This game manages to both hit a few highs and some real lows, so clearly all the other user reviews on Metacritic are wrong. Allow me to explain:
EU Rome is a grand strategy game set in the 5th century BC. If you want to play as Rome this means you will play during the period when Rome grew from a small European power on the Italian peninsula to an empire. It gives one of the betterThis game manages to both hit a few highs and some real lows, so clearly all the other user reviews on Metacritic are wrong. Allow me to explain:
EU Rome is a grand strategy game set in the 5th century BC. If you want to play as Rome this means you will play during the period when Rome grew from a small European power on the Italian peninsula to an empire. It gives one of the better representations of this that I have seen in a computer game, and faithfully simulates each front the Romans had to hold, including the home front where its increasingly arrogant generals would assert themselves. To the north the Gauls and other barbarians, to the east a divided but potentially powerful Greece and to the south the Roman nemesis, Carthage. The game also does its best to represent Senate politics, although the individual politicians are not terribly interesting. At least it`s there though, as are many other aspects of Roman culture such as religion, trade etc. The game also looks good for the genre, as most Paradox games tend to do, and the music is absolutely perfect.
It should be great but isn`t. I will now explain why:
The first huge failure of EU Rome is the AI. It is so passive that if you do nothing the map is very likely to look almost the same after 400 years. Some smaller states are guaranteed to be gobbled up by more powerful neighbors, but that`s it. They apparently don`t colonize at all and seemingly endless wars between powerful nations result in nothing. The best example I can give how just how comatose the AI is you can find right as you start the game. As the game kicks off Rome is at war with Magna Graeca and Epirus, Epirus being the main threat of the two. And it has a rather large army of 19000 standing in its home province of Epirus that NEVER MOVES. No matter what you do it just stands there and all you have to do is amass a force powerful enough to beat it and you have won the war. And it really doesn`t get much better as the game goes along. It is an imperial strategy game where the warfare is the least interesting bit of the game, and this is the fault of the AI more than anything. When you consider that I have once seen Denmark conquer China in one of my EU games, the lack of history generation in EU Rome is pathetic. If you want anything to happen you`re gonna have to do it yourself.
On the reverse side of course, if you play as any other power than Rome the simulated Rome you face will not put up a good fight at all and will make few, if any, realistic moves. It will in fact almost certainly not behave as an ominous, budding imperial force for you to rally your defense against. And this is all very disappointing. It is possible that you could be lucky and get a great alternative simulation of the Punic Wars out of this game. But honestly I doubt it.
Another issue is the challenge of disloyal commanders. It is true that Rome`s greatest enemy was itself and its legions in the end. But not in 470BC. It is historically inaccurate to the extreme.
And then the final problem: You are clearly meant to play this game as Rome, a disappointingly limiting restriction after the other Paradox grand strats. You can of course play as other powers, but the only effect of this is either a copy of the Roman political system, sometimes with the titles changed, sometimes not, or a bare bones and totally uninspired monarchical structure. So much more could have been done with this side of the game that it leaves you feeling very unsatisfied.
And much the same can be said for almost every aspect of the game. Everything is there but not deep enough to make the game a rewarding grand strat OR political simulation. There is diplomacy but it doesn`t really matter, if for no other reason than the abysmal AI. There is trade and it is well handled but it`s not deep enough. There is technology but you can`t control it and it might as well be automated. There is political simulation but it`s too shallow and you can`t influence it enough to make it interesting. And above all there is strategy but not from the AI. In all these areas of gameplay you are much better off getting either EU IV or Crusader Kings II, depending on what you`re looking for. And it`s a shame because the game is very promising despite all of this. I would prefer this over Total War: Rome though, because I consider that more of a grand tac than a grand strat. But for a period game you`d have to choose one or the other, unless you fancy AJE, which I do not.
To me EU Rome is either a 6 or a 7, But since the majority of the reviewers on MC are too low I`ll go with a 7 to balance things out. I`d recommend the game cautiously to anyone who has an interest in Roman history and to anyone who wants to dip their toes in a grand strat but is intimidated by the EU or Crusader Kings series or Alea Jacta Est. For all its flaws EU Rome is a nice entry level game in this genre. Perhaps that`s good enough to commend it to your attention. Perhaps not.… Expand
Europa Universalis: RomeYour Score0 out of 10User Score
