(Page 1 of 3)

In his Life of Aemilius Paulus, Plutarch tells the story of a Roman nobleman who astonishes his friends by announcing his intentions to divorce his wife. His friends protest that his wife is beautiful, well-born, honest and chaste. What possible reason could he have for a divorce? The noble replies that his shoes also seem attractive and well-made, but only he knows where they pinch.

Europa Universalis: Rome pinches. Like that abandoned Roman matron, it has a distinguished legacy, an attractive design, and an unpretentious facade -- it is up-front about what it is. It also has many flaws that become readily apparent as you spend more time with it. Rome is the most accessible and comprehensible game Paradox has made, but it also has the same issues that have plagued earlier titles in the series.

For those of you unfamiliar with the EU games, you are put in charge of a nation throughout its history. You raise armies, upgrade cities, and build alliances. The games are deeper and less colorful than the Total War games, but if you appreciate the idea of expanding your borders and increasing your national prestige, then this series is something you should look at.

Rome brings in many of the same ideas that we've seen in earlier Paradox titles. From 2006's Europa Universalis III, it imports a "National Ideas" feature that confers different bonuses on your country depending on your priorities, your government and your tech level. From 2004's Crusader Kings, it imports characters that develop personalities and traits that affect how they behave. If you know these games well, you will be immediately comfortable with what is going on.

It's what Rome adds to the mix that makes it interesting. The differences between government types are more than cosmetic -- the various types of republics and monarchies can draw on different sorts of National Ideas. Each regime has a benefit attached to it as well; cheaper buildings, more loyal characters, and so on. Your government type can't be changed on a whim, but occasionally you'll be prompted with the opportunity to make a switch.

Governments change most often through civil wars. With different characters controlling armies and provinces, a few of them will occasionally lose loyalty to the state and make a play for power, often to institute a new form of government. A prolonged civil war means more provinces will defect. No negotiation is possible. Balancing a character's ability with his popularity and loyalty is one of the core new ideas in Rome, and it works reasonably well.

The big problem with civil wars is that computer-controlled nations are military morons. They will reduce a rebelling general to a single tiny province and still lose the war, crippling their country for decades. The military mismanagement is everywhere, mostly because the computer opponents are perfectly willing to trickle in 1,000 troops here and there instead of building a proper-sized strike force to eliminate the opposition. The computer-controlled forces have too many small armies, a side effect of army costs being too low, reinforcement too easy and money much too easy to make.

Each territory has a resource that confers a bonus on that location. Provinces with iron can build heavy infantry; places with wine are less likely to revolt, etc. With trade routes, you can extend these bonuses to other territories, whether they are your own or your neighbor's. The better your infrastructure, the more trade routes you can have in a territory; forums, roads and harbors are great for sharing the wealth. You earn money on each route, too, with extra cash coming in for long distance international trades.