Civ VI vs. Europa Universalis

[El Caballerion]

EU4 is an amazing game. CIV V is an amazing game. They both offer different things to the player, but in short, EU4 is much more complex to play, and requires the player to understand a little bit about history to really feel enthralled with the game.

The biggest difference is that in CIV, 'all CIVs are created equal'; each civ starts off as a settler and warrior. In EU4, which starts in 1444, on the eve of Ottoman supremacy, different CIVs start out OP compared to others. For instance, it's incredibly easy to destroy Granada as Spain, but requires lots of luck and impossible odds to destroy Spain as Granada. However, that's what makes EU4 fun; the ability to start as a small one province minor, and destroy a superior country (like France or England) over the course of about 350 years).

Finally, CIV teaches you a little bit about history, whereas I know SO MUCH about European history during the 1400s-1800s now. Like, I feel like I can write a Masters Thesis on Europe during this timeframe now lol.

At times, I feel that CIV's interface is sometimes too simple, and EU4s is sometimes too complicated. CIV, at times, is more 'fun', and EU4 is sometimes more 'awe-inspiring'. However, the truth is that EU4 will require a lot of patience and a lot of playthroughs before you excel at it. I've played over 500 hours of EU4 and am still learning new things! That's so cool!

And believe me, I LOVE Civ, but alas, I have room in my heart for 2 lovers...

 

[El Caballerion]

Plus, there are a few MODs for EU4 that create completely random worlds, which creates a little bit more of a similar experience to CIV.

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

I never heard of EU before posting in these forums... but reading this thread has made me think I wouldn't really enjoy it at all. I don't even play Civ5 to "win" all the time.. I enjoy the whimsical aspect of an alternate history.

 

[Gorbles]

EU has a lot of detail in it - you could argue pretty well the detail is both obscure (in of itself) as well as obscured (visibly) from the player.

I'm unsure how much this meshes with your appreciation of whimsy, but you could enjoy the game(s) - especially with mods activated. It approaches the gameplay on a different level - more like Total War's campaign mode rather than Civilisation's abstracted management. You build up your forces in advance, you plan routes in advance - I realise this sounds a bit like Civilisation too, but Civilisation has a much more fast-paced, almost tactical level to it.

EU is a lot more planned. You don't slingshot into Medieval to get a specific bonus to get a specific City under your control, you come out of Anarchy in 20 years so you can raise your Land Troops level to 4 so you can crush the combined armies of Venice and Burgundy and annex one or two of their territories. There's a greater breadth of things that command your attention, but once you've achieved them they pay off a lot at once. This is what Acken refers to as lacking in depth (which I agree with, though whether or not it's a bad thing is more up for debate), because it's a very top-level decision. Your Land Troop tech might have taken a total of 30 years to accomplish (which in EU is a long time - see Total War and seasons > years > etc), but it has far more of a lasting impact than rushing siege weapons in Civilisation.

The two games could not be more different -- you might as well ask how Poker compares to Bridge. Both require a 52-card deck and careful thought and analysis to play well, but the similarities pretty much end there.

This is still probably the best post in the thread.

 

[Xen]

I never heard of EU before posting in these forums... but reading this thread has made me think I wouldn't really enjoy it at all. I don't even play Civ5 to "win" all the time.. I enjoy the whimsical aspect of an alternate history.

Thats a shame, because thats the very heart and soul of EU. Its a sandbox game that set the rules and lets you play. "Victory" is totally what you make of it.

 

[ProMeTheus112]

If I can make comparisons between starcraft and quake I think anything is comparable personally

 

[Lilykamen]

I have a relationship of love-hate with the Europe Universalis games.

Except for the combat, I'm not fan of that style of combat. I like more tactical combat.

And I would love to see a alternate tech tree for American natives. I mean, why westernize must the be only way to advance? I want to see future mecha-Mayan of Death!

 

[Xur]

Civilization is a gem that keeps getting larger, prettier and deeper. The game starts small and eases you into the deeper endgame gamemechanics, and you basicly decide how complex you wanna go with map size and amount of cities. It is good for beginners and old grumpy horsehockys like me that just wanna waste 2 weeks in one epic game.

Europa Universalis is a giant mess that doesn't seem to evolve. The learning curve is like a brickwall, and once you finally learn how to play it's actually surprisingly simple. Terrible gamedesign that survives because people like the mix of map/conquest/history. I am one of those tools that bought all these EU/HoI games, but no more. It has a gorgeous map though...

 

[Xen]

The evolution of EU is primarily in the realm of immersion- by and large with EU4 the game design was fromthe outser a game of conquest. And not without reason considering the themes of the era. But its hard ro vreak out of that mold when the devs of that game are very set on preserving that status quo. But what they dont develop in terms of mechanics im generally greater depth of setting.

I feel like im in the world of Europa far more then I ever feel like im in the world of civ. Civ always feels like just a game to me. A fun game, butbalways a game. EU is better as a more true escape. When the mongols get big in civ5, it will be a challange, but I know that if they invade its really not that big a deal. When tjebOttoman enpire comes knocking before Ive set up alliances to help put me on even footing in EU? Dread.

Obviously, these are personal opinions and your own may vary, or even be opposite.

 

[Acken]

A chance that eu4 immerse you more in history considering it tries to emulate a lot of it and is basically the goal of the game. Civ only has history as a theme and its concepts are abstract. Something that civ fans have a lot of trouble recognizing when you see the ton of threads wanting more realism.

Civ can be easily replaced with different names and assets and still be fun. EU4 would have a lot of trouble doing that kind of facelift.
Civ is a bit like the boardgame 7 wonders where you have history as a theme with abstract mecanics behind it. A theme that could be completely replaced with a scifi theme without any gameplay change required.

 

[Staler87]

I'm a bit surprised that no one here talks about crusader kings. It has all the blobbing features of EUIV plus some great court intrigue features that make for a surprisingly interesting and complex game.

 

[rastak]

I'm a bit surprised that no one here talks about crusader kings. It has all the blobbing features of EUIV plus some great court intrigue features that make for a surprisingly interesting and complex game.

I play it and Stellaris. Still, neither of those are actual games as I would define them. Mainly sandboxes. Stellaris has a victory condition but it's pretty shallow.

 

[Xen]

I'm a bit surprised that no one here talks about crusader kings. It has all the blobbing features of EUIV plus some great court intrigue features that make for a surprisingly interesting and complex game.

I think its because CKII is just to different from what civ could become- ever changing families over generations, marriages and selecting spouses based on the balance of what the potentia spouse gives you in political alliances, inheritable claims, or physical traits, etc?

Civ could never have all that- though It would be fun to see "royal marriages" that bind imaginary dynasties in the game together (and make the "leaders" of these civs more into a guiding spirit type situation) You'd need different flavor actions for different government type, perhaps each with different bonuses to balance out, and but also differentiate each government type.

 

[isau]

I don't think Civ6 casus belli has anything to do with EU mechanics with the same name. Civ6 casus belli is about diplomacy, not "fabricate claim" button.

The fact that 30 hours into EU over the years I still don't know what casus belli actually did should tell you lots about the abstractions of that game.

I mean it's possible I'm just a complete idiot. But EU is the only game that has ever managed to leave me completely lost. I have a college degree, can program reasonably well enough in C++ and C#, can beat the various civs on the higher difficulties, modded the C++ for Civ IV to include changes to AI and to game mechanics (gave up on it after a systems crash a few months in), etc. But stuff like "What does this button do?" in EU leaves me perplexed. Perhaps there is a decent game in there, somewhere, but I actually found it easier to learn how to *mod* Civ than to *play* EU. I just never got the sense there would be any payoff to what was taking hours and hours to figure out. And I'm positive I'm not alone in that experience. The game does an abysmal job of communicating basic information or structuring the introduction of mechanics. It's a hardcore game, fine--but that's a limited audience.

In any case, the casus belli system is there, provides a decent enough model (a way to attack people). I am not concerned with whether it is stealing. I am sure the developers for Civ play the various games out there--EU, Endless Legend, Age of Wonders--and get inspirations from them. I'm glad they do.

But as to the original posters question about why is Civ not more like EU, I just have to say thank God it isn't or I wouldn't play it. I'd go learn Polish or something productive which would require similar effort, be about as fun, but actually have payoff.

 

[Bibor]

The fact that 30 hours into EU over the years I still don't know what casus belli actually did should tell you lots about the abstractions of that game.

I mean it's possible I'm just a complete idiot.

No, you're not an idiot. You're also living in the age of YouTube. Early Shenryyr2's videos helped me immensely in understanding EU4 (other streamers might be too advanced). This is not exclusive to EU4, though, I know my Civ5 videos (and not only mine) also helped many people understand how to master Civ5.

 

[Miravlix]

Think of the difference between old XCOM and new XCOM and that is really Paradox (old school) vs Firaxis (current school).

 

[jjkrause84]

EU is a lot of fun....but ultimately there's no real point to it. There's no 'winning'. After hundreds of hours I'm not sure I've ever finished even a single game. There's no point.

It is still fun, though, and something that every strategy player should experience at least once or twice.

 

[Olleus]

There's no point.

It is still fun

Well that seems like all the point a game needs...

The sims is one of the best selling and highest grossing game franchises of all time, yet there are no victory conditions in it.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Well that seems like all the point a game needs...

The sims is one of the best selling and highest grossing game franchises of all time, yet there are no victory conditions in it.

They even have quite similar DLC model. In general yes, EU as history-sim is as close to Sims (life-sim) as to Civ (historical strategy).

 

[rastak]

Well that seems like all the point a game needs...

The sims is one of the best selling and highest grossing game franchises of all time, yet there are no victory conditions in it.

Cities Skylines is also very popular and well done, and published by Paradox. I guess when I play a game I normally like to either win or lose when it ends. Sandbox "games" can be fun also, but can't be compared to Civ.