Europa-Universalis III & Crown of Glory / A.I. Questions

This sequel to the award-winning Crown of Glory takes Napoleonic Grand Strategy to a whole new level. This represents a complete overhaul of the original release, including countless improvements and innovations ranging from detailed Naval combat and brigade-level Land combat to an improved AI, unit upgrades, a more detailed Strategic Map and a new simplified Economy option. More historical AND more fun than the original!

Moderator: MOD_WestCiv

Post Reply
User avatar
Marshall Thomas
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:41 am
Contact:

Europa-Universalis III & Crown of Glory / A.I. Questions

Post by Marshall Thomas »

Hi; I'm a big fan of Europa-Universalis III (with it's two expansions). Do you think that someone who really likes EUIII is likely to really like CoG:EE?

What are some basic (and not so basic) differences between the two? I know that CoG:EE has a more condensed time frame. But what are some differences in running your country between these two titles?

Thanks in advance

also: is the A.I. improved in CoG:EE? Is CoG's A.I. considered to be a good one? I ask because I always play single-player.
0360-1275-8904-8300
User avatar
cdbeck
Posts: 1374
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Indiana

RE: Europa-Universalis III & Crown of Glory / A.I. Questions

Post by cdbeck »

Woooh... this is gonna be a long and tough answer. The gameplay between the two is really night and day, although some of the premise remains the same.

Europa Universalis III, with expansions, really has a lot of depth and a pretty large learning curve. However, CoG (normal, as I have not played EE) has a much larger learning curve than EUIII and allows for much deeper levels of control over every aspect of your country. You create army and fleet stacks, you move the armies and participate in turn-based tactical combat (which is rather fun, btw, if you like miniatures and boardgames). As far as running the country, in the original CoG, you literally control the production of all of the different resources (which include wool, wine, horses, cloth, etc.) with slider bars. You can also upgrade different aspects of your provinces, building barracks, forts, ports, and other additions (which can all be upgraded many times). You get several overall social controls too, like age of military service and training time. There is a LOT of micromanagement, although you wouldn't HAVE to mess with it too much over the course of the game.

EE ships with the choice to play a new "simple economics" mode that removes all of these resources and only tracks "money" and "manpower" making the micromanagement less and making the game closer to EUIII in simplicity. Read Joram's AAR of Poland to see more information on that. Many people, who were bogged down by the extremely complex economy of original CoG are looking forward to this, as it lets you focus solely on war and not on country management.

Some of the biggest differences between EUIII and CoG are in the arena of diplomacy and the battle system. Diplomats are not used in the same way as the diplomats in EUIII, they are moveable units that act sort of like spies or as a way to increase sentiment in the country or province were they are placed. Diplomats have three skill bars that effect their ability to create instability, increase sentiment, spy, and do a variety of other actions. Actual treaties are made on a treay screen that has a level of detail that makes even EUIII's diplomacy choices look simple. You can create mutual defense treates (and stipulate the exact time you want the treaty to take effect and how long it will last), float loans, trade resources, or any combination - through a series of choices that remind me of the old books kids play with where you fill in "verb" and "noun" into a funny story. This makes a hugely flexible system, where you can do things like trade horses for a declaration of war against France, or subsidize a friend in exchange for a defense treaty. You can even name these treaties. HardSarge has a few examples in his AAR.

So yes, if you are willing to get over the learning curve for CoG, I would say that any fan of EUIII will find the game very intruiging. The UI has some quirks and there used to be an issue about undoing move orders, but I think that this might have been patched. Also note, the game is turned-based, which is a good thing, as it would be impossible to play otherwise. I would actually compare CoG more with Victoria, particularly with Vicky's resource system.

SoM
"Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet!"
(Kill them all. God will know his own.)

-- Arnaud-Armaury, the Albigensian Crusade
Joram
Posts: 3194
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 5:40 am

RE: Europa-Universalis III & Crown of Glory / A.I. Questions

Post by Joram »

Well thought out SoM, as usual! 
 
To my own perspective as a beta-tester of CoG:EE:
 
Besides the obvious difference between realtime and turn-based, this is actually a difficult question to answer as the broad scope of EU (I have EU3 but not NA) makes it a very different game than CoG:EE by it's very nature.  CoG:EE is very focused on the 'major' nations in Europe at the time.  One thing that makes CoG:EE shine is the main thing that EU lacks and that's a detailed battle system.  However, if you don't ever want to go to that level you can abstract the battles too in CoG:EE (though the feedback are simply battle reports). 
 
I have on several occasions played this game on a purely strategic level which really forces you to think through the political aspect of the game and have enjoyed myself immensely.  Doing it this way I can recall an occasion as Britain successfully creating a grand coalition which beat back the French.  I had enormous fun doing it and not once bothered with a detailed battle.
 
So, it's a bit hard to say as they are fairly different games but read the AARs that I and Hard Sarge have provided and hopefully that will help convince you.
iamspamus
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:23 pm
Location: Cambridge, UK

RE: Europa-Universalis III & Crown of Glory / A.I. Questions

Post by iamspamus »

EXCELLENT review and comparison. As an EU fan (boardgame and computer game), this review will make me want to get COG:EE. Thanks.
ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort

Woooh... this is gonna be a long and tough answer. The gameplay between the two is really night and day, although some of the premise remains the same.

Europa Universalis III, with expansions, really has a lot of depth and a pretty large learning curve. However, CoG (normal, as I have not played EE) has a much larger learning curve than EUIII and allows for much deeper levels of control over every aspect of your country. You create army and fleet stacks, you move the armies and participate in turn-based tactical combat (which is rather fun, btw, if you like miniatures and boardgames). As far as running the country, in the original CoG, you literally control the production of all of the different resources (which include wool, wine, horses, cloth, etc.) with slider bars. You can also upgrade different aspects of your provinces, building barracks, forts, ports, and other additions (which can all be upgraded many times). You get several overall social controls too, like age of military service and training time. There is a LOT of micromanagement, although you wouldn't HAVE to mess with it too much over the course of the game.

EE ships with the choice to play a new "simple economics" mode that removes all of these resources and only tracks "money" and "manpower" making the micromanagement less and making the game closer to EUIII in simplicity. Read Joram's AAR of Poland to see more information on that. Many people, who were bogged down by the extremely complex economy of original CoG are looking forward to this, as it lets you focus solely on war and not on country management.

Some of the biggest differences between EUIII and CoG are in the arena of diplomacy and the battle system. Diplomats are not used in the same way as the diplomats in EUIII, they are moveable units that act sort of like spies or as a way to increase sentiment in the country or province were they are placed. Diplomats have three skill bars that effect their ability to create instability, increase sentiment, spy, and do a variety of other actions. Actual treaties are made on a treay screen that has a level of detail that makes even EUIII's diplomacy choices look simple. You can create mutual defense treates (and stipulate the exact time you want the treaty to take effect and how long it will last), float loans, trade resources, or any combination - through a series of choices that remind me of the old books kids play with where you fill in "verb" and "noun" into a funny story. This makes a hugely flexible system, where you can do things like trade horses for a declaration of war against France, or subsidize a friend in exchange for a defense treaty. You can even name these treaties. HardSarge has a few examples in his AAR.

So yes, if you are willing to get over the learning curve for CoG, I would say that any fan of EUIII will find the game very intruiging. The UI has some quirks and there used to be an issue about undoing move orders, but I think that this might have been patched. Also note, the game is turned-based, which is a good thing, as it would be impossible to play otherwise. I would actually compare CoG more with Victoria, particularly with Vicky's resource system.

SoM
Post Reply

Return to “Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition”