Civilization or Europa?

Which is the best game?

  • The original! [Civ 1 or Civ 2]

    Votes: 3 10.0%
  • Civ 3 is definitely the best.

    Votes: 7 23.3%
  • Civ 3, but only if you use a modpack or expansion.

    Votes: 8 26.7%
  • EU2, definitely!

    Votes: 12 40.0%
  • EU2 but only if you use a modpack or expansion.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    30

Pontiuth Pilate

Republican Jesus!
Joined
Jun 11, 2003
Messages
7,980
Location
Taking stock in the Lord
I wonder how many Europa Universalis II fans we have here? ;) It's a pretty cool game and has a small cult following [nowhere near as large as the Civ community, although their modders are almost as numerous].

So simple question, if you had to pick one, which one would it be? :)

EDIT: That reminds me, I haven't updated my DYP for a few months, better go see what Kal-El's cookin'... :D
 
Though Civ was my first love, EU2 simply has more to offer. Awesome diplomacy, peace negotiations, naval system is actually worth something, historicall accuracy, multi-player etc.....

EU2 gets my vote, but I still love Civ.
 
What about Victoria: Empire Under the Sun 1835-1920?

That is a relative to EU 2 although it is somewhat different. It has some improvements compared to EU 2, IMO. EU 2 does have some advantages relative Victoria though.
 
I find EU2 to be a bit 2 dimensional. As far as administration and subtleties in economic and domestic policies, EU2 beats Civ, but as far as strategy and range of aspect, it fails miserably.
Although I don't believe I have given it a fair shot. I plan on playing it some more fairly soon. It just seems like when it comes to war and historical scenarios, it is very rigid and confining. If I want to know about actual history, I'll read about it.
 
Civ3 isn't in the same league as EU2. I mean, I like Civ3 and I play it, but I'd never say it was an equal to EU2. EU2 is simply on a different level. For instance, Civ3 comes to a halt if you use more than ten players, whereas EU2 uses hundreds with no effect.
 
in its timeframe I consider Civ2 the best, oh man was I hooked. EU I never really get.
 
EUs combat system, or lack of, turned me off.

That push the inablity to set the maximum turn limit yourself.
 
Civ and EU are different games in the strategy genre. For me Civ2 has the freedom of a world creation game with general historical concepts whereas EUII has stricter historical accuracy constraints but within those constraints there are challenges in diplomacy, colonization and trade among other things.

It's difficult to answer the question given this difference - I try to play both Civ2 and EUII although I find EUII the greater challenge.
 
Although I play Civ3 more frequently, I've got to vote for EU2. I know that is ironic, but EU2 really allows the player to feel as if he/she is part of history. You can go either way you want, but you are answerable along the way to what really occured in history. A Grand Campaign can take months to complete, if married w/ children as myself. I enjoy both games immensely! :)
 
I have both EU and C3C and I must admit that C3C gets more play time.

EU is a great game but because it's limited to a certain time period I usually end up playing Civ again to quench my thirst for tanks.
 
I never heard about EURO, but i've checked it out and i must say that i'm planning of buying the game. I always considered Civ to be seriously lacking good diplomatic play. Killing enemy soldiers doesn't quiet give me the same satisfaction as screwing over the enemy through diplomacy!
 
Like a lot of people here it seems, I've never played EU2. I'd like to, but I've never actually seen it in a shop here in New Zealand. I've seen HOI though, and plan on trying it out.

So I have to vote for civ3. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom