[GS] Civ6 vs. EU4

[oninowon]

Well, I'm not a fanboy (at least I wouldn't consider myself as one), but even if I was, your accusation makes no sense. There's nothing inherently inferior about 4X games and I play a bunch of them, including Civ games. To refuse calling a game 4X on the basis of liking it too much is a non sequitur.

Well, I said that because hardcore fans of EU like to put the game on such a pedestal that they refuse to see other games as comparable. You seem just seemed so adamant and I thought it could be either case.

I have, actually. Perhaps you'd like to hear what people on the Paradox forums have to say on the matter as well.

That forum is heavily biased so no thanks. I rather go to a neutral site to seek more of an unbiased and rounded view on the matter.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

edited to conform to the rules better

 

[Fluphen Azine]

I know things can get heated and personal.
Let us all try not to get personal and just discuss our opinions on both games.
Personally I find myself learning EU4 for a short period of time.
Either my game crashes, I get overwhelmed or lost and I do something else.
The game just hasn't hooked me as fast as Civ did.
Rise of Nations and Age of Empires hooked me much faster than EU4.
For a new player like myself, having all the DLC, I find it difficult to get the hang of.
Since the Map is very new to me I have trouble just finding certain areas.
It gets worse when people or the game calls an area a certain name but the map says something different.
I believe that one day I will get the hang of it but it feels like that day is a good 6 months to a year off.

Does anyone have any information on new EU4 Let's Plays that would have all the current DLC.
One problem I run into is many youtube videos are teaching the game without the DLC or a year old.
It seems many things have changed from those videos.
Carthage for instance is completely different in one video compared to my game.

They're completely different genres and aren't served well by comparing them because it tends to not really go anywhere. The main thing they have in common is the history flavour, but Civ is closer to something like Advance Wars than EU4.

4x isn't a base description of gameplay, it's a vague catch-all for games where you take over the world through exploring and taking land - it's like "top-down" or "third-person" or "adventure", not something that stands on its own. Civ as a series is turn-based strategy, where EU as a series is grand strategy. No-one would think to compare Civ or EU to something like Starcraft but apparently the superficial history flavour is enough for it to go into endless fruitless comparisons.

I am not trying to cause trouble by comparing two games that can't be compared to one another.
I suppose I was trying to compare the experience of Civ to the experience of EU4.
We can compare the two experiences can't we?
I find the two to be completely different experiences but also some similarities.
I suppose I was looking for opinions of which game is better to the individual player.
I think it is safe to say that some players prefer one over the other.
I find the transition form Civ to EU4 to be difficult.
I do believe that if I was coming from EU4 to Civ it would be much easier of a transition.

 

[oninowon]

Paradox makes "complete" editions and then continues to add DLC anyway.

I looked the EU III up on GOG and I have to agree with you. That is false advertisement. What makes it worse is that the dlc is $10 more than the complete addition. WTH?

 

[DWilson]

I was so annoyed when I bought an EUIV complete pack on sale and realized later it barely contained any of the DLC. My fault for not reading though, so I didn't leave a bad review (even if it did seem somewhat predatory, the description of the contents was fairly honest).

People clearly felt differently based on the review bashing of the much less sketchy deluxe edition of civ vi.

 

[Fluphen Azine]

I was so annoyed when I bought an EUIV complete pack on sale and realized later it barely contained any of the DLC. My fault for not reading though, so I didn't leave a bad review (even if it did seem somewhat predatory, the description of the contents was fairly honest).

People clearly felt differently based on the review bashing of the much less sketchy deluxe edition of civ vi.

When I looked into it I found out that it was best to buy all the DLC separately.
I was able to get the base game plus 4 DLC for 40 dollars.
At first I was just going to buy the base game for 10 dollars but the 40 dollar package worked better saving about 15 dollars.
After that I bought each other DLC individually which ended up saving me another 25 dollars or so compared.
I got the best deal at the time without waiting for major slashing.
If I bought them all on Steam it would of been around 275 total.
I could of saved a few dollars if I bought certain DLC from other websites but I opted to buy all from the same place making it easier on me.
I still ended up paying 175 total for everything.
I am positive I will never get the value that I got from all the Civ games I own.
I will never be able to put in over 20k hours into EU4 as I have for Civ over the years.
Most likely a bad purchase for me but that is what happens when I impulse buy.

 

[oninowon]

I was so annoyed when I bought an EUIV complete pack on sale and realized later it barely contained any of the DLC. My fault for not reading though, so I didn't leave a bad review (even if it did seem somewhat predatory, the description of the contents was fairly honest).

People clearly felt differently based on the review bashing of the much less sketchy deluxe edition of civ vi.

Technically, EU IV is still current and I would have been suspect if they put out a complete version before EU V came out. Like you said, they did make it clear and that you just jumped the gun before reading it through. Sorry to hear that! As for CIV, when they say complete, they mean complete.
OT~ wow, the extreme version is $45 whereas the bundle collection is $252! I rather buy a console with that money!

