🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 01:39:58 -0800, "Bob Perez" <b...@planetperez.com>
wrote:

>
>"LPetrazickis" <SPAMSuxpet...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
>news:BC_d8.1104$hu5.22755@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
>
>> After playing EU 1&2, Imperialism II's primitive province control system
>> became intolerable for me.:(
>
>I tried liking EU1 but never quite enjoyed the feeling of dropping into the
>middle of a historical game where things were already underway. Felt like I
>was playing someone else's saved game. I like Imperialism II's more
>traditional create-a-random-map and strart from scratch approach, letting me
>build up my initial forces, economy, etc. Has EU2 improved in this manner or
>is it more of the same?
>
>
If I may jump in here ... EU2 is really much better than EU.   You
have control over any country you want without editing or using a
utility ... which is a big benefit ... and you now have 'policy
sliders' for everything from free trade/mercantilism to a
narrow-minded/innovative culture.    What this does is allow you to
tweak your society so that if you like going to war, you can gear
toward offense ... or you can become a naval power, or whatever you
want.   With so many countries and so many ways to tweak them, the
only reason you would feel like you're playing the same game twice is
because you choose to play it the same way twice.

There are some factors that will always be the same, of course ... in
1419 France is always in the same place, etc.   There are probably
utilities to randomize that too ( there was a randomizer for EU that
did it as well ) so you could have France in China or something.

H