Have we done the compare Civ VI to Endless Legend thread yet?
(first thing I thought of when I saw city-unstacking)
I think it's been mentioned. I really need to play that one all the way through.
Civ VI vs. Europa Universalis
- Thread starter MrDoubleG
- Start date
I think it's been mentioned. I really need to play that one all the way through.
isau
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2007
- Messages
- 3,071
Endless Legend had some good ideas that I'm glad to see make their way into Civ VI. Whether that game really inspired them or not, I think they were worth taking.
I like how in EL all civs actually begin in a "Cold War" state with each other. I wonder if seeing this in action is how the developers of Civ VI felt it was okay to reduce warmonger penalties in the early game.
The game also of course has unstacked cities, with wonders being placed directly on the map.
On the "weird" side of EL for me is the combat system. It seemed to me that the devs of that game were trying to find middle ground between Civ V and Civ IV. I think I'd like the combat better with direct control over the units during the fight. What we get instead is a strange mix of tactical combat like in Civ V and automated combat in Civ IV.
I've mentioned Age of Wonders 3 a few times as another game I'd like Civ developers to use an inspiration. IMO AoW3 was not a strong game at release and took a big hit in popularity. The finished game with the Necromancer expansion is incredible though. What I love about AoW3 is how they were able to justify having so many varieties of units by making them really, noticeably unique. I also find the tactical combat to be tons of fun, because there are so many varied status effects, spells, and things to throw around. I wish Civ would embrace AoE attacks and status effects like that game did, it is just filled to the brim with interesting units. Plus I just love the feel of being a Dreadnaught rolling toward the enemy with an army of mechanical tanks and golems, coming up against a Sorceror flinging lightning bolts and backed up by an army of phantom warriors. Each class plays really uniquely (moreso than the nations in Civ, altho there are fewer of them) and the fact that you get to pick race/class/element really lets you mix things up. A Sorceror really does play differently than a Warlord.
What I didn't like about AoW3 that much was the city placement and management. So if that game ever goes full-Civ, with tile yields and everything, I think I will be totally in love. It's definitely more of a war game than Civ is, but if they ever do a sequel that really gets deep into the city management system I think it would join the Civ series as best of all time.
The other thing I will say I wish Civ developers would steal from AoW3 was dedication to balancing the game once it is released and the meta is well known. The AoW3 team did this in the post-release period with several dozen patches and it really shows. No game is perfectly balanced and there are of course matchups that are more one-sided than others, but overall I find the game better balanced than unmodded Civ V BNW.
I like how in EL all civs actually begin in a "Cold War" state with each other. I wonder if seeing this in action is how the developers of Civ VI felt it was okay to reduce warmonger penalties in the early game.
The game also of course has unstacked cities, with wonders being placed directly on the map.
On the "weird" side of EL for me is the combat system. It seemed to me that the devs of that game were trying to find middle ground between Civ V and Civ IV. I think I'd like the combat better with direct control over the units during the fight. What we get instead is a strange mix of tactical combat like in Civ V and automated combat in Civ IV.
I've mentioned Age of Wonders 3 a few times as another game I'd like Civ developers to use an inspiration. IMO AoW3 was not a strong game at release and took a big hit in popularity. The finished game with the Necromancer expansion is incredible though. What I love about AoW3 is how they were able to justify having so many varieties of units by making them really, noticeably unique. I also find the tactical combat to be tons of fun, because there are so many varied status effects, spells, and things to throw around. I wish Civ would embrace AoE attacks and status effects like that game did, it is just filled to the brim with interesting units. Plus I just love the feel of being a Dreadnaught rolling toward the enemy with an army of mechanical tanks and golems, coming up against a Sorceror flinging lightning bolts and backed up by an army of phantom warriors. Each class plays really uniquely (moreso than the nations in Civ, altho there are fewer of them) and the fact that you get to pick race/class/element really lets you mix things up. A Sorceror really does play differently than a Warlord.
What I didn't like about AoW3 that much was the city placement and management. So if that game ever goes full-Civ, with tile yields and everything, I think I will be totally in love. It's definitely more of a war game than Civ is, but if they ever do a sequel that really gets deep into the city management system I think it would join the Civ series as best of all time.