 

[oninowon]

I know things can get heated and personal.

It wasn't personal and it did not occur to me that using the word "fanboy" would be inflammatory. I bailed out of that discussion when I realized we were just going in circles.

Personally I find myself learning EU4 for a short period of time.
Either my game crashes, I get overwhelmed or lost and I do something else.
The game just hasn't hooked me as fast as Civ did.
Rise of Nations and Age of Empires hooked me much faster than EU4.
For a new player like myself, having all the DLC, I find it difficult to get the hang of.
Since the Map is very new to me I have trouble just finding certain areas.
It gets worse when people or the game calls an area a certain name but the map says something different.
I believe that one day I will get the hang of it but it feels like that day is a good 6 months to a year off.

I think my biggest problem is that I don't understand the flow of the game in EU. Even if I understood the UI, I would not know where and how to begin and what direction to take. With CIV, I ran into a roadblock when learning CIV III (I had a hard time understanding the resource aspect of the game) but once I understood how resources worked and its connection to technology, it was easy to get the hang of the rest of the game. Also, I had the experience of previous CIVs so I generally knew what to expect.

I am not trying to cause trouble by comparing two games that can't be compared to one another.
I suppose I was trying to compare the experience of Civ to the experience of EU4.
We can compare the two experiences can't we?
I find the two to be completely different experiences but also some similarities.
I suppose I was looking for opinions of which game is better to the individual player.
I think it is safe to say that some players prefer one over the other.
I find the transition form Civ to EU4 to be difficult.
I do believe that if I was coming from EU4 to Civ it would be much easier of a transition.

You are being too hard on yourself. Comparing the 2 games is not against the rules of this forum. Also, don't just agree that the 2 games can't be compared because the some people here have said so. Do some research on your own and make up your own mind.

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

Well, I said that because hardcore fans of EU like to put the game on such a pedestal that they refuse to see other games as comparable.

Elitism exists in both camps, but I think I made it clear that comparisons can still be made in a different mindset. This is why I emphasized that I don't consider any of the 2 categorically a better overall game than the other.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Indeed.

I know things can get heated and personal.
Let us all try not to get personal and just discuss our opinions on both games.

Nothing personal, just banter.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I looked the EU III up on GOG and I have to agree with you. That is false advertisement. What makes it worse is that the dlc is $10 more than the complete addition. WTH?

EU 4 also false advertises. Patch 1.0 through 1.5 allowed cross platform MP as advertised. The game hangs and de-syncs within one month of play time (the game lasts 377 years) ever since. Patch 1.6 was released May 29, 2014. They've made 0 appreciable effort to address this ever since.

I haven't tried Civ 6 cross platform since it's been advertised as functional. I've also not heard a lot about whether it works well, but considering ordinary MP has been spotty for years I suspect it's equal or worse. Supposedly most recent patch made MP stability a lot better though?

 

[oninowon]

I haven't tried Civ 6 cross platform since it's been advertised as functional. I've also not heard a lot about whether it works well, but considering ordinary MP has been spotty for years I suspect it's equal or worse. Supposedly most recent patch made MP stability a lot better though?

I have it for the Switch and don't think I can play with PC, Mac, or iOS players anyway. The reason I got it for the Switch was not because of "play anywhere" but simply because my computer can't handle CIV VI.

 

[Fluphen Azine]

Eu 4 is a lot more about macro and has less random stuff than a Civ game. Honestly it is like comparing apples to oranges. If you visit Pdx forums make sure to visit my profile pratikmaitra1993.

Currently Eu 4 is an easy blob fest with all dlcs. To learn expert level gameplay watch marcoantonio or barros rodrigues. For fun arumba or shenryyr2(he now only uses twitch).

It seems that you can conquer the world in under 100 years if you know what you are doing.
I see complaints that it is a boring way to play just like you hear people in Civ complaining that Warmongering is boring.
Personally I enjoy Warmongering my way to Victory no matter how easy it is.

I seen a post that gave the basics.
War, Vassal, War Feed Vassal, War Vassal, Integrate, War Vassal, Feed Vassal etc. etc.
Of course I have no understanding of how to implement such strategy at this time.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Vassals have a long history of being buggy/not working properly, and that extends into now. It's still worth using them in some contexts, however. Amusingly this also extends to vassals in Civ 4, which was the last time the Civ series used them directly.

I do not know whether you recognize me from Eu 4 Pdx forum but I am pratikmaitra1993 there. It is good to see you here.

I do recognize that name, yes . Welcome to this side again. I have > 20k posts on both forums but I got them here first actually!

 

[steveg700]

A more apples-to-apples thread might come of comparing Civ VI to Stellaris. The latter can actually be considered 4X, which EU is not.

Got to kill the sacred cow of having these rigid victory conditions than encourage beelining and hyper-specialization. Stellaris gets that, at least.

Not this is a thread about Stellaris, mind you.