[GS] Civ6 vs. EU4

[Fluphen Azine]

I have played Civ since 97.
I decided to buy EU4 and all the DLC for $175.
Not a big deal since this credit card will give me back $150 of it.
After playing it a bit one has to admit that Civ has a lot going for it.
The ease of play and aesthetics of Civ, IMO, crushes EU4.
EU4's units and the map kinda remind me of Lords of the Realm 2.
Looking back this is most likely an impulse buy that could be a mistake.
I may have been better off going back to Civ IV for awhile.
Just curious if anyone else plays both games and their thoughts on them.
Any comparison would be appreciated.
Especially thoughts on the highest difficulty levels compared.
In retrospect I spent about $100 on Civ V and $100 on Civ VI.
I haven't played Civ V or Civ IV since Civ VI came out.
This is mostly just to stay current and the natural progression.
This is also because I played a ton of Multi Player.
I still think Civ IV is the best in the series.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I made a thread on this very topic not too long ago. I find civ6 to be easier to get into. EU4 seems very obtuse to me. I figured out the super basics like moving units or building stuff but a lot of the mechanics are not very intuitive to me. When the game gives me a notification about a problem like loyalty is dropping in a province or my national goals says something like "win the favor of the pope", I have no idea what to do.

 

[Browd]

Here is a link to the thread SupremacyKing2 started: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/comparing-civ6-to-civ4.639299/

 

[Krajzen]

I spent a ton of time both on Civ5 and EU4, as well as their forums. Those are pretty different experiences.

Civ is more casual, arcade 4X turn game which can be played by people of all ages and backgrounds, relatively easy to get into. It has very conservative development model: every few years new Civ iteration appears, after various dev videos and press releases, and then it gets some sudden patches and 2-3 old style expansions.
EU4 is product of very specific niche of Paradox Interactive. Very strongly based in one historical period, quite obsessively taken care of (recent edition has around 700 countries ), real time grand strategy with a **** ton of mechanics and modifiers, hard to get into because it is constantly evolving from patch to patch, from DLC to DLC, with current version of EU4 being extremely different experience from old EU4 - which means all sorts of manuals and old advice are useless and you need time to adapt to the current version. I prefeer using its wiki as manual, other people prefer youtube videos.

I recommend both

 

[slo]

I have played both....we all know what we like and don't like with civ...so

eu….great music, great graphics....some great mechanics, some bad mechanics.....biggest problem with EU is I always get bored as the game takes too long to go anywhere. You will play for 5 hrs and be more or less doing the same things, unlike CIV, EU never really goes any where...it will take about 5 hrs or so to get to colonization. Colonization is very fun and rewarding, however not all countries have the opportunity to colonize so you are limited to what countries to play as if you want to play the colonization game. About 3-5 more hrs after that and you get to play with the high end trading game and dealing with the liberty desire of your colonies...if you played that part of the game. The other big difference is that you will always be at war, thinking about war, planning for war or recovering from war...the point of the time period is to paint the map....which I don't like.

Economy is better in EU, trade is better in EU, diplomacy is better in EU and I find the AI much better in EU, but I am not very good at EU, evidently after about 500hrs or so you will think the AI sucks...

Eu is a good game, I have spent a lot of money on it, but I find I ALWAYS get bored about 1/3 of the way through the game.

Hope it helps.

slo

 

[Leucarum]

I pretty much skipped civ5 in favour of eu4 (heretical I know but civ5 never grabbed me!). The learning curve is steep for eu4 but still lower than most of paradox's games. They are also awful at tutorials... I enjoyed it, it solves some of civ6's problems while creating new ones... but it outlived my interest somewhat in the end.

 

[Fluphen Azine]

I made a thread on this very topic not too long ago. I find civ6 to be easier to get into. EU4 seems very obtuse to me. I figured out the super basics like moving units or building stuff but a lot of the mechanics are not very intuitive to me. When the game gives me a notification about a problem like loyalty is dropping in a province or my national goals says something like "win the favor of the pope", I have no idea what to do.

Here is a link to the thread SupremacyKing2 started: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/comparing-civ6-to-civ4.639299/

I apologize for creating another identical thread that you already have created.
I searched but obviously not good enough as I missed your entire thread comparing the two already.
Perhaps the Mods would like to merge this thread into the SupremacyKing2 thread as they are one in the same.
Perhaps that is Civ6 to Civ4 being a little different comparison.

I have to admit the music in EU4 is my favorite thing about it so far.
This is one game I actually went through all the tutorials first which is something I never do in any game.
Most games I play I just jump right to the hardest difficulty level and take my lumps till I learn.
I find watching youtube to be very easy to copy players and pick up on how to play a game.
I also find that Forums like this to be invaluable for strategy and sharing games making it more fun.
Reading manuals can be a bit daunting when compared.

I think the transition is going to be difficult though.
I already miss Civ6 in general even though I find it to be a cake walk.
Just something about the graphics and ease of play.
You see why it has been around so long despite its problems.

I pretty much skipped civ5 in favour of eu4 (heretical I know but civ5 never grabbed me!). The learning curve is steep for eu4 but still lower than most of paradox's games. They are also awful at tutorials... I enjoyed it, it solves some of civ6's problems while creating new ones... but it outlived my interest somewhat in the end.

I remember the die hard Civ IV players calling Civ V blasphemous!
They skipped Civ V and Civ VI.
I think they still feel that way and even more so about Civ VI.
I am pretty sure they only play Civ IV till this day!

 

[Vahnstad]

They're IMO so different that you can't compare them. But Paradox DLC policy is terrible (overpriced for just a few new mechanics and flavour). Civ is more arcade-y and turn-based strategy compelling all of mankind's timeline while the Paradox grand strategy games simulate more and are real-time based strategy and focuses more on a certain age.

 

[DWilson]

EUIV is fun for some historical roleplaying (well beyond what civ can offer, at least within that time frame). I enjoy doing things like forming Italy or Germany, fighting as France to claim the British Isles, dominating the HRE as Austria, etc. That said, I get tired of it much more quickly than civ, and the graphics are maybe comparable to Civ IV, if that, which wears me out.

I've been spoiled by the beauty of the civ series.

What I like about civ is that it feels more flexible and variable. Anything can happen, and I enjoy this form of empire building more.

Overall, I have gotten far worse value (hours per dollar) in EUIV than out of CiV, CiVI, of Civ Rev (my first experience with a civ game). Honestly, and this will offend many, I enjoyed Beyond Earth (especially with Rising Tide) far more than EUIV.

That's not to say EUIV is bad, but rather than if there aren't significant discounts, I wouldn't buy. Civilization products I'll buy on launch.

 

[footslogger]

As has been said, they are very different games but I've had a lot of fun playing both. I like Civ's freedom to plot your own destiny. It can feel a bit restricting in EU4 knowing that there are historical guidelines you cannot easily stray beyond. The AI is better in EU4 and their combat system is way superior, something the computer can handle. When an army approaches in EU4 you feel real apprehension - in Civ barely at all. For me that's the biggest difference of all. How can you really enjoy a strategy game, whether historical simulator or more free-form civ experience, when the AI opponents are never truly to be feared?

 

[CivLuvah]

Something I wrote in this thread, but I feel deserves more here in this one.

I would rather compare Civ6 on its own - by that I mean the rest of the franchise. Paradox games let you play with mechanics that closely reflect historical conditions, so they're more like an alternative history/historical simulation game. The Civilization franchise is mostly semi-fantastical, in which you start from scratch (4000BC), and play on what is essentially an extended, interactive, sophisticated board game in which you pretend to be a unique civilization with a unique leader. If I would want to have a global Irish empire with Great Britain as its core, I would go and play a Paradox game. If I would want to play as the Irish against the Maori, Maya, and Germany, I would play a Civ game. Comparing the two is like comparing tangerines and oranges, sometimes I like tangerines, sometimes oranges. They're both different fruits with the same content.

In addition, I would agree that the main target audience of Civ6 is a general one while Paradox games seem to cater to those who want a deeper strategy.

 

[Fluphen Azine]

Something I wrote in this thread, but I feel deserves more here in this one.

I would rather compare Civ6 on its own - by that I mean the rest of the franchise. Paradox games let you play with mechanics that closely reflect historical conditions, so they're more like an alternative history/historical simulation game. The Civilization franchise is mostly semi-fantastical, in which you start from scratch (4000BC), and play on what is essentially an extended, interactive, sophisticated board game in which you pretend to be a unique civilization with a unique leader. If I would want to have a global Irish empire with Great Britain as its core, I would go and play a Paradox game. If I would want to play as the Irish against the Maori, Maya, and Germany, I would play a Civ game. Comparing the two is like comparing tangerines and oranges, sometimes I like tangerines, sometimes oranges. They're both different fruits with the same content.

In addition, I would agree that the main target audience of Civ6 is a general one while Paradox games seem to cater to those who want a deeper strategy.

I understand your point and can agree with it.
We don't have to compare one against the other in this thread.
I am just trying to get a feel from the community of the differences or which is a better experience.
I understand that is subjective and I need to play both to fully form my opinion.
Since I am new to EU4 but a long time Civ Addict I felt this was the best place to ask the question.
One thing I like about this forum is everyone pretty much sticks to the game discussion.
Nobody starts talking about another topic like politics or something.
I trust that I can come to you guys and talk about Civ or Civ like games and get honest reactions/opinions.
This is the most Civil Forum that I belong to.

I don't find the UI that difficult to learn in EU4 but I see it is going to take serious dedication to get the hang of.
Especially the strategy and harder levels.
No difference for me. I am prone to games like this and will pick up what to do from the Lets Plays.
All games have exploits so I know it will in the end just be a video game.

So far I just don't have that next turn feeling from EU4.
Although I plopped down 175 dollars I feel like I could just forget EU4.
Something about Civ always gets me to come back no matter how easy or silly it seems.
For over ten years I have said I am done with Civ because in the end it is just a dumb game.
The next day I wake up and play another 4 hours so it is a sickeness lol.