The other thing I will say I wish Civ developers would steal from AoW3 was dedication to balancing the game once it is released and the meta is well known. The AoW3 team did this in the post-release period with several dozen patches and it really shows. No game is perfectly balanced and there are of course matchups that are more one-sided than others, but overall I find the game better balanced than unmodded Civ V BNW.
My opinion as someone who owns Civ 4, Civ 5, Europa Universalis 4, Crusader Kings 2 and Victoria 2:
- I wish i had played Civ4 BEFORE Civ5, because i can't honestly get into Civ4 after Civ 5. Civ5 is a simpler game and way more acessible, even though the 3-4 Tradition+Rationalism optimal gameplay needs to go away for good.
All of Paradox grand strategy games revolve around a sandbox environment which makes possible "What if" alternate history scenarios, whether it's the 100 Years War, the Scramble for Africa, the European medieval ages or the Age of Exploration. They are primarily targeted to history buffs, although that's hardly a requirement.
I have about 67 hours in CK2, 639 hours in EU4 and 180 hours in Victoria 2, so here's what i can tell from my experience:
CK2 feels like an alternate history RPG, good for those who enjoy the politics and scheming of Game of Thrones TV show and ASOIAF books.
EU4 is an alternate history simulator where the player creates his own winning condition. Am i going to play as Muscowy to form Russia, from Europe to the Pacific? Will i unite the Manchu tribes and conquer all of China? Will play as an Iberian power and become a sprawling colonial empire? Will i try to unite India as a small kingdom? Return the Byzantine Empire to it's former glory? Sadly, it boils down to "how much difficult do i want this game to be?"
Victoria 2 is my favourite Paradox game, with a focus on the era where European colonial powers carved Africa between themselves. You have wars, international crisis, economics, industrialization, demographic mechanics, internal politics. As the user rastak said best:
To finish my thoughts i just want to say that you can enjoy Civilization games and Paradox games. I certainly do, and will continue to do so.
- I wish i had played Civ4 BEFORE Civ5, because i can't honestly get into Civ4 after Civ 5. Civ5 is a simpler game and way more acessible, even though the 3-4 Tradition+Rationalism optimal gameplay needs to go away for good.
All of Paradox grand strategy games revolve around a sandbox environment which makes possible "What if" alternate history scenarios, whether it's the 100 Years War, the Scramble for Africa, the European medieval ages or the Age of Exploration. They are primarily targeted to history buffs, although that's hardly a requirement.
I have about 67 hours in CK2, 639 hours in EU4 and 180 hours in Victoria 2, so here's what i can tell from my experience:
CK2 feels like an alternate history RPG, good for those who enjoy the politics and scheming of Game of Thrones TV show and ASOIAF books.
EU4 is an alternate history simulator where the player creates his own winning condition. Am i going to play as Muscowy to form Russia, from Europe to the Pacific? Will i unite the Manchu tribes and conquer all of China? Will play as an Iberian power and become a sprawling colonial empire? Will i try to unite India as a small kingdom? Return the Byzantine Empire to it's former glory? Sadly, it boils down to "how much difficult do i want this game to be?"
Victoria 2 is my favourite Paradox game, with a focus on the era where European colonial powers carved Africa between themselves. You have wars, international crisis, economics, industrialization, demographic mechanics, internal politics. As the user rastak said best:
To finish my thoughts i just want to say that you can enjoy Civilization games and Paradox games. I certainly do, and will continue to do so.
Stringer1313
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2014
- Messages
- 1,197
Isn't denouncing essentially fabriacting a claim, lol?
stealth_nsk
Deity
Denouncing is a strategic choice with consequences as it:
1. Gives the denounced time to prepare.
2. Gives the denounced right to declare formal war back right away.
I played Civilization games from the very beginning and I really loved Civ2, but even in that game I used to miss realistic maps and situations. There was a "real" world map available in the main game and some more maps in scenarios but the scale was all wrong and the time scale was even worse: I remember playing Hannibal and finally conquering Rome - with heavy artillery. Nor exactly ideal.
So I was very happy when the first EU appeared. For a history buff (which I am) there is no better way to really understand a situation; you can read a lot of books but in the game, you are in the middle of the mess. Take Muscovy, for example: it is clear that first you have to pick, one by one, the small states around you while trying to survive endless Tartar onslaughts; that you have to take care of Tartars next, as well as of Novgorod in the north; that the real problems just begin at that point, with Turkey in the south, Sweden in the north and Poland/Lithuania (which, however, was never well done in EU) to the west; and that east is wide open and that it would be a very good idea to get to the Pacific coast before the Chinese (or somebody else) secure all of it for themselves. And it is also very clear why you have to have Crimea and what would be the sensible strategy once you got it: at this point, the game suddenly becomes very contemporary.
