Europa universalis iv & civ

playing eu4 since yesterday. Ottoman is OP indeed. The game is very balanced other than that and in general more fun than eu3

I can't comment on EU4, because I don't have it, but I definitely prefer the EU series' casus belli mechanic over Civ’s “all wars are bad and viewed exactly the same by the AI” non-mechanic. I also like the concept of manpower and force/supply limits.

Dogmouth said:

I can't comment on EU4, because I don't have it, but I definitely prefer the EU series' casus belli mechanic over Civ’s “all wars are bad and viewed exactly the same by the AI” non-mechanic. I also like the concept of manpower and force/supply limits.

Click to expand...

Yes. Civilization could well borrow from the Casus Belli system; granted, in the Civ franchise the CB system should be simplified as compared to the EU one, but it would change war in a better way. I think it could even be a part of a big patch, given that they do not overcomplicate it.

In Civ VI they should have an occasional comet fly across the screen. If someone in your civilization sees it, your gold should drop and rebels should spawn around most of your cities. I'm not talking about 6 barb units either. It should be EUIV style rebels - twice the size of your standing armies. They should smash down your cities one by one dealing out "heretic" or "nationalists" maluses that reduce your gold and production to slow you down a bit and put you in your place. Good times.

Seriously though... I like both games and appreciate their differences. I do hope we're done with 1UPT though, but that's just me.

poom3619 said:

@Menzies and Aristos

Wow, I hope that's true to what you both said. I will get it immediately.
BTW, I remember someone "implement" Tic-tac-toe in hypothetical CivVI when CiV aren't out. Right?
and hopefully real CivVI will borrow "Casus Belli" from EU, as a compensation. Hopefully we wouldn't play VickyIII on hex

Click to expand...

I believe there's an EU IV free-to-play demo. From Aristo's comment above and my (brief so far) experience with Crusader Kings II, I'm increasingly tempted to try it.

To go back to the question in the OP: what Civ devs could really learn from EU4 is how to handle an AI for 100 nations simultaneously without ridiculous waiting times.

[On my opinion] Europa Universallis is a game for who likes "change the history", by the most realistic way possible. Civilization is for those who want recreate the history, from the pre-historical ages to the future. Civ series isn't focused in historical realism (For example, I think we'd never see Polynesia and Denmark making an alliance against the Huns in the real world), and the factions don't represents the nations themselves, but a model to for the Civilization that you want to create (If you want a civ focused in the desert, you can chose Moroco, or France to for a artistic civ). Because of this, when you discover the Aztecs on a TSL map, unlike what is seen in the EU and in History, they are nearly as advanced as us.

Aristos said:

That has not been true anymore since EU3, especially the latest Divine Wind expansion, but is even less true with EU4. The map is determined, and the initial conditions of the countries, but from there, it's all about alternate history my friend.

Click to expand...

America will still spawn between 1750 and 1800, even if Britain haven't colonized the Eastern US. Same goes for Canada and Mexico

poom3619 said:

@Menzies and Aristos

Wow, I hope that's true to what you both said. I will get it immediately.
BTW, I remember someone "implement" Tic-tac-toe in hypothetical CivVI when CiV aren't out. Right?
and hopefully real CivVI will borrow "Casus Belli" from EU, as a compensation. Hopefully we wouldn't play VickyIII on hex

Click to expand...

The games really do fill two different niches, and after some time to think about it, a casus belli system in Civ would probably achieve close to nothing. To start with though, have a think about the major differences in basic concept.

Civ is a very open ended, and ultimately slightly lighter hearted game, and in Civ you can build a new world that can change shape (city and territory wise) and it ultimately leads to a much more dynamic game experience. To cover such a huge expanse of time the game really needs to be this way so it can change throughout the ages to represent time periods as the World changes. Nothing hammers this home more than when thinking back to those first 50-100 turns in those last 20 or so whilst chasing down whatever victory condition you're after.

Paradox games are a different beast all together, and by going for the real history simulator side of things, they can focus in their attention and make games that are very detailed, but ultimately extremely strict. Take the steps between Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Victoria and Hearts of Iron, the games end up being so different that making one to cover even two of these eras that would allow for the depth and detail of play that they are famed for seem a mine blowing difficult challenge, that is, without the game suddenly and unnaturally changed all of a sudden. There are converters yes (one official one now too), but that's a far cry from a dynamic changing of eras. The other thing is the game's reliance on the real world map that the system is built around. The games are played on one real world map, and ultimately logically need to be for a history simulator, again hammering home just how far from eachother the games are, even before keeping in mind that Civ is a turned based game, whilst the Paradox Games are seemingly real time.

