Civ VI vs. Europa Universalis

[Brianstorm]

They have released a random world generator for EU4 now.

I think the random world generator for Civ games is very cool and they are getting better with each iteration. Nothing wrong with TSL, though. Rhye's mod for cIV is one of the greatest mods for the Civ series ever. Second to FFH2, IMHO.

Well I'll have to check it out, how does it even work? Does it simulate history up to the start of the game or just start you on random continents?

Also DCM Revolution is clearly the superior mod of all Civ 4 mods. Start off with 4 or 5 ancient Civs with Raging Barbs and Barbs Become Civs ticked and you got yourself a wild game!

 

[isau]

Well I'll have to check it out, how does it even work? Does it simulate history up to the start of the game or just start you on random continents?

Also DCM Revolution is clearly the superior mod of all Civ 4 mods. Start off with 4 or 5 ancient Civs with Raging Barbs and Barbs Become Civs ticked and you got yourself a wild game!

EU is basically like a big database with a bunch of pre-programmed scripts that cause things to happen at a certain time in history. You have control over a small segment of that (to start). Decisions you make can effect other nations which in turn can change history. Or not.

If we're just throwing other games out there BTW two I would put in the more "civ" category, and that have plenty of stuff I'd like Civ to steal, are Age of Wonders 3 and Endless Legend. I split my time between those 2 while waiting for Civ 5. AoW3 wasn't great on release (like Civ) but patches and expansions have made it great. Totally different feel than any of these games but I love it.

 

[Xen]

Comparing EU to Civ is like comparing Arma to Crysis. Both are top tier in what they are offering.

@Acken Shallow? Please. Compared to Civ4, yes. Civ5 offered as much depth as my bathtub. What EU lacks in depth (again, compared to civ4), it compensates with detail, never seen in any civ game.

I agree with this- The EU series seems trashed alot due to being needlessly complicated, a history simulator (HA!), or a spread sheet .

I have news for you- any game I can start as the Florentine republic, amd end up as elecred monarch of the HRE while holding all of North America in colonial holdings from a bastuon of a united Italy is NOT a “history simulator”. It is fun though, because it has so many little details and nuances that it cak have because unlike civ it focuses in on a certain time frame.

There arw thematic ideas civ can take from the EU series- casus belli akd war exhaustion have always been the big ones, but the other is that Ibalways feltblike diplomacy, impersonal as it is in EU, feels more realistic.

I also like how EU doesnt need big fancy leader screens, and rulers (and even dynasties) cange over time and in specific personalities. But its hard ro see how that could be brought pver to civ.

 

[Brianstorm]

EU is basically like a big database with a bunch of pre-programmed scripts that cause things to happen at a certain time in history. You have control over a small segment of that (to start). Decisions you make can effect other nations which in turn can change history. Or not.

If we're just throwing other games out there BTW two I would put in the more "civ" category, and that have plenty of stuff I'd like Civ to steal, are Age of Wonders 3 and Endless Legend. I split my time between those 2 while waiting for Civ 5. AoW3 wasn't great on release (like Civ) but patches and expansions have made it great. Totally different feel than any of these games but I love it.

I've played plenty of there games, I meant the new map generator feature that was mentioned, how does that work while having historical precedence?

 

[Playsoneasy]

...the only game I have ever resorted to watching YouTube videos just to understand what I'm even supposed to be doing.

It was watching Quill18's playthroughs that persuaded me to get EU3 way back in 2013.

But is there really any need to frame this as one vs t'other? They both entertain and frustrate, delight and infuriate in equal measure for different reasons, and there's plenty of room on our shelves (and Hard Dives) for both of them.

 

[Bibor]

EU is basically like a big database with a bunch of pre-programmed scripts that cause things to happen at a certain time in history. You have control over a small segment of that

Anyone who played more than one EU4 start knows this is false; I'm unsure what you're trying to accomplish here. It's not like bad-mouthing EU will make us like or dislike civ more. There are some pre-programmed important events like The Reformation, sure, but the same is true for Civ games: ideologies, world congress... most strategy games have important triggers in one form or another.

 

[Ebrim]

EU1 and EU2 were much more "deterministic". I remember in EU2 MP being in coalitions where you'd wait to start a war against France and her allies until France's religious turmoil events kicked in giving you a window of relative weakness. One would also know what rulers they had and when and when they got the truly brutal leaders. That was fun, and great for learning history but I prefer the course they started with 3 where it's more themes. I certainly don't think of EU4 as overly complex and I've been playing EU series longer than any other.

But yeah, I play Civ and EU for different things. Just like I play Civ and World of Warships for different things. Comparisons are difficult.

 

[Acken]

I'm unsure what you're trying to accomplish here. It's not like bad-mouthing EU will make us like or dislike civ more.

Oh the irony.

Moderator Action: Please do not troll other posters.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Nikae]

There is a funny thing about EU4, it is the steam reviews. Steam says they are overwhelmingly positive, which is true, but is just part of the whole picture. In fact it has got quite a lot of negatives, which are actually well written, while most of the positives are like 'good game lol'. Even positive reviews criticize replayability. Also, people grew to hate the extremely greedy business model, I cannot blame them, the whole game costs 189 pounds, that is ridiculous, it is more expensive than Starcraft2 with all expansions, Civ5 with all expansions and Homm5 with all expansions combined. Yes, it provides better insight into history. Good thing, I always wanted to play an encyclopedia and not a game.

In EU4 the AI is abysmal, has got every flaw of every civ game, somehow people forget that. There are a myriad of little details that end up insignificant, the game fails to tell you how to play, and everything becomes a means to the same end. More precisely to no end, since the game has no real goal, it is really like an open world RPG without quests.

All in all it again boils down to the same thing, different focus, different playstyle, different goals, different genre, totally pointless to compare.

