Civ VI vs. Europa Universalis

[sonicboom12345]

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.

Yes. I get that you find Civ5-BNW very enthralling. Personally, I don't find it very fun to play an empire-building game where it's poor play to found more than four cities, or to take anything outside of Tradition or Rationalism. Where there's no incentive to go to war, because there's no competition for land, because the map doesn't fill up even if you play to 3000 AD.

I get it. It's a very appealing game for passive players who love to while away their time on something easy and addictive, with forgiving gameplay, and constant positive reinforcement, and AI so inept it makes them feel like tactical geniuses. It doesn't surprise me at all that it has 50,000 daily players on Steam. It's the same feel-good gameplay that draws people to games like Clash of Clans.

I recognize there are people who prefer it. I think it's a shame, but it is what it is. But if you can't recognize, in turn, that there's a significant schism in the Civ community between the Civ2-SMAC-Civ4 crowd and Civ5 crowd, and a *lot* of the former have become so disenchanted they've migrated to games like EU4 and CK2, and the fact that Civ6 seems to be incorporating certain gameplay features from those titles offers a ray of hope to them that maybe the franchise can have reasonably in-depth strategy again, then I don't know what to tell you. Keep on quoting multiplayer statistics, I guess.

 

[rastak]

Yes. I get that you find Civ5-BNW very enthralling. Personally, I don't find it very fun to play an empire-building game where it's poor play to found more than four cities, or to take anything outside of Tradition or Rationalism. Where there's no incentive to go to war, because there's no competition for land, because the map doesn't fill up even if you play to 3000 AD.

I get it. It's a very appealing game for passive players who love to while away their time on something easy and addictive, with forgiving gameplay, and constant positive reinforcement, and AI so inept it makes them feel like tactical geniuses. It doesn't surprise me at all that it has 50,000 daily players on Steam. It's the same feel-good gameplay that draws people to games like Clash of Clans.

I recognize there are people who prefer it. I think it's a shame, but it is what it is. But if you can't recognize, in turn, that there's a significant schism in the Civ community between the Civ2-SMAC-Civ4 crowd and Civ5 crowd, and a *lot* of the former have become so disenchanted they've migrated to games like EU4 and CK2, and the fact that Civ6 seems to be incorporating certain gameplay features from those titles offers a ray of hope to those people that maybe, maybe the franchise can have reasonably in-depth strategy again, then I don't know what to tell you. Keep on quoting multiplayer statistics, I guess.

Why are you here again? I am just asking why? I have a few games I don't like and I've never been to their forums. Just curious for the motivation. I believe everyone is welcome to civilization fanatics, which translates to people fanatical about the game.

 

[Acken]

I get it. It's a very appealing game for passive players who love to while away their time on something easy and addictive, with forgiving gameplay, and constant positive reinforcement, and AI so inept it makes them feel like tactical geniuses.

Oh yeah let's talk about EU4 AI.

 

[RohirrimElf]

switched from eu4 back and forth from civ 5 many times.

I find civ 4 better then eu4 by a good bit. Most of the time i prefer eu4 over civ 5 (mind you i play 1-2-3 province settlements so i wont be a superpower untill 150-200 years). Eu4 just is a great game with superb support till this day. When civ 6 comes out i`ll have to reconsider which is best once more. Probably switch to civilization series for a long time to come. (When civ 6 is not a worse version of civ5+mods at launch)

 

[Manifold]

Yes. I get that you find Civ5-BNW very enthralling. Personally, I don't find it very fun to play an empire-building game where it's poor play to found more than four cities, or to take anything outside of Tradition or Rationalism. Where there's no incentive to go to war, because there's no competition for land, because the map doesn't fill up even if you play to 3000 AD.

I get it. It's a very appealing game for passive players who love to while away their time on something easy and addictive, with forgiving gameplay, and constant positive reinforcement, and AI so inept it makes them feel like tactical geniuses. It doesn't surprise me at all that it has 50,000 daily players on Steam. It's the same feel-good gameplay that draws people to games like Clash of Clans.

I recognize there are people who prefer it. I think it's a shame, but it is what it is. But if you can't recognize, in turn, that there's a significant schism in the Civ community between the Civ2-SMAC-Civ4 crowd and Civ5 crowd, and a *lot* of the former have become so disenchanted they've migrated to games like EU4 and CK2, and the fact that Civ6 seems to be incorporating certain gameplay features from those titles offers a ray of hope to them that maybe the franchise can have reasonably in-depth strategy again, then I don't know what to tell you. Keep on quoting multiplayer statistics, I guess.

