So there I was, in San Francisco, walking down the street in 50-degree weather. It was a welcome change of pace from the 80s I had experienced during the week in my native Texas. And I was happy to be in San Francisco. Seeing the sights, eating the food, chatting with the locals, invading Brunswick, launching nuclear strikes against Italy, and examining 15th-century trade routes from India to Europe. I had been invited by Paradox Development Studio to take a look at some of their new games. I spent a number of productive hours talking to designers and looking at the games themselves.

I also spent several hours arguing with a cabbie who drove me halfway across the city for no reason whatsoever, and spent some time wondering why customers at Starbucks spill coffee on me. But I’m guessing you’d rather hear about the new strategy games.

First Look: March of the Eagles

I’ve been following the development of March of the Eagles with some interest. Using Paradox’s Clausewitz engine, this game promises to give you a tight experience of the Napoleonic Wars as any European country, large or small. Considering that Paradox’s own Europa Universalis 3 already covers the Napoleonic Wars, I was curious about what March of the Eagles might offer a strategy gamer.

The biggest difference between March of the Eagles and a lot of Paradox’s other games is this one actually has victory conditions. Each major power has country-specific provinces that give either land or naval dominance. If they can annex outright or put those provinces into a satellite state and achieve both land and naval dominance, then they win the game. Because these provinces are different per country (Britain and France each have different goals, for example), there’s an incentive for major powers to form coalitions to achieve common goals. Rather than just have a game in which everyone fights France in some kind of battle royale, there will be times when even Prussia and Austria might want to join France in a war against Russia. Since Russia owns provinces that Prussia and Austria want, it suits their long-term goals to join Napoleon for such a campaign.

Combat is much more focused than in Paradox’s other games. It’s not tactical in the Total War sense, but armies have overall leaders, flank commanders, supply considerations, technological bonuses, and troops that fight better in certain phases of combat. Armies win and lose combat, try to cut each other’s supply lines, seize forts, and all the other strategy goodies we’ve come to expect in the genre. But battles and combat also generate idea points. These are spent increasing the attributes of nations. This is the game’s tech tree, but the real trick is how many points you can generate. Losing battles tends to generate substantially more. Napoleon might be a genius who can win battles, but his enemies can learn from their mistakes.

I got a chance to invade Brunswick during the demonstration, but the real surprise was the British invasion of France. The AI was willing to attempt to attack me while I went on a conquest spree against minor powers. British naval superiority meant that I was stuck walking to Gibraltar to help the Spanish siege that important British outpost since they lost Trafalgar (again!), while the British invasion of continental France was a massacre, since British allies on the continent folded quickly against my armies. Sounds about right for the Napoleonic Wars, I’d say.

Most interesting moment: Discussing the supply situation for the French army and then looking at how far away Moscow was. I’ll have to be as good as Napoleon before even attempting it when the game comes out.