As for a casus belli system, I'm not quite sure what people want to get out of it. As things stand, if you were to go down the Europa Universalis route in a defensive war and merely defend your territory, defeat the enemy and in the case that you took a small amount of territory, gave it back at the end, then you wouldn't get an diplomatic hits anyhow. Any casus belli system would lead to warmonger hate for keeping captured cities anyhow, as it does in the new Europa Universalis. It would be nice if allies in war who you organised the war with didn't hate you when the war was successful in taking other civ's cities, but that wouldn't require a casus belli system to implement. I don't know, it just seems like an odd thing to implement in a game when it would ultimately lead to an almost identical result to now.

Menzies said:

The games really do fill two different niches, and after some time to think about it, a casus belli system in Civ would probably achieve close to nothing. To start with though, have a think about the major differences in basic concept.

Civ is a very open ended, and ultimately slightly lighter hearted game, and in Civ you can build a new world that can change shape (city and territory wise) and it ultimately leads to a much more dynamic game experience. To cover such a huge expanse of time the game really needs to be this way so it can change throughout the ages to represent time periods as the World changes. Nothing hammers this home more than when thinking back to those first 50-100 turns in those last 20 or so whilst chasing down whatever victory condition you're after.

Paradox games are a different beast all together, and by going for the real history simulator side of things, they can focus in their attention and make games that are very detailed, but ultimately extremely strict. Take the steps between Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Victoria and Hearts of Iron, the games end up being so different that making one to cover even two of these eras that would allow for the depth and detail of play that they are famed for seem a mine blowing difficult challenge, that is, without the game suddenly and unnaturally changed all of a sudden. There are converters yes (one official one now too), but that's a far cry from a dynamic changing of eras. The other thing is the game's reliance on the real world map that the system is built around. The games are played on one real world map, and ultimately logically need to be for a history simulator, again hammering home just how far from eachother the games are, even before keeping in mind that Civ is a turned based game, whilst the Paradox Games are seemingly real time.

As for a casus belli system, I'm not quite sure what people want to get out of it. As things stand, if you were to go down the Europa Universalis route in a defensive war and merely defend your territory, defeat the enemy and in the case that you took a small amount of territory, gave it back at the end, then you wouldn't get an diplomatic hits anyhow. Any casus belli system would lead to warmonger hate for keeping captured cities anyhow, as it does in the new Europa Universalis. It would be nice if allies in war who you organised the war with didn't hate you when the war was successful in taking other civ's cities, but that wouldn't require a casus belli system to implement. I don't know, it just seems like an odd thing to implement in a game when it would ultimately lead to an almost identical result to now.

Click to expand...

That is why I said "a simplified CB system", not a replica of the detailed EU system that, obviously, is specifically designed to fit their engine.

For example: we all probably hate it when a pesky spy steals our technologies in civ5, right? You warn the AI, they say "never again", and a few turns later bang! another tech stolen by the same civ.

What do you do now? If you denounce, well, there is no difference between a blind denouncement and this one. If you decide to declare war for the transgression, you will accumulate Warmonger points, exactly the same as if the DoW were a blind, aggressive one.

THIS is the type of situation where a CB system Light could well make civ better. If the DoW, in this example, is tied to the transgression, it should void the penalty of Warmonger points, which only would accumulate if the war becomes a conquest war. If it stays a punitive war, no Warmonger penalty.

And so on.

The one thing I see that CIV should borrow from EU series is some sort of CB (Casus Belli, or "reason for war") system. Not all wars are equal and not all gains during war should give the same diplomatic penalty. An agressive, unprovoked war should get you hated, but if you declare war to liberate a formerly allied, pledged city state, you shouldn't get hated for declaring the war or for liberating the city state. If you raze three of the other civs cities while you're at it you shoud get hated for that, but not as much as if it was in an unprovoked war.

Other than that, they are very diffrent beasts. CIV is way more loose and sandboxy and all civs are created (essentially) equal at the start of the game. In CIV you can win with a native american tribe, infact they are powerhouses, in EU you are pretty much screwed. That is what I want in a CIV game as opposed to a EU game, the in theory equal start, greater "what if" possibilities and less bookkeeping micromanagement.

AlpsStranger said:

So you want to play history but always have it happen the same way? Like, almost entirely the same way?

I don't get it. What's the point of a strategy game where you're always guaranteed to fail/succeed? Is it just a recording with buttons?

Click to expand...

You are not guaranteed to fail/succeed. You will just be confronted with the same problems.
And its not 'allways the same', quite the opposite, because the game is totaly diffrent depending on which country you chose

If you want to give it a try, there is a demo available:
http://www.europauniversalis4.com/news/sample-feeling-conquest-europa-universalis-iv-demo

MarshalN said:

Not having played EU4 yet, but I find them to be totally different games.

Click to expand...

Could not agree more, or stress this enough.
I saw one post on another forum discussing EU4 stating that the EU series was what people "graduate to when they're grow out of CivV". Unfortunately this opinion is commonplace, and so grossly erroneous I have a hard time wrangling the overwhelming number of opposing truths running around into a cohesive, direct argument.

First of all, while both strategy, they're two different sub-genres (The Civ series is 4X, while EU is Grand Strategy) if you go in as a 4x player, expecting 4x, you may feel constricted by its borders.

As for the gameplay, of course much of it will come down to taste, so I'll just leave out the objectivity and give my personal opinion. Which is to say I don't like it, and have never liked the EU series. Despite many days playing, and trying to like it thinking "I love strategy games, these games are insanely well made by very competent designers... why am I not loving this?". Truth is, I find it to be a stale ride inside the mind of an idiot savant who's been doing accounting for his brother's company every day for the last 40 years.

It is more complex, but not in a way that serves it well. In my opinion, its many systems for empire growth have little interplay outside of "devote resources here, that's less to go there", which pushes it dangerously close to what I'd consider simple convolution. You pick a path, and go. The only thing you sacrifice to do so is not going down another path as much as you go down the one you chose.
In Civ5, You specialize, sure, but there are always factors within the interplay of systems that shake you this way or that, throwing tangible hurdles at you, constantly forcing you into risk vs reward choices, everything has a cost outside of the simple monetary one, and generally the more you spike your growth in one spot, the harder these forces weigh on you, some simple numbers, others interesting and full of flavor.
EU4 does this to of course, it's just not its focus, it doesn't do it nearly as much, or as well. At the end of the day Civ5 creates an intricate web of possibilities, while EU4 is more like the root structure of a really old willow tree.

It comes down to personality probably, if you're the type who like to fine tune systems, and delights in every fraction of a percentage you can milk, you will absolutely adore EU4, I think. And not being so tied down with all the webs between the forks, EU4 can afford to get further in the directions it does go, (diplomacy as a prime example, really puts Civ to shame). If however you couldn't care less about details, and love interplay and how things work together, Civ is the way to go. Though, admittedly, trying to get a feel for diplomatic relations in densely populated corners of the world is very much... ugh... web/interplay lover friendly, it's just a shame that flavor ends with the diplomacy, and doesn't carry over to actual empire management.

so awh... I'd suggest playing the demo first. Well made, without a doubt, just a very niche title.

I have sunken hundreds of hours into both games, so they are certainly worth the money.

In general I'd say that CIV5 has more of a "boardgame" feeling to it, with bright colors and a much - how can I say that? - happier theme. EU4 is more of a "struggle". You constantly fight against the AI, rebels, money shortages, events, etc. pp. - the general tone is sort of "darker".

In addition CIV5 has a more "generalist" approach (considering that it covers all historical eras), while EU4's game mechanics are more tinkered about the idea of transforming a kingdom into a nation. They are both rather slow paced game (so basicially you do stuff that pays of 30 minutes (like 2000 years in CIV or 30 years in EU4) later.

One thing I must say is that I really, really love diplomacy in the EU series. Even in SP games, the web of relations between hundreds of nations is really amazing (even more so in MP games where you are constantly plotting with other players to get what you want). CIV5 has a more direct approach here: Smaller number of actors, obvious relations (apart from backstabbing) and far less potential war goals.

So, yeah, CIV5 feels more like a fun game going through the ages, while EU4 gives you the role of an armchair general, watching over the history that unfolds, trying to influence it as best as possible. Both games are fun - so try the demo, hasn't hurt anybody.

Any opinions about AI strength of the two games? Does the EU4 AI give the human player a harder time in combat? (For me, 1upt is the glaring weakness of Civ5 and I think of it as some kind of miracle that the devs have made the game absorbing to play in spite of it).

JtW said:

To go back to the question in the OP: what Civ devs could really learn from EU4 is how to handle an AI for 100 nations simultaneously without ridiculous waiting times.

Click to expand...

Yes. That is a good point!

Unless I'm missing something... does Europa Universalis give your character a face? And can I be a chick ruler?

Two different games but I love CIV and EU series
The AI of EU4 I think is more challeging

El Caballerion said:

Yes. That is a good point!

Click to expand...

noo... no it's not, no actually it's a really bad point.

EU4 has a much more finite and rigid structure in that each province is effectively a single hex, no cities need placing, no tactical combat movement, flat incremental improvements, everything starts from the same static base and map... etc all this stuff is simple as hell for a computer to do, I don't think you guys really appreciate how much more advanced the Civ AI is given its circumstances, even just having to code it to be able to adapt to different maps increases it's complexity by... hell, A LOT.

Go back to my web vs root structure metaphor, pretend you're a computer trying to chart every possible route. Each connection within a web multiplicatively increases all potential paths. Simple for a person to look at and understand, the complexity of the task, for a processor is very difficult to understate. Finding all paths from a defined center branching out with no connection between limbs, 0 multipliers to gum up the works, easy to brute force. It's all rote.

EU AI could possibly be more effective, I don't have enough experience with it to say, but it would be a huge disservice to the coders at Firaxis to suggest EU's AI is "better", and that they have something to learn from them. It's a totally different game, and I'm sorry if I sound like I'm putting paradox down, as I'm very fond of them, but coding the AI for Civ would take significantly more skill.