Civilization 5 vs Europa Universalis 4

[Charles Martel]

I hoped that Sid Meier’s Civilization 5 was going to be less like its predecessors and more like Paradox Interactive’s Europa Univeralis (EU). Unfortunately my hope is now being dashed to the ground. We are told that there are only 18 playable civilizations and leaders. This figure alone shows how the Civilization franchise is still a far cry from achieving the depth and completeness of EU, whose third instalment has 250 playable historical nations and more than 5,000 monarchs, leaders, and other historical individuals. There are high hopes that the yet to be announced next installment, EU4, will implement something like the brilliant dynastic model of EU: Rome. This is an a inspired idea that makes political intrigue, treachery, and civil wars come to life, and I now doubt that we will ever see anything like it in Civilization.

I hoped that Civ5 would have allowed for hundreds of historical nations and dynasties to be playable on the world map at different stages of their history. This is not just a request for “MOAR” that could be satisfied by modding in more civs and leaders. It’s the entire game concept that needs changing: I want huge worlds with hundreds of nations that dynamically rise and fall, with a fine-grained temporal scale that allows for constantly changing leaders. In short, I hoped that finally Civ5 would have become flexible enough to allow for a more detailed simulation of human history. Unfortunately, it seems that we are still stuck with little toy worlds with only a dozen of civilizations led by the usual suspects, a familiar bunch of oddly immortal “leaderheads” (which know seem to have become full “leaderbodies” - but who cares about the fancy graphics if this has to come at the expense of even the most basic historical plausibility.)

Of course, the remarkable mod for Civ4, Rhye’s and Fall of Civilization (RFC), has already attempted to provide a total simulation of human history. The problem with RFC is that Civ4 is severely limited as to the number of civilizations that you can have in huge-world scenarios at acceptable processing speeds. Rhye bravely tried to overcome some of these problems with the introduction of “independents” (which may have inspired the “city states” of Civ 5) and “dynamically changing names” for already existing civilizations. Even so, the intrinsic limits of Civ4 has made it impossible for RFC to produce a remotely plausible representation of, say, the barbarian states that followed the fall of the Roman Empire, or the Italian city states of the Renaissance. RFC can’t even decently simulate the two World Wars: there is no room for Serbia, Poland, or even Austria-Hungary. Of course, I blame Firaxis, not Rhye, for designing a game that privileges fancy graphics over historical detail and completeness.

From what I have heard so far, it appears that Civ 5 will do little to change this state of affairs and overcome the silly limitations on the number and type of civilizations and leaders. (And here I am referring to fundamental hard-coded limitations, and not the sort of superficial omissions that could be remedied by modding). The alarming sing is that, once again, we are left debating whether Poland or Austria-Hungary should be included in the game or not... of course they should be in! I say to Firaxis: screw the fancy 3D graphics and hire some competent history consultants. There’s something wrong with an historical strategy game that forces you to chose: “Either Songhai or Mali, you can’t have both.” These are false dilemmas, a by-product of a narrow game mechanics. ALL the historical nations, cultures and leaders the average person can think of should be given a chance to rise, flourish and fall in the course of a single game.

 

[Thormodr]

EU3 with all its expansions rocks.

I love the wide variety of nations you can play and the epic scale of it all.

They are working on Victoria 2 right now and it looks very impressive. I'm not sure what their next game will be but I'm hoping for Crusader Kings 2. EU4 would be awesome as well.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I agree that Civ5 should have had a rebellion system... but that's maybe too complicated in a game like Civ... maybe they should look at EU, but then EU is EU, Civ is Civ, if you want EU gamedesign just play at EU!

You have intruigued me with EU... a rebellion system is all that i always wanted, and the MOD out there didn't seem to treat with that properly.

Tell me, does the rebellion system depends on a thing like "happiness" in EU? If not, I may as well check this game, now you have kind of hooked me with it.

 

[Thormodr]

I agree that Civ5 should have had a rebellion system... but that's maybe too complicated in a game like Civ... maybe they should look at EU, but then EU is EU, Civ is Civ, if you want EU gamedesign just play at EU!

You have intruigued me with EU... a rebellion system is all that i always wanted, and the MOD out there didn't seem to treat with that properly.

Tell me, does the rebellion system depends on a thing like "happiness" in EU? If not, I may as well check this game, now you have kind of hooked me with it.

Usually rebellions happen if you have low stability in your country, war weariness, religious intolerance or maybe a minority population is unhappy or even random events. There are quite a few things that can factor into it.

It's really quite well done.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Definitely i will try EU then... thanks!

 

[Danielos]

I agree with you, Charles. It is strange that a small, niche company can produce huge, complex games like EU and HoI with hundreds of playable nations, and with Civ still limited to a handful.

On the other hand, even in a game of say HoI2, we have a few significant majors and a lot of minors that have little real impact. Civ has simplified things to remove these minors and concentrated on the big boys. Maybe the new city states will make it a little bit more realistic...

 

[Grimlin]

Definitely i will try EU then... thanks!

Try the Magna Mundi mod... it adds many more awesome features like a dynamic and living Holy Roman Empire, very nice religious turmoil after reformation and best of all, an intense 30ys War.

@topic, in the end its comparing apples and oranges. The games have their similarities but still the differences are huge. One of them is the simple fact that EU3 is a historic game and a big focus is put on historic accuracy while in Civ there is not even an accurate earth map...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

You know, I'm going to make a wild stab in the dark & point out the fact that I haven't seen Rhye on any of the C&C forums for CivIV lately!! This leads me to suspect that he is one of the people working with Firaxis on CivV. This has got to be a good thing given how brilliant RFC is for CivIV. Who knows, maybe if this is true, then we *will* have empire splits this time around! Perhaps its one of those BIG THINGS-along with Social Policies-that they're deliberately keeping us in the dark over.
I loved the EU series, but I sometimes found it much to complex in some ways, & much too simplistic in others. No matter how much I try all the other games, it always seems to be Civ that I return to!

Aussie.

 

[Charles Martel]

Tell me, does the rebellion system depends on a thing like "happiness" in EU? If not, I may as well check this game, now you have kind of hooked me with it.

Naokaukodem, I was referring to the dynastic system of Europa Univeralis: Rome. This is not yet included in Europa Univeralis 3, but it’s likely to be part of a future EU4.

Roughly, when it comes to revolts and civil wars, the system works like this: rebellions start local, but they could spread across the whole empire and turn into a civil war. The likelihood of rebellion does not depend on “hapiness” but on several factors such as overall empire stability, popularity/tyranny of the leader, "war exhaustion" (sort of similar to Civ 4's weariness), loyalty/corruptness/wealth of local governors, loyalty and popularity of military leaders and their armies, and foreign influence (diplomacy and espionage).

For example, when you nominate a local governor you will have to make choices like the following: do you prefer somebody competent but potentially disloyal, or somebody incompetent but fully loyal to your dynasty (perhaps a member of your family). In other words: nepotism or meritocracy?

Another example: who do you put in charge of your biggest army? A good general who wins to many victories might surpass the emperor in popularity and hence become a potential threat. Sometimes you will even have to disband experienced armies because their veteran soldiers have become too loyal to somebody who might betray you.

If you are running a republic, things get even more interesting: you also have to pay attention to the senate’s internal conflicts. If, for example, the populist faction holds sway, stability will decrease and revolts become more likely. If, on the other hand, you are under hereditary rule, then the loyalty and popularity of the potential heirs comes into play, and unresolved dynastic dispute might result into civil war.

Last but not least: revolts are not necessarily something you want to avoid at all costs. Sometimes they might even be beneficial to your empire. If, for example, the current ruler is an incompetent and hated tyrant with no promising offspring, then you might intentionally stir a revolt and let the usurper take over. This will still cause a temporary setback, but the long-term benefits might be worth it.

Maybe the new city states will make it a little bit more realistic...

Yes, Danielos, I too hope that the city states will go some way to adding variety and plausiblity. In the hands of modders like Rhye they could become something very interesting.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Naokaukodem, I was referring to the dynastic system of Europa Univeralis: Rome. This is not yet included in Europa Univeralis 3, but it’s likely to be part of a future EU4.

Roughly, when it comes to revolts and civil wars, the system works like this: rebellions start local, but they could spread across the whole empire and turn into a civil war. The likelihood of rebellion does not depend on “hapiness” but on several factors such as overall empire stability, popularity/tyranny of the leader, "war exhaustion" (sort of similar to Civ 4's weariness), loyalty/corruptness/wealth of local governors, loyalty and popularity of military leaders and their armies, and foreign influence (diplomacy and espionage).

