Even diplomacy, which requires direct control, seems strangely inconsequential. I spent most of my time pushing the "improve relations" button on other great powers (if only the world's rulers had pressed that button in 1914!) and bringing lesser powers into my orbit. To what end, I don't know, because having a sphere of influence seemed fairly pointless. I watched France, Britain, and Austria battle for Belgium's favor for about thirty years, to no discernible purpose. I also had a game as Prussia was completely ruined by a bizarre pile-on. First Austria, then Britain, France, and Russia attacked from all sides, despite the fact that Prussia was neither particularly dangerous nor particularly weak. Perhaps I did not click the "improve relations" button enough.

In war, at least, I found my purpose. If Victoria II doesn't really satisfy as a game of grand-strategy and power politics, it makes a decent wargame. Since armies of the period are both enormous and increasingly unable to live off the land due to dependence on modern equipment and supplies, warfare in Victoria II is less about the super-stacks of Europa Universalis III and more about coordinating the movements of several different army groups.

As a strategy game, Victoria II frustrates me. It is an orgy of detail for detail's sake, yet the information I really want never seems to be at hand. The decisions I make seem mostly inconsequential, changing the game only by a slow process of accretion. Modeling has overtaken game design. Watching Victoria II is hypnotic and frequently awe-inspiring. Unfortunately, you only occasionally might want to play it.

Rob Zacny is a regular contributor to GameShark . He also contributes at Gamers With Jobs and is a panelist on the Three Moves Ahead strategy gaming podcast.