, the Teutonic Order colonizing the US and Aragon together with Genoa are colonizing Brazil/Venezuela. Also strange is the way ihneritances work. In my game, Provence inherited Portugal and Milan inherited Norway. This means Provence is now Portugal and Milan is now Norway too. This is completely silly. The graphics are very poor, as their quality is from 2000, not 2007. What makes the game a bit interesting is the engine that is not very different from previous Europa Universalis game and was not ruined in this attempt to make a fantasy game claiming it is historical plausible!… Expand
  21. Alien_8Eight
    Feb 12, 2007
    4
    I am worried the choices taken in this version of the game. In spite of the name, the game does not take place in history, but in a alternative world where a minuscule state in Germany can end up colonizing all of North America, while England can end up being force married by another german insignificant state. It would be better if they put the pointy ears, the orks and making a fairy I am worried the choices taken in this version of the game. In spite of the name, the game does not take place in history, but in a alternative world where a minuscule state in Germany can end up colonizing all of North America, while England can end up being force married by another german insignificant state. It would be better if they put the pointy ears, the orks and making a fairy tale map. DISAPPOINTING.… Expand
  22. PeterL
    Jul 23, 2009
    9
    Great all rounded stratagy with endless posiblilities .. well done paradox
  23. FernandoR
    Nov 22, 2009
    5
    First of all, I have to say I'm a big fan of Europa Universalis series, one of the best strategy games I ever played. But not this one. They screwed the best history-strategy sim. There are few historical events and after while you cant seem anything that reminds our own history, you just dont get the felling of running a historical sim. It's a pity that a good company like First of all, I have to say I'm a big fan of Europa Universalis series, one of the best strategy games I ever played. But not this one. They screwed the best history-strategy sim. There are few historical events and after while you cant seem anything that reminds our own history, you just dont get the felling of running a historical sim. It's a pity that a good company like Paradox dont playtest the games before releasing it.… Expand
  24. wordy_actions
    Jul 28, 2011
    8
    First off, this game is not for everyone. That being said I'm a HUGE fan of grand strategy games, specifically ones from Paradox, and I think this is their best, especially with all the great expansion packs. I've played this for almost a hundred hours and I'm still not bored. To any fan of grand strategy, this is a must have.
  25. Wadeyboy
    Aug 25, 2011
    8
    Excellent strategy game that promises to be an all time classic. The research that must have gone into this game is mind boggling. I've learnt more from this game than any other game I've played! Absorbing and unlike pretty much any other computer game. Original and brilliant.
  26. AlephW.
    Feb 7, 2007
    9
    A strategy game unlike any I have played before. I hadn't been introduced to Paradox-style history sim games, but I have been impressed with the attention to detail in this game. It is very hard to pull yourself away from the game. this game is not for everyone. "RTS" is a bit of a misnomer. It is a real-time deep strategy game that is more akin to Civilization (if you haven't A strategy game unlike any I have played before. I hadn't been introduced to Paradox-style history sim games, but I have been impressed with the attention to detail in this game. It is very hard to pull yourself away from the game. this game is not for everyone. "RTS" is a bit of a misnomer. It is a real-time deep strategy game that is more akin to Civilization (if you haven't played other games in this vein such as Hearts of Iron or Victoria) than Medieval II: Total War. Graphics are good for this type of game and the game play is addictive. The historical accuracy is amazing (and the AI's deviations from history can at times be entertaining) and the ease of modification promises many future developments.… Expand
  27. Toidi
    Feb 6, 2007
    9
    It's a very good game, much better than the EU2. There are still some glithches with AI which play a bit too lousy sometimes. But on the highest level one can have a not too bad game after all, though only because of bonuses the AI get. Graphics is ok, music is very good... It feels a bit slow at some point when the big empire is built as then merchants & colonist are a bit boring to It's a very good game, much better than the EU2. There are still some glithches with AI which play a bit too lousy sometimes. But on the highest level one can have a not too bad game after all, though only because of bonuses the AI get. Graphics is ok, music is very good... It feels a bit slow at some point when the big empire is built as then merchants & colonist are a bit boring to play and you just feel you won, but there is 150 years still to go. Anyway, great game, giving a lot of satisfaction at the beginning but may feel tedious sometimes. I would give the game ten if colonisation and trade were improved from EU II. In terms of AI the Galactic Civilisation is a better game, when late play is considered Civilisation IV has the upper hand.… Expand
  28. MattT.
    Jan 24, 2007
    10
    Considering that it's predecessor was the only video game I ever needed to play (other than Civ updates for only about a month after they came out), this is probably the only game I will need to play for the rest of 2007. And then some. History simulator supreme.
  29. TyroneL.
    Feb 2, 2007
    8
    Superbly complex. Not as pretty as you might expect, but the depth more then makes up for it. Take note, however, that this game is not as rooted in history as previous entries in the series. That may turn some people off, but it goes a long way in allowing you to develop your own alternate history of the world, rather then being channeled into how it "should play out."
  30. ChrisV.
    Feb 24, 2007
    8
    I'm sure that over time the user community will chime in and provide the historicity that the base game lacks in this iteration of Europa Universalis. The base game, however, is not meant to be historical past the first few years of the campaign the player has chosen. If one wishes to play with a world as it was in, say, 1550, one had better start not much earlier than 1545. If one I'm sure that over time the user community will chime in and provide the historicity that the base game lacks in this iteration of Europa Universalis. The base game, however, is not meant to be historical past the first few years of the campaign the player has chosen. If one wishes to play with a world as it was in, say, 1550, one had better start not much earlier than 1545. If one starts in 1453, by 1550, the world will be completely ahistorical, and ahistorical in a sometimes illogical fashion. The Papal States colonizing Alaska by 1500? All German mini-states eaten up by Munster? England ruled by Novgorod because of a royal marriage and death of a sovereign? Yep. It all can happen in a game. In short, the base game isn't for fans for historical "what-if?" gameplay. It will be, eventually, thanks to user mods. The base game, instead, is designed for fantasy worldbuilding and world conquest.… Expand
prev
Page:

Awards & Rankings

29
#29 Best PC Game of 2007
36
#36 Most Discussed PC Game of 2007

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
83

Generally favorable reviews - based on 25 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 21 out of 25
  2. Mixed: 4 out of 25
  3. Negative: 0 out of 25
  1. GameZone
    85
    I was drawn to play Europa Universalis III because of the sheer amount of options that it offers. Not many games allow you to control an empire for more than 300 years and allow you to do it any way you see fit.
    Read full review
  2. 1UP
    90
    Remarkably well-honed-arguably Paradox's finest achievement in the form to date.
    Read full review
  3. GamePro
    90
    While it covers the same ground, there has been enough of a shift from the old roots to ensure the experience stays fresh while maintaining the features that have made the series the premier example of grand strategy on the PC today.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »