[GS] Civ6 vs. EU4

[CivLuvah]

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

Then probably EUIV is not really for you, since the learning curve has been soooooo steep after 20+ DLC that you would need time to understand, let alone learn, some of the more complicated mechanics. I still have no idea how trade works or how it's supposed to look like, even after reading a lot about how trade works.

 

[Siptah]

Then probably EUIV is not really for you, since the learning curve has been soooooo steep after 20+ DLC that you would need time to understand, let alone learn, some of the more complicated mechanics. I still have no idea how trade works or how it's supposed to look like, even after reading a lot about how trade works.

Check Reman‘s Paradox channel and the trade guide there. It clears up the mechanics pretty well (which seem impossible to figure out yourself). Play a game focusing on trade, for example with Venice, and try to max it. It‘s a very interesting mechanic, relying heavily on the situation around you and on your ideas/nation modifiers. You can‘t take a lot of advantage of Trade in many situations, but when you can... oh, boy does it snowball if you invest in it.

 

[Kimiimaro]

I have played both and I enjoy both, though I have played much more of EU4 than of Civ VI. I simply enjoy it more. The games are both strategies, but quite different ones. Civ feels like playing a chill board game to me. EU4 makes me feel like a ruler of an empire (republic, theocracy, ...) much more.

AI of EU4 definitely wins over the AI of Civ VI. If the Ottoman Empire declares war on you and brings a massive army to your borders in Civ, you still have a very solid chance of defeating them by using tactics, and if you need it, spit stream of units form your cities using production/gold/faith. On the other hand, if the Ottoman Empire declares war on you and brings a massive army (and navy) to your borders in EU4, a real struggle for survival can begin. The thing is, the AI will prepare itself to war, and it will calculate the chances of victory. If the AI declares war on you, it knows why it's doing it. And I can only say from my experience that winning a war against a great enemy feels much more rewarding than beating the AI in Civ.

In Civ VI, you can more or less apply a universal strategy to win, though it's true that each map will be different, and this will shape the game significantly. EU4 feels to me that while the map is always the same, I have to solve new problems each time I play. Each game, there will be different powerful nations, different borders, different rivals and different sets of alliances that are going to affect politics and wars a lot.

But I don't want to only criticise Civ. There are positive things about it, too. In Civ, I value the fact that there are victories you can pursuit - be it going to space or spreading your religion. Finishing of the game is quite rewarding. In EU4, there isn't any official ending victory. After you reach the end date, a table with stats and pieces of information about your nation will appear. The only goals there are are the ones you pick in your head (like forming Italy/Germany/Qing/Roman Empire/whatever, restoring Zoroastrian Persia, conquering the world, ...). Well, and like in Civ, there are Steam achievements, too.

And, as it has been already said, Civ is much shorter and time-friendly. It takes me two to four days to finish a game on standart speed. If you wish to play full 1444-1821 campaign, it's going to take weeks, if not more than a month.

 

[Leucarum]

Also in EU4 a good idea is to learn specific mechanics a bit at a time by playing nations that specialize in them. France is good for learning how combat works as you have to fight a lot of early wars. Portugal is good for learning how colonization and exploration works. Venice if you want to learn more about trade. Austria if you want to learn about diplomacy etc...

 

[Siptah]

Also in EU4 a good idea is to learn specific mechanics a bit at a time by playing nations that specialize in them. France is good for learning how combat works as you have to fight a lot of early wars. Portugal is good for learning how colonization and exploration works. Venice if you want to learn more about trade. Austria if you want to learn about diplomacy etc...

Yes, indeed. But the same is true for civ: France for Spies, Sumer for alliances, Georgia for Protectorate War CB...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

EU 4 used to be better in some regards but patch 1.26 and on have gutted it. To put it mildly. I hold active disrespect for several major changes since then. The devs can't even make statements consistent with the reality of what happens in the game regarding them.

Even before that, however, the predatory DLC model and weird hard-on for patching out esoteric "exploits" rather than well-documented longstanding issues were showing decline in the game.

Civ 6 has its own problems, however. It seems they still have no UI expertise with things like adding queue but requiring it to be toggled a lot, and their MP policy is strictly inferior to EU 4's regarding DLC. There's the 3+ game spanning issue with design of AI behavior as well, though EU 4 kind of shares that.

I do know EU 4 a bit:

Spoiler :

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

EU4 makes me feel dumb. I found it very difficult to grasp.

 

[Leucarum]

Yes, indeed. But the same is true for civ: France for Spies, Sumer for alliances, Georgia for Protectorate War CB...

Yeah completely right, though I was mostly thinking about the OP's 'how to learn' question given that civ does a much better job of explaining things.

 

[Siptah]

EU 4 used to be better in some regards but patch 1.26 and on have gutted it. To put it mildly. I hold active disrespect for several major changes since then. The devs can't even make statements consistent with the reality of what happens in the game regarding them.

Even before that, however, the predatory DLC model and weird hard-on for patching out esoteric "exploits" rather than well-documented longstanding issues were showing decline in the game.

Civ 6 has its own problems, however. It seems they still have no UI expertise with things like adding queue but requiring it to be toggled a lot, and their MP policy is strictly inferior to EU 4's regarding DLC. There's the 3+ game spanning issue with design of AI behavior as well, though EU 4 kind of shares that.

I do know EU 4 a bit:

Spoiler :

You had diplomats in the last nations you conquered while at war? Or did you integrate the last ones? Also: how can you do a WC and not have coloring wastelands toggled on?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You had diplomats in the last nations you conquered while at war? Or did you integrate the last ones? Also: how can you do a WC and not have coloring wastelands toggled on?

Probably from annexing last enemies. Hate colored wastelands, way too easy to try to move into them in some areas of the world. EU 4 isn't exactly consistent about what it considers passable vs impassable terrain.

 

[CivLuvah]

Check Reman‘s Paradox channel and the trade guide there. It clears up the mechanics pretty well (which seem impossible to figure out yourself). Play a game focusing on trade, for example with Venice, and try to max it. It‘s a very interesting mechanic, relying heavily on the situation around you and on your ideas/nation modifiers. You can‘t take a lot of advantage of Trade in many situations, but when you can... oh, boy does it snowball if you invest in it.

I have. It's very helpful to be honest. Although it's really hard to actually know whether you're doing the right thing or not, as it's only showing your progress in very subtle ways.

 

[Amrunril]

I'd agree with the posts above that the two games fill very different niches. EU IV does many things well, but what it's never managed to do is make advancement outside of territorial expansion feel compelling. There's a complex economic system, but all of it essentially boils down to spending money to get either more money or a better military. There are plenty of choices, but to be made, but only rarely do they feel like decisions between distinct pathways as opposed to optimization problems. Most importantly, there's just very little to strive for outside of conquest. Conquest can unite a continent under the banner of a barely known historical power, but strong economic play can't bring about a social or technological advance even 25 years ahead of time.

In Civ, by contrast, conquest is only one of many interesting paths to pursue. The economic system is built around a series of distinct currencies (food, production, gold, culture, science, faith) which each have a clear and unique purpose. Developing a city or a civilization feels like you're actually building something, not just keeping up with a treadmill or increasing numbers in a spreadsheet. The multitude of objectives to compete for (wonders, great people, city states, victory conditions) serves both to provide goals and to ensure that civs are interacting with each other even when they aren't fighting. Many of the details are questionably or simply badly executed, but the underlying ideas make for a game that's compelling in more ways than any other I've played.

 

[agonistes]

When I got fed up with the lag that RnF introduced to the giant ynaemp maps, I went over to EU4.

EU4 is a better war game. Has some interesting diplomacy and historical events for civs. And many more civs to choose from (as well as being able to create your own).
Civ VI has much, much more to do, though, and is a far prettier game.

EU4, at least for me, can be a challenge sometimes. It still provides moments where I'm all "What? That can't be! That's impossible!" sometimes when one of my plans doesn't work out. I can't remember the last time that happened in a Civ game. So... in Civ, the ai accomplishes things only if I let them, in EU4 I get a feeling of "I have to stop them."

Right now, I'm enjoying GS (DL'd it last night, played a Dido and Hungary start). Probably play again after work (as Russia, hee hee, just to show these upstarts who the big boy on the block is).

edit: One of the downsides to EU4, though, is that the 'guy you have to stop' is always the same guy. Its fairly uncommon to see an unexpected upstart in the game.

 

[Kimiimaro]

edit: One of the downsides to EU4, though, is that the 'guy you have to stop' is always the same guy.

Lemme guess... It's the Ottoman Empire?

Just making sure whether it is. I've also had the Commonwealth being a beast able to beat the crap out of the Ottoman Empire and Russia alike, and Ming Dynasty is almost always massive giant with army of half million of soldiers in the late game.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Lemme guess... It's the Ottoman Empire?

Just making sure whether it is. I've also had the Commonwealth being a beast able to beat the crap out of the Ottoman Empire and Russia alike, and Ming Dynasty is almost always massive giant with army of half million of soldiers in the late game.

Ming is annoying if you start near them and aren't a horde, maybe a little worse than Ottomans. Those would be the most significant two for most positions. Maybe Iberians if you're Morocco or something.

 

[CivLuvah]

Don't forget France and Austria. Unless they've nerfed the AI for those countries - last time I checked they can make blobs (France) or have a lot of vassals and connections to spruce up armies (Austria).

 

[Depravo]

The EU series jumped the shark after EU2. I play War in the East but I couldn't make head or tail of HoI3 and won't bother with 4. EU3 was OK, Vic 2 was a flawed thing of beauty, but the formula is played out.

CK2 has also become a casualty of the policy of slapping tons of horse armour onto a thin premise.

And people describe EU, a game where you can have a 6,000 man standing army as 15th century Meath and can dump them anywhere in Europe at will, your king is an abstraction made up of three numbers, and internal politics is represented by three or four faceless and indivisible 'estates', as realistic...

 

[CivLuvah]

And people describe EU, a game where you can have a 6,000 man standing army as 15th century Meath and can dump them anywhere in Europe at will, your king is an abstraction made up of three numbers, and internal politics is represented by three or four faceless and indivisible 'estates', as realistic...

Well, there's room for the imagination.... if you're the kind of person who wants historical realism and is willing to imagine something like that as if it was a period drama or documentary of some sort.

But yeah, abstractions are still abstractions. Robert the Bruce allied to Poundmaker and Kupe, and then declaring a joint war against Victoria is much more fun.

 

[agonistes]

Lemme guess... It's the Ottoman Empire?

Just making sure whether it is. I've also had the Commonwealth being a beast able to beat the crap out of the Ottoman Empire and Russia alike, and Ming Dynasty is almost always massive giant with army of half million of soldiers in the late game.

Well, yes, but also France, Ming, Russia, etc. There is definately a trade off between historical accuracy and rng opponents - although its cool when a little guy makes a big push.

 

[Kimiimaro]

although its cool when a little guy makes a big push.

Does Bohemia count for that matter? I mean, I'm currently playing as Milan, trying to form Italy. It's 1570, and so far they've managed to conquer half of Bavaria, most of Hungary, part of Austria, and now, they're happily splitting the Commonwealth along with Russia, Denmark and the Ottomans. And they are also a great power and the Emperor of the HRE

But have something more unique and facinating to share. In my Mamluks -> Arabia game, I helped Byzantium survive the Ottomans in the beginning of the game, because it's pain to deal with the Ottomans later. They reconquered Greece and large parts of Anatolia. But! Meanwhile, Florence formed Tuscany. That wouldn't be that weird, it happens often... But! It conquered almost entire Italy, and if Venice wasn't a powerful enough nation that held considerable part of Balkans so it was able to defend itself, it would form Italy. However, they managed to form a personal union with the Byzantine Empire, by the end of the game, they annexed it, gained Empire government rank, reconquered the rest of Anatolia, and it had about half million of soldiers, actively competing with Revolutionary Russia for who would have the grandest army in the world.
Then, being part of Persian-French-Tuscan-Alodian alliance, they invaded me with more than million of soldiers and kicked my butt terribly some 10 years before the end of the game XD