Perhaps once I really get into EU4 I will have that same feeling but I fear not.
I feel that I agree with the above posts that say it is easier to quit an EU4 game and forget about it.
However, I always have a nagging feeling to finish my Civ games or at the least start another 100 turn game.
For 15 years I always had to finish a game to the bitter end.
Just recently I have gotten into 100 turns and start another one to work on my opening.

I appreciate the feedback so far and want to thank all contributors and hope to see more posts and learn more.
I think the main point is that EU4 doesn't have that "next turn" feeling like Civ games have for most players.

 

[Siptah]

For me personally eu4 >>> civ VI. But I like both, and play them side by side (and CK2 as well). EU4 games tend to be more different from each other and they often aren‘t that linear. So as soon as I finish or leave a game, I want to start a new one in a different region of the world/government form/size etc. Games only feel the same for me in the last 100 years if I went for blobbing.

The tutorial doesn‘t help too much. The game itself isn‘t that hard, actually, you don‘t need to know all mechanics to do your first successful games on easy. Watch tutorials by Reman (Trade & Combat) or a Arumba playthrough to get to know how the basics works. Playing Portugla for colonization is pretty easy if you manage to ally Spain for a starter - but it isn‘t the most interesting game.

For my first game, I cheated for money (that was EU3 though) - it doesn‘t guarantee victory, but you can focus on other things than finances and learn the rest of the game. You could alternatively cheat for manpower and concentrate on earning money.

For me, EU4 definitely has the „next turn“ feeling. It‘s just not about turns, but about tasks. There‘s always one more thing I want to do real quick before I stop playing...

 

[Unconquered Sun]

I just don't have that next turn feeling from EU4.

Naturally. EU4 has no turns.

 

[Melliores]

The main difference between CIV and EU4 is context - EU4 embraces the historical context of the era/s in full force and makes you feel right at home if you are a history buff. I am interested and well versed in history, so naturally I find that appealing. Moreover, they create music and unit models specific for given regions/cultures, as well as religions/mechanics that try to simulate the way of life of a certain culture.

CIV on the other hand has made big strides in CIV 6 to flesh out the context - palace models, unit models (in Gathering Storm), each civ has a musical theme that evolves during the Eras, unique buildings/improvements/infrastructure. Yet, CIV remains a well-balanced game, accessible by all - not too sophisticated and difficult, with good flavour and context and interesting gameplay.

If you want to roleplay history in a certain period, EU4 is an excellent game for that, Crusader Kings 2 as well, plus they have an adequate AI. However a game there can take sometimes months in real life to complete, especially if you have a family/home/job to take care of. If you want a fun experience where you can play with a few different civilizations and appreciate them every week, then CIV is the game for you.

I remember reading Victoria here and she seemed to be completing a game of CIV in a day or two. You can also easily switch to a faster speed or smaller map to have a faster paced experience.

Good to note is that both games are relatively easy to mod and have a pretty good complement of mods for each.

 

[CivLuvah]

However a game there can take sometimes months in real life to complete, especially if you have a family/home/job to take care of.

I remember my first game in EUIV as France took me two months to complete. And even then.... I used console cheats because at the middle of my game I have no idea which is supposed to affect what.

I remember the die hard Civ IV players calling Civ V blasphemous!
They skipped Civ V and Civ VI.
I think they still feel that way and even more so about Civ VI.
I am pretty sure they only play Civ IV till this day!

I was a die hard Civ4 player, and yes, I would call Civ5 blasphemous. But I moved on, and I have a lot of good things to say about Civ6.

 

[acluewithout]

I'd really like to get into EU4. But I don't have much time to play Civ, let alone learn how to play EU4 and then somehow find time to play that too.

Honestly though. The fact EU4 is not turned based is a huge negative for me.

 

[Siptah]

Honestly though. The fact EU4 is not turned based is a huge negative for me.

Why? You pause an awful lot to do most things. During war, you play at slow speed (2) otherwise you rush through the weeks (4 or 5). I don‘t see a downside compared to turns in SP, and being able to speed through some months when there isn‘t much to do is definitely an upside compared to hitting next turn for 10 turns...

 

[acluewithout]

Why? You pause an awful lot to do most things. During war, you play at slow speed (2) otherwise you rush through the weeks (4 or 5). I don‘t see a downside compared to turns in SP, and being able to speed through some months when there isn‘t much to do is definitely an upside compared to hitting next turn for 10 turns...

You know, the minute I wrote the no turn thing I knew someone would say that...

Yeah, I know. And I agree being able to speed through some portions must be a boon. But I get interrupted so much, have so little time to play, that I really appreciate having everything permanent frozen at one turn at a time.

I'm sure if I got into EU4 I'd get used to it, but as I said, I'm very time poor...

 

[Fluphen Azine]

Naturally. EU4 has no turns.

LOL
This is true.
I kinda forgot.
To be fair, I think players pause the game often.
Also, my opinion doesn't mean anything because I do not have enough EU4 hours.
I think I will need 500 to 1000 to get any type of opinion.