All of this, however, takes a lot of time and planning and setbacks are frequent. Civ games are much more dynamic; take Attila, crush a civilization or two, conquer some city states and by the time your horse raiders become obsolete everybody hates you but nobody can really hurt you. It is, of course, not quite as simple as that but the game flows much faster and is, generally, far less frustrating and far more enjoyable than EU; it also looks far better which is not unimportant, at least for me. So, as a game pure and simple, Civ is certainly better but it is a fantasy, no less than, say, Endless Legend.
So I was very happy when the first EU appeared. For a history buff (which I am) there is no better way to really understand a situation; you can read a lot of books but in the game, you are in the middle of the mess. Take Muscovy, for example: it is clear that first you have to pick, one by one, the small states around you while trying to survive endless Tartar onslaughts; that you have to take care of Tartars next, as well as of Novgorod in the north; that the real problems just begin at that point, with Turkey in the south, Sweden in the north and Poland/Lithuania (which, however, was never well done in EU) to the west; and that east is wide open and that it would be a very good idea to get to the Pacific coast before the Chinese (or somebody else) secure all of it for themselves. And it is also very clear why you have to have Crimea and what would be the sensible strategy once you got it: at this point, the game suddenly becomes very contemporary.
All of this, however, takes a lot of time and planning and setbacks are frequent. Civ games are much more dynamic; take Attila, crush a civilization or two, conquer some city states and by the time your horse raiders become obsolete everybody hates you but nobody can really hurt you. It is, of course, not quite as simple as that but the game flows much faster and is, generally, far less frustrating and far more enjoyable than EU; it also looks far better which is not unimportant, at least for me. So, as a game pure and simple, Civ is certainly better but it is a fantasy, no less than, say, Endless Legend.
I always liked the approach of EU and the ideas and concepts behind it.
But I never found the motivation to dig myself as deep into it as would be needed to play it at a good level.
The complexety on the one hand and the lack of easy ways to get into it was always too much for my personal taste when it comes to play it (it felt rather as work).
So I found CIV to be the more fitting game for me. It is also complex and offers rich strategies, but it is easier to get into and has the complexity in the right places.
So, I have lots of respect for EU, but I like to play CIV much more.
But I never found the motivation to dig myself as deep into it as would be needed to play it at a good level.
The complexety on the one hand and the lack of easy ways to get into it was always too much for my personal taste when it comes to play it (it felt rather as work).
So I found CIV to be the more fitting game for me. It is also complex and offers rich strategies, but it is easier to get into and has the complexity in the right places.
So, I have lots of respect for EU, but I like to play CIV much more.
Totally agree on that. Loved AoW3 and still hope they continue it in one way or another.
TeraHammer
Prince
As a background to this post: This is my history of history strategy games I loved to play:
CIV1 - CIV2 - (diablo2 interbellum) - CIV4 (vanilla) - EU4
Tried, but did not like:
CIV5, CK2
From growing up with the CIV games, I like playing EU4 as if it were a 4X game. I like to start as a minor country in the HRE, and then slowly expand. I had a lot of fun playing Hamburg as a colonial nation in one my previous EU4 games.
Never did I pick a big 1444 established country - that feels like cheating really, like starting with 4 settlers in a civ game
.
The intricacies of managing your growing state is very appealing to me in EU4. I heard that previous versions of EU were a lot more hassle, though!
In CIV4 games, I rarely played beyond the Renaissance era. Occasionally I would go for a pacifism spacerace win, but these were a lot less satisfactory for me than hot multiplayer battles online, where you had to weigh expansion resources over military resources. To perfect CIV4 multiplayer you'd have to balance it just right so you had just enough military to defend your expansion. - This micromanaging was an absolutely great feeling.
CIV5 was a disappointment for me to due to the silly 1UPT army limitations and limitations on early expansion/warfare.
I hope for CIV6 to re-enjoy the exciting feelings I had in the CIV4 multiplayer battles, weighing expansion with military.
If the focus is primarily singleplayer and 8+ multiplayer games are not stable, then I will probably say goodbye to the CIV franchise. Because in singleplayer, I find more EU4 to be more challenging. If you up the difficulty in CIV, then AI cheats with plain hammer bonusses and such
In EU4, you can much more freely choose harder nations or pursue harder goals.
CIV1 - CIV2 - (diablo2 interbellum) - CIV4 (vanilla) - EU4
Tried, but did not like:
CIV5, CK2
From growing up with the CIV games, I like playing EU4 as if it were a 4X game. I like to start as a minor country in the HRE, and then slowly expand. I had a lot of fun playing Hamburg as a colonial nation in one my previous EU4 games.
Never did I pick a big 1444 established country - that feels like cheating really, like starting with 4 settlers in a civ game
.The intricacies of managing your growing state is very appealing to me in EU4. I heard that previous versions of EU were a lot more hassle, though!
In CIV4 games, I rarely played beyond the Renaissance era. Occasionally I would go for a pacifism spacerace win, but these were a lot less satisfactory for me than hot multiplayer battles online, where you had to weigh expansion resources over military resources. To perfect CIV4 multiplayer you'd have to balance it just right so you had just enough military to defend your expansion. - This micromanaging was an absolutely great feeling.
CIV5 was a disappointment for me to due to the silly 1UPT army limitations and limitations on early expansion/warfare.
I hope for CIV6 to re-enjoy the exciting feelings I had in the CIV4 multiplayer battles, weighing expansion with military.
If the focus is primarily singleplayer and 8+ multiplayer games are not stable, then I will probably say goodbye to the CIV franchise. Because in singleplayer, I find more EU4 to be more challenging. If you up the difficulty in CIV, then AI cheats with plain hammer bonusses and such
In EU4, you can much more freely choose harder nations or pursue harder goals.sonicboom12345
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 35
Civ6 seems to be borrowing quite a few of its gameplay features from EU4. Which isn't necessarily a bad idea, because EU4 was a heck of a lot better than Civ5-BNW.
Steam statistics: Civ5 played by 41,125 people, EU4 played by 4523 people, a nice fact to support your opinion. Also, what features are borrowed by Civ6 exactly? Casus belli was not invented by EU4, just saying.
This is getting much like the civ4 vs civ5 argument. Vocal minority laments flogging a dead horse.
Civ vs Endless legend is a much more sensible comparison, EL had in my opinion a very interesting feature, namely that city placement depended on regions, avoiding city clutter and making the game somewhat more strategic. The unit upgrade system was also nice, civ6 seems to be able to create something similar with support units. The rest of its features were mostly pretty tiresome (very bad combat system, horrible AI), but the territory division was interesting.
EU is no longer scripted heavy,railroaded..You guys are talking old Paradox.
EU is sort of the game you try when you want a closer historical experience that Civ can never give you.I play both as they are very different games.
EU is sort of the game you try when you want a closer historical experience that Civ can never give you.I play both as they are very different games.
Civ6 and EU4 aren't similar. The cassus belli in Civ6 is still lacking a lot of feature from EU4 and don't even get me started with other factors such as culture, religion, army, advisers etc. EU4 is just more in depth and more historically accurate than Civ will ever be (unless future civs becomes more historical)
stealth_nsk
Deity
I really hope that's "will ever be". The games belong to different genres and while I understand people who like EU, for me it's a piece of junk.
sonicboom12345
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 35
A lot more people play Candy Crush than Civ5. I guess it's a better game than both, by the same standards of logic.
sonicboom12345
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 35
Okay. Clash of Clans then.
sonicboom12345
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 35
Maybe that's the road Civ6 should have gone down then. If only it were more of an 'RTS twitch-fest,' then perhaps it would bring in 1,000,000 players per day instead of just 50,000 like Civ5 does. That would obviously make it a 20x better game. Since, y'know, a game's daily active playerbase is such a stellar measure of how good it is.
Dude, just admit Civ 5 is a very highly ranked TBS. EU4 is similar in that you can pause the action to issue orders. Most of us here prefer Civ to grind grind core core. Rinse and repeat. EU4 is fine for what it is. I own it, I don't play much, I prefer CK2.
I get you don't care what is more popular but 2k games does and Civ series has delivered so far.
I get you don't care what is more popular but 2k games does and Civ series has delivered so far.
Similar threads