Also, I love to say I told so. No matter that civ4 vs civ5 is an old and dead argument, it does not even have to do anything with the topic, it HAD TO be brought up. Icing on the cake that you yourself say that what EU lacks in depth, it makes up for in detail, which is a rephrase of what Acken said, complexity without depth...

But see how many eu fans will chime in just to trash civ simply because it is not that complex, and how many civ4 fans will chime in just to trash civ5.

@Acken Shallow? Please. Compared to Civ4, yes. Civ5 offered as much depth as my bathtub. What EU lacks in depth (again, compared to civ4), it compensates with detail, never seen in any civ game.

I'm unsure what you're trying to accomplish here. It's not like bad-mouthing civ5 will make us discard it and return to civ4.

Sent from my Zanussi ZRG16610 using CoolType.

 

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

The problem I had with EU2 was the feeling that there was no AI. I don't mean bad AI, or flawed AI, or weak AI: No AI. No sense that any of the other nations were being played.

It took me quite a few hours of play to reach that conclusion, as I figured out how to play.

I admire all the research that went into the game.

But there was no there there.

I can't complain though; the dollars/hour ratio was very good, and I enjoyed the game very much... until I finished my first full game.

Anyway,

Ken

 

[JimmyBanks]

Hi all,

I was wondering how Civ VI might compare to Europa Universalis? Civ V seemed to be far from the EU complexity, so do we expect Civ VI to close that gap at least a bit?

MrDoubleG

I love Civ. I am very happy with where it looks like they are headed. I'll let you know on Oct 21st once I've played a game if I think differently. As for wether they "close that gap" I reallyt hope they don't, IMO that would mean they are taking a massive step backwards. I tried getting into EU but just couldn't. It's a game I prefer to watch on Youtube or Twitch rather than actually play myself.

 

[dturtle1]

EU4 is good fun. Sure, it's very complex, but you dont need to understand how everything works and how to min/max it to play the game. Just play as Portugal and try to make as much money as you can....

My only experience with EU4..... I quit before i found the Caribbean

I didn't really feel in control. It felt sort of like just management without the strategy. I really should give it another go, maybe play a youtube tutorial(if they are any...seems like it go really well). As far as Paradox Games go I prefer Crusader Kings 2 but even that has its limitations. My crowning glory was forming the Country of Ireland aka the tutorial mission . Paradox games have a ridiculous amount of data to sift through, with surprisingly very little player agency. I would like to be able play them, but man.... they dont make it easy. Kinda like Eve Online, Huge payoffs that require even bigger player investment to achieve

 

[Bibor]

Icing on the cake that you yourself say that what EU lacks in depth, it makes up for in detail, which is a rephrase of what Acken said, complexity without depth...

Complexity =/= detail.

Detail: province/city names, flavor events, government ranks & types, dynasties, various map overlays, states, dependencies (vassals/marches/colonies/protectorates), dynamic province and nation names, formable countries, province-based culture, global events (little ice age, eruption of Huaynaputina etc.), revolutions and revolutionary governments, histories (diaries) etc.

None of these make the game more complex, they add more detail.

Paradox games have a ridiculous amount of data to sift through, with surprisingly very little player agency. I would like to be able play them, but man.... they dont make it easy. Kinda like Eve Online, Huge payoffs that require even bigger player investment to achieve

I never played CK2 for this very reason: too much information. But it's the best representation of how the vassal (nobility) system worked in this period. It was complex. However, you are wrong on player agency. Just like in CIV, all the moves the AI does are also available to you. The AI is not preprogrammed.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

I'm still unclear, which one is faster 0-60?

 

[dturtle1]

However, you are wrong on player agency. Just like in CIV, all the moves the AI does are also available to you. The AI is not preprogrammed.

I don't understand, Player Agency to me is how much interaction the player has with the game. I am not saying the A.I is pre-programmed, I am saying for all the detail and information and mechanics, there is not a lot to do

 

[Krajzen]

EU and civ are so dramatically different games one of them as well could be ww2 FPS.

 

[isau]

To get back to the question that started the thread, there are some things about EU I am glad to see Civ VI pick up, namely the casus belli system. It is a mechanic with a clear purpose, easy to understand mechanics, and interesting outcomes.

I fear if Civ were to go further down the route of EU though we'd be getting 15 casus belli instead of 4 or 5. Half of them would be grayed out at any given time and most of them would affect you in unclear ways. You'd probably stick to just using 1 or 2 of them over and over.

Civ V gets trashed by some people, who claim it is not a complicated game. On that I disagree. Civ V introduced city states, faith as a separate resource, customizable religions, and tactical combat, which are all more complex than Civ IV. The real failing of Civ V is how these things were balanced, which leads some people to conclude that the game is "solvable." This is somewhat accurate--the optimal build order becomes semi-clear, and because it is most effective to create a 4 city empire and sit on it, people disregard whole other huge chunks of the game. This isn't a complexity problem, it's a balance one. We only ever got 1 balance patch after BNW came out, which IMO was a huge mistake. Civ V is much more complex than IV and needed more tuning. The community balance patch addresses an awful lot of this. The things Civ VI will bring--a second take on city states, religion, tactical combat, etc.--leave plenty of interestingly complex systems for developers to tune.

 

[stealth_nsk]

To get back to the question that started the thread, there are some things about EU I am glad to see Civ VI pick up, namely the casus belli system. It is a mechanic with a clear purpose, easy to understand mechanics, and interesting outcomes.

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.

 

[dturtle1]

And there is more to EU4 Casus belli then fabricating Claims,

But no, Civ didnt steal or borrow Casus belli idea from Paradox, it is not like its a new concept. No one owns ideas, just their implementations.

 

[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...