Did you really have already played the Civ-games of which you write or did you describe your playing style? My advice choose another Difficulty and try to win the game as fast as possible

 

[Reboot]

I'm a long-time Civ player (see my Join Date) and also enjoyed CK1, CK2, EUIII, EUIV.

Both use History as a canvas, but as noted by some here, these two game-series are very different.

Civ is a 4X game using familiar historical pieces set in a (usually) remade world. It is themed down to the victory conditions and abstracts itself to cover the span of ages. Increasing complexity in Civ is to cater to gameplay and engagement.

EU is a systems simulator that emulates the most prominent systems in history in a (usually) historical setting. It is open ended and requires a limited specific historical window - you cannot use the same character-centred politics in CK for EU, for example. The current complexity in EU is for historical accuracy and immersion.

 

[paulmclem]

Just watched the Quill18 EU4 tutorial series. A lot to take in but at heart I don't think it's that complicated. A lot of things to keep an eye on, yes. A lot of plates to spin etc. However, I think a few hours of videos + a few hours of play should be enough for you to get into the mechanics. After that it's simply practice and experience. I can see myself playing it a fair bit.

 

[Lord Shadow]

EU and Civ are great, different games.

It's really not necessary to bash one to highlight the merits of the other.

 

[Nikae]

Yes. I get that you find Civ5-BNW very enthralling. Personally, I don't find it very fun to play an empire-building game where it's poor play to found more than four cities, or to take anything outside of Tradition or Rationalism. Where there's no incentive to go to war, because there's no competition for land, because the map doesn't fill up even if you play to 3000 AD.

I get it. It's a very appealing game for passive players who love to while away their time on something easy and addictive, with forgiving gameplay, and constant positive reinforcement, and AI so inept it makes them feel like tactical geniuses. It doesn't surprise me at all that it has 50,000 daily players on Steam. It's the same feel-good gameplay that draws people to games like Clash of Clans.

I recognize there are people who prefer it. I think it's a shame, but it is what it is. But if you can't recognize, in turn, that there's a significant schism in the Civ community between the Civ2-SMAC-Civ4 crowd and Civ5 crowd, and a *lot* of the former have become so disenchanted they've migrated to games like EU4 and CK2, and the fact that Civ6 seems to be incorporating certain gameplay features from those titles offers a ray of hope to them that maybe the franchise can have reasonably in-depth strategy again, then I don't know what to tell you. Keep on quoting multiplayer statistics, I guess.

These few lines express everything. I bet you never tried civ5 on higher difficulties, since there the map actually fills up by the end of the medieval era apart from the occasional city razing. Feel good gameplay, sure, try some scenarios on deity and then complain about feel good gameplay. I also bet you never tried any advanced mod for that matter, community balance patch for example turns the game into the micro fest you seem to admire so much. Do not get me started on the AI comment and EU4, that is really a weak point of that game.

Yes, there is a schism, it would be hard to miss the constant whining of certain people. Civ5 does not offer the same level of micro gameplay as civ4. An excellent counter is that civ5 went beyond the stacks of doom feature, offered advanced religion and culture gameplay,introduced city states, but sure, not the same level of micro. So your disenchanted side decided to turn away, while others tried to improve the game. The same cookie cutter approaches were present in both regardless, how many people played civ4 without abusing slavery or tech trading?

Tell me, what if civ6 is not going be the colorful excel mod EU4 is? What if it does not satisfy the micro hunger? Another 5 years of moaning, looking for a better management simulator with a historic setting and returning regularly to trash civ5 and civ6? Or going back and still wish for civ4 2.0?

 

[AlpsStranger]

complexity without depth sounds like it defeats the purpose of complexity, like you get the cons and not the pros. well for sandbox purposes I guess that may be quite alright (I love sandbox games)

I'll simply say, with no apology or shyness, that this is precisely why I am a Civfanatic and not an EUFanatic.

 

[sonicboom12345]

Why are you here again? I am just asking why? I have a few games I don't like and I've never been to their forums. Just curious for the motivation. I believe everyone is welcome to civilization fanatics, which translates to people fanatical about the game.

