What can Civ learn from the Europa Universalis series?

[The_J]

Both positive and negative can be the case.
For a casus belli, you can get positive boni, for no you'll get negative ones.

The marriage event is a good example, which could be expanded.
Change in religion, civics (i know, these are Civ4 examples), settling at the border, culture expansion, etc. could be reasons for war.
These things could be mentioned for some rounds in the foreign advisor, you can choose one or more of these, which result in different boni or mali.

It could really be interesting.

 

[NBAfan]

Its also compeltely unsuitable for casual players.

This is why Civ will not be like EU.

I don't like real time games, and have never even touched EU. But I'll keep an open mind.

Try it, it is not a RTS where who ever cilcks the fastest wins.

 

[Shiggs713]

having played both games for hundreds of hours, and having racked up hundreds and thousands of posts on both forums, I would say civ could definitely learn a few things from EU3 (and vice versa). You would seriously have to be brain dead to think that it doesn't have anything to offer, its a very good game, and paradox is one of the better strategy game developers out there, trying to offer good games for fair prices, for the most part they are doing a good job.

I don't have the focus right now to list off all the things that eu3 does well that civ could borrow from but its pretty clear that both games are good and borrowing good ideas would not be a bad idea.

if you haven't tried eu3, you should. You can probably get the complete version for 20 bucks or less, well worth it.

 

[Shurdus]

Love the casus belli idea. As long as it is implemented in such a way that it is meaningful that is... In Civ IV one of the main annoyances is finding yourself on a pangaia type of map and to find Shaka somewhere - anywhere really - and then to have him come on over for a non-friendly visit. Warring with the guy is fine, but there are really little ramifications if he wages war against someone. The diplomatic hit for 'you declared war on our friend' is nowhere near practical and enough to make an alliance against the might of Shaka, so he can just annihilate every civ and then move on without consequences.

Now if a casus belli is needed to go to war without negative ramifications, then maybe this will be a more powerful tool to forge alliances against those who would steamroll their way through the game. Suppose that Shaka attacked a neighbor for no reason. Suddenly it becomes cheap for the player to bribe AI 1 and 2 into the fight to help #3 out, because every AI knows and realises that the menace should be stopped.

I can see that working out. It would work way better than the system that is currently in place. The system that is currently there would just cause the wussy AIs to become cautious with the aggressor, yet then again even at cautious they would not even build enough units to defend themselves properly, nor would they go to war because some AIs simply do not go to war.

If the casus belli system would help with any of this I would be one pleased civver.

 

[dragonfallz]

How about Centres of Trade? If a city has the most commerce in a certain area (say like the southern part of the Continent) becomes a Centre of Trade and Great Merchants could go to these centres and make a lot of money but quite slowly, like EU3

 

[Tantor]

I would like to see a Casus Bellish kind of system in CiV. I like to play a peaceful civ, and I think it would be great to in greater extent too see a casus belli build up between myself and someone else. I think it`s too easy too declare on a peaceful civ without any negative consequenses. But the consequenses may be vary according to focus, tech, civics and diplomacy.

 

[Leifmk]

Some bits of the diplomacy system could apply, yes.

In general, though, i feel that Civ should stay Civ and EU should stay EU. I would find it quite interesting to see a kind of Civ/EU hybrid -- Civ type scope, EU type "realism" wrt. exploration and travel times and so on -- but it would not really belong in either series.

 

[chongli]

In Civ, I want a game that I can play, not a game that plays me.

Too much realism bogs things down and makes the whole exercise a chore. There's a reason Civ is vastly more popular than EU.

 

[Thormodr]

As mentioned by other people, I think Civ could learn and adapt a few things from the EU series and vice versa.

I highly recommend EU3 with all its expansions to anyone who hasn't played it before.

 

[NBAfan]

As mentioned by other people, I think Civ could learn and adapt a few things from the EU series and vice versa.

I highly recommend EU3 with all its expansions to anyone who hasn't played it before.

Or to try the demo at least.

 

[attackfighter]

Too much realism bogs things down and makes the whole exercise a chore. There's a reason Civ is vastly more popular than EU.

Because Civ's easy to learn and the graphics are shiny. It has nothing to do with realism, or even the level of fun each game offers. Civ is more popular simply because it's more accessable.

Popularity =/= Quality.

 

[Thormodr]

Because Civ's easy to learn and the graphics are shiny. It has nothing to do with realism, or even the level of fun each game offers. Civ is more popular simply because it's more accessable.

Popularity =/= Quality.

Indeed. The EU series is excellent. It isn't inferior to Civ at all. It's just a different type of game. It will appeal to some people but not to others. Personally, I love both.

 

[Ahriman]

There is no conflict between saying that the EU games are great and recognizing that they are very different games from Civ, and that trying to turn Civ into EU would be a mistake.

Popularity != Quality, but Quality != Complexity.

 

[Thormodr]

There is no conflict between saying that the EU games are great and recognizing that they are very different games from Civ, and that trying to turn Civ into EU would be a mistake.

Popularity != Quality, but Quality != Complexity.

I'd certainly not want Civ to turn into EU as I like the two different styles but I still think there are some things that Civ could take from the EU series and not lose its identity.
(and vice versa of course)

A simple example would be the religious tolerance slider in EU. You can choose to treat Muslims or Christians in your realms like dirt if you want but there will be consequences. I think it would be a good addition to cIV and hopefully when they bring back religion in a ciV expansion pack.

A little thing like that wouldn't make the two games clones of each other.

 

[gingerbill]

No tells me the only reason you play Civ is for war and you don't want a hoop to jump through, so make it a setting you can disable when you start the game. Personally, the old saying that war is an extension of diplomacy by other means should be more prevalent in Civ. .

i dont want Casus Belli and i dont like making war , my playstyle is peace and build , but i like the option of being able too , i dont want someone else telling me who i can war with , If i'm starting a war its for a good reason and i dont want some stupid rule preventing me. If someones starting wars just for fun then they are on the wrong difficulty. In Civ your the one in charge.

Because Civ's easy to learn and the graphics are shiny. It has nothing to do with realism, or even the level of fun each game offers. Civ is more popular simply because it's more accessable.

Popularity =/= Quality.

i thinks its wrong to say Civ is easy to learn , its not compared to most games , and saying the graphics are shiny is nonsense , nobody buys Civ for the graphics.

 

[conception]

i thinks its wrong to say Civ is easy to learn , its not compared to most games , and saying the graphics are shiny is nonsense , nobody buys Civ for the graphics.

I've gotta disagree on both points. Civ marvelously can be very easy to pick up and play using a lower difficulty level. Sure, there are some advanced game concepts that newbs will have to play through the game in order to get a feel for and respect, but the basic functions of the game (build, explore, expand, war) are incredibly familiar and easy to execute, and basic players don't need anything more. The amazing thing is, there is an incredibly detailed system behind everything that more advanced players can wrangle in order to play more in-depth games. So the game is not only easy to play at first, but incredibly re-playable because the game can be played in so many different ways for advanced players.

Also, Civ doesn't compare graphically to a sports or action game, but for a strategy game the graphics are pretty good, and certainly a step up from strategy games with simplified graphics like Paradox Interactive.

 

[Ahriman]

the basic functions of the game (build, explore, expand, war) are incredibly familiar and easy to execute

Partly they're familiar and easy to execute because we've all been playing Civ-games for nearly 20 years now.

 

[mboettcher]

That the more complex military rules get, the easier it is to exploit the AI


Honestly the Graphics in HOI3 aren't bad but the large numbers of AI's, the complex real time combat/economic system as well as the need for a quickly reacting and sophisticated AI pushes most machines to the limit and has caused a plethora of problems that a number of patches have been unable to fix. Perhaps because both the computing power and development time of such a complex game are not reasonable economically. Perhaps Firaxis/Civ can learn from all these issues that Paradox has had with the HOI/EU series. Then again the turn based model allows for far more complex AI and other systems as the Comp doesn't have to do as many simultaneous operations and the developers don't have to spend an inordinate amount of hours attempting to rectify real time with absurd complexity.

 

[conception]

Partly they're familiar and easy to execute because we've all been playing Civ-games for nearly 20 years now.

Not me, nor have many of the people I play Civ with.

 

[chongli]

There is no conflict between saying that the EU games are great and recognizing that they are very different games from Civ, and that trying to turn Civ into EU would be a mistake.

Popularity != Quality, but Quality != Complexity.

If your goal as a game developer is to make money, turning Civ into EU would be a giant mistake.

I definitely agree with you on the Quality != Complexity front though. If Firaxis followed the advice of everyone on these forums, they'd end up with the most complex game ever made (it'd make dwarf fortress look like child's play).