For example, when you nominate a local governor you will have to make choices like the following: do you prefer somebody competent but potentially disloyal, or somebody incompetent but fully loyal to your dynasty (perhaps a member of your family). In other words: nepotism or meritocracy?

Another example: who do you put in charge of your biggest army? A good general who wins to many victories might surpass the emperor in popularity and hence become a potential threat. Sometimes you will even have to disband experienced armies because their veteran soldiers have become too loyal to somebody who might betray you.

If you are running a republic, things get even more interesting: you also have to pay attention to the senate’s internal conflicts. If, for example, the populist faction holds sway, stability will decrease and revolts become more likely. If, on the other hand, you are under hereditary rule, then the loyalty and popularity of the potential heirs comes into play, and unresolved dynastic dispute might result into civil war.

Last but not least: revolts are not necessarily something you want to avoid at all costs. Sometimes they might even be beneficial to your empire. If, for example, the current ruler is an incompetent and hated tyrant with no promising offspring, then you might intentionally stir a revolt and let the usurper take over. This will still cause a temporary setback, but the long-term benefits might be worth it.

WOW. Sounds hella great. A bit complicated to manage maybe, but definitely something great.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I don't think it's just the fancy graphics in the civ games that make them so slow. It's the AI too. EU3 AI has comparatively few choices to make in RTS... although ask someone who knows more.

There was never a game that simulated history like EU 2 did, though all the EU games have poorly researched maps (they rely on the fan base to correct changes to modifiable elements, but the game map itself hasn't been changeable). Civ4 and Civ3 aren't history games like that, and even if they started out wanting to be like that, they are not now. They are history-flavoured strategy games.

Civ4 could improve though by copying EU games some more. They'd never be considering this stupid one unit per tile nonsense to nerf SoDs if they knew about EU attrition, they'd program events better, and so on.

 

[Heathcliff]

I agree with Grimlin. If you are going to try Europa Universalis 3 while you wait for Civ 5, download the Magna Mundii Mod and plays that one. Vanilla EU3 is quite boring, but the MMP mod is awesome.

You can find it downloadable on this website: http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=498
Click on Ubik's signature to download it (go inside a thread and find his name). And Ultimate Edition if you have bought the expansion Heir to the Throne otherwise Platinum. There is not a very big differens between the two.

And don't forgett MMP punish you if you go extreme strategies, so take it slowly, don't mint. Don't go to war too often etc.

Also be prepared that the gameplay is slower than Civ4's. To finish a game expect it to take 1-2 weeks. But in Civ 4 one evening for a game is often enough.

 

[Charles Martel]

Civ4 could improve though by copying EU games some more. They'd never be considering this stupid one unit per tile nonsense to nerf SoDs if they knew about EU attrition

I’m glad you mention this, that's exactly my taught also. EU’s attrition mechanics is the best way I know of to solve the stack-of-doom problem (at a strategic, rather than tactical level). It’s both realistic and good for game-play, and I would have preferred something like it to Civ 5’s one-unit-per-tile rule. Having said that, I am relieved to hear that Civ 5 has some such restriction in place: I've always hated SoDs and micromanaging zillions of units.

 

[Tamed]

EU is hardly even a game. It's more of just a simulation, the stuff it does is much easier to do with the game's setup than Civ's, and Civ will never have that sort of depth because it needs a broader appeal.

Making it as "deep" (to me, complicated and offputting) as EU just dooms their sales and user interest aside from a few people. To me, and the general public, EU is about as interesting as "City Bus Transit Simulator 2010" -- it's just a game of menus and maps, not a game of gameplay and fun. Please keep this sort of idea out of Civilization.

I might be more sympathetic with your plight had you mentioned Hearts of Iron, but as far as EU goes.. it feels more like a job than a video game.

 

[Newcomer24]

You really do not want to understand that the one unit per tile thing was done to make warfare more fun and tactical.

I play paradox games since Europa Universalis I and EU warfare model is as boring as the one of Civ4 (even more boring... as in Civ4 you have several different units to choose from while in EU it's mainly just infantry/cavalry/artillery).
There's no strategy involved... just build a massive army and march, it requires no skill or brain, even a monkey could do it, the one with the better economy can build and substain a bigger army and will ALWAYS win unless he's a novice.

Yes, with some small changes the old warfare model could have worked in Civ5 too as it did in the previous games... but was it fun? Did conquering the world require some real strategic and tactical skill besides having the bigger army?

They are simply trying to add deepness to this aspect of the game, if they aren't simplifing other aspects you can only be happy.
With the new Civ5 warfare rules, if they make it right and balanced, going to war will actually require some skill, and a skilled player in warfare could eventually manage to defeat someone with a bigger empire thanks to his better military tactics.

Try to play games like Panzer General or the open source Battle for Wesnoth and tell me you still prefer the boring model of Eu or the old Civs. You can download Wesnoth for free, it's hexagonal based and there's the one unit per tile rule, try it and then tell me you still prefer how you used to do war in Civ or EU.

Anyway... on the Civilization-Europa Universalis matter... they are both great but thanks god they are very different and hopefully will remain so. I don't want Civ to be an EU clone or viceversa, I prefer to play two different games instead of the same game twice.

 

[Charles Martel]

You really do not want to understand that the one unit per tile thing was done to make warfare more fun and tactical.

I am not against the one-unit-per-tile rule, better this than SoDs. I do, think however, that something like EU’s attrition mechanics would have offered a more realistic solution. EU’s uses a strategic approach, while Civ 5 seems to have opted for a tactical one, which I think is out-of-scale with the game’s scope. It is however too early to judge how plausible and fun Civ 5’s warfare will turn out to be. At this stage, I’m just glad that SoDs are gone.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I prefer the gameyness of Civilization and the "narrow mechanics" as you put it. I would politely suggest that this is the reason that both exist.

I find EU/HoI fairly dull, so if they remade Civ into this I would be out. Is this opinion simply to be trampled and discarded? Am I wrong or stupid simply because I prefer "toy worlds?"

Since EU already exists I fail to see the issue you are having. You seem to want to force me to prefer EU at gunpoint.

 

[The Q-Meister]

You know, I'm going to make a wild stab in the dark & point out the fact that I haven't seen Rhye on any of the C&C forums for CivIV lately!! This leads me to suspect that he is one of the people working with Firaxis on CivV. This has got to be a good thing given how brilliant RFC is for CivIV.
Aussie.

If only it were true...sadly Rhye himself says he has not been contacted by Firaxis and is not working on Civ V.

And yes, it would be beyond brilliant!

On the EU franchise: I played EU3 as it was recommended by several Civ players and I've been looking for a thread to express my views without appearing to bash the game (which I most certainly am not looking to do here) but I although I tried very, very hard to get into the game it just didn't do it for me.

I mean I've been playing the Civ franchise for years, a HUGE history buff so you would think that EU would be right up my alley but I found it boring. The presentation, the interface, the way armies were displayed. Aspects of the game I looked forward to let me down: the advisers for instance; I was so psyched from the prospect of real life advisers coming on the screen and giving me actual advice when I asked for it in a much more serious/less cartoony model than what Civ II presented but I was disappointed it was just stale and offered no real time animation.

Much of the time I was waiting around for things to happen.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong and for the many fans who loved the game I'm happy for you, but I just could not get into it despite my best efforts.

I have been thinking about the Rome series as I heard the political factions model is well done and I'm interested in any real time strategy game that incorporates more internal politics.

 

[Newcomer24]

I am not against the one-unit-per-tile rule, better this than SoDs. I do, think however, that something like EU’s attrition mechanics would have offered a more realistic solution. EU’s uses a strategic approach, while Civ 5 seems to have opted for a tactical one, which I think is out-of-scale with the game’s scope. It is however too early to judge how plausible and fun Civ 5’s warfare will turn out to be. At this stage, I’m just glad that SoDs are gone.

It will most probably be out-of-scale but also deep and fun.
Gameplay comes always first to realism. If you added attrition to the Civ4 model the whole system would still be almost brainless, offering nothing to those who like waging war from time to time. Also... attrition works in EU because it has very few provinces compared to how many hexagons Civ5 maps will have, it wouldn't fix the issue here.

 

[The Q-Meister]

I agree with Grimlin. If you are going to try Europa Universalis 3 while you wait for Civ 5, download the Magna Mundii Mod and plays that one. Vanilla EU3 is quite boring, but the MMP mod is awesome.
.

Thanks, I'll give that mod a shot. Nice to know I'm not alone here in saying that the vanilla EU3 game is boring, I feared it would be sacrilege to EU fans but just expressing my honest opinion.