Because I've been playing Civilization since 1996, and there's a new addition to the franchise coming out in a month which I'm interested in if it turns out to be good.

Yes, there is a schism, it would be hard to miss the constant whining of certain people. Civ5 does not offer the same level of micro gameplay as civ4. An excellent counter is that civ5 went beyond the stacks of doom feature, offered advanced religion and culture gameplay,introduced city states, but sure, not the same level of micro. So your disenchanted side decided to turn away, while others tried to improve the game. The same cookie cutter approaches were present in both regardless, how many people played civ4 without abusing slavery or tech trading?

Tell me, what if civ6 is not going be the colorful excel mod EU4 is? What if it does not satisfy the micro hunger? Another 5 years of moaning, looking for a better management simulator with a historic setting and returning regularly to trash civ5 and civ6? Or going back and still wish for civ4 2.0?

Your attitude is not at all becoming. You're (presumably) an adult, with the capacity to respect other people's differences of opinion without bemoaning them for "whining" or trolling popular other games as "colorful spreadsheet simulators."

Now that you've put together this wonderful strawman postulating the reason I dislike Civ 5 is because it doesn't have enough micro, let me tear it down by saying it has nothing to do with that. I hate micro. That doesn't mean I can ignore the myriad other flaws in Civ 5 which detract from it, including its absurd global happiness system, its imbalance with respect to city states and idea groups, its tacked-on filler gameplay conceits like ideologies, its extremely passive and reactionary gameplay, its inexplicable hatred of roads, and yes, its 1UPT mechanic, which utterly broke the game. Trying to turn a strategy game like Civilization into a tactical combat game was not a good innovation. But what really destroys the game for me are the draconian penalties to science incurred for building, capturing, or puppeting new cities (thanks BNW!). Civ 5 is an empire-building game where you don't build an empire. I haven't had less fun playing a Civ game since Civ 3 ran amok with its corruption mechanics.

I do not wish to carry on this conversation any further. This thread is about Civ 6 and EU4, not any of the things you seem to want to talk about. I'll thank you to stay on topic and let go your grudge against me for "turning my back and not trying to improve the game" or whatever.

 

[Browd]

Moderator Action: Yes, this thread is about EU and Civ VI, not Civ V. Please return to that topic, and -- I shouldn't have to remind everyone (but I will) -- be civil.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Same as me. I had no problem playing the game. I had problem staying interested for longer than 100hours or so.

But really it's just picking the right modifier making an army and slowly creeping across the map until you get bored before the end. That game lacks progression and purpose to me. Feels like playing a never ending boardgame of clunky mechanics while I could instead play 10 games of faster and more fun ones

Interesting you'd mention this, considering the time between meaningful decision points in Civ 5 is greater than EU IV, and I complain about it in EU IV already. Post 1.12 Mesoamerica and NA are the only exceptions where EU IV has a comparable degree of waiting as a % of play experience.

If you "just pick the right modifier", you can also trivially destroy Civ V (you'll tech pretty well if always picking the correct modifier...) while you slowly creep across the map, with ever-growing turn lengths and input lag. It's the same stuff if you want to put it in those terms. Once you've "picked the right modifier", the fighting aspect of both games is shallow. Troop movements in EU IV carry a little risk with incomplete information, but they're not too hard on experienced players...but neither is mowing crap down with xbows + block units for 2/3 the game.

The games are different enough that strict comparisons are not too useful.

 

[Acken]

Interesting you'd mention this, considering the time between meaningful decision points in Civ 5 is greater than EU IV, and I complain about it in EU IV already.

I disagree on you here. Or at least on what you must consider meaningful. But my dislike doesnt have much to do with how meaningful decisions are anyway. It has to do with my perception of EU getting really boring and ultimately why I didnt play more than 130 hours of it. A bit like civbe now that I look at it. If you trade stock the whole day it can take very meaningful decisions but it doesnt mean youll find it interesting.

Your perception seems also heavily impacted by your slow turn times since you mention it as your problem over and over in this forum. Thats not a problem I have so my experience is different.
Hell just in time to complete a game we will have a very different perspective.

EU4 is just too grindy or aimless for me. And id be more inclined to like it if said grind could be completed in a few hours. however from experience its more than a few. Or you just quit a game to start another one with no feeling of achievement.

Where EU4 definitly wins however is in its multiplayer. At least it works afaik and real time is just a better experience to play multiplayer than having to wait on slow people.