Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd bet you forgot that frase is a meme when you used it.
I would think most people on this forum would recognize that line.
Where are ciV competitors?
- Thread starter Ermak-
- Start date
I would think most people on this forum would recognize that line.
skallben
Diplomat
For anyone who likes medieval/fantasy setting, FFH2 for cIV !!!
Play with a funky mapscript and raging barbarians and other funny settings. Or the dark fantasy campaigns. When armageddon hits, crap really hits the fan and makes endgame unpredictable and interesting. No other game has been so fun fighting losing battles.
Play with a funky mapscript and raging barbarians and other funny settings. Or the dark fantasy campaigns. When armageddon hits, crap really hits the fan and makes endgame unpredictable and interesting. No other game has been so fun fighting losing battles.
moscaverde
Prince
+1 to Heroes of Might and Magic III for it's awesome music. The other in the series are good but not as good.
ohioastronomy
King
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 714
I've never seen any evidence of that. But if you're foolish enough to tangle with, say, a member of the Holy Roman Empire without being prepared - or if the world gangs up on you because your reputation is too awful - well, you'd best be ready or you'll experience an epic thumping.
excellent suggestion!! i would recommend this to any fan of civ and fantasy
As has been mentioned, I've found that EU3 is a fantastic option. Also as mentioned, it's less like "civ" and more of an historical sim.
I came to EU3 after finally getting tired of Civ 4 (which, while a great game, did have its flaws). I found Civ 4 to be far too...I dunno...mathematical? You had to min/max a lot in order to do well, and it irritated me that the AI, instead of being somehow smarter, was just basically given "cheats" or "a finger on the scale" at higher levels. Civ's execution of certain concepts also irritated me. Warfare took considerably longer than in real life, turns felt artificial, etc. Civ is far more of an abstraction of concepts, and while it's a lot of fun, it's not really a "sim." It's just a fun 4X game. Different entries into the series are more or less in-depth, but at its core, it's never really been a "sim." Heck, you didn't even need to play on earth, if you didn't want to! Go generate a random new world and have at it! That's part of the fun of Civ, not a slight against it. But I found myself growing tired of that and realizing that I kept playing world maps and being frustrated at some of what I felt were goofy abstractions in the game, alongside what passed for "depth" being a lot of min/maxing of gold, tech, etc. I also wasn't a huge fan of the way warfare played out (although a lot of that was due to how I've always been kind of lousy at warfare in Civ games), and felt that there really seemed to be "optimum" paths to victory.
EU3 is far closer to a "sim." There is no "winning" in EU3. Not in the sense that there is in Civ. It's not like when you accomplish XYZ goal the game says "Congratulations! You have won and become the ruling nation!" You can set goals for yourself in EU3, and obviously the goal is to increase your power...but you can "win" in a wider variety of ways. You don't have to be a warmonger to do well in EU3. You could, for example, be an economic powerhouse. Or you could effectively maneuver yourself into position to become the Holy Roman Emperor (although the benefits of that are debatable...). You can play with the papacy and try to become Papal Controller, but that's pretty difficult.
A few key differences:
- You don't manage cities. You manage provinces/counties. You also don't build "buildings" the same way. The technologies that unlock buildings are VERY slow to come.
- You don't have "Gold sliders" and "Tech sliders" exactly. Your gold influences your tech speed and you allocate resources. But, you can also play with MONETARY policy, for example, minting more coinage. This will let you do things like buy up lots and lots of troops...but at the expense of debasing your currency, killing your tech progression, and making EVERYTHING more expensive.
- The game is not exactly "turn-based," but is in real time. Still, you can slow the game to such a low speed that it FEELS turn based and you have enough time between activities to basically treat it as "turns without having to click next turn."
- The whole "social policy" or "governmental policy" structures from Civ 4 and Civ 5 aren't really comparable to what's in EU3. You can have different governmental structures, but you can also modify how the government works...with varying consequences. For example, maybe you like more centralized control. That's great! Except that you'll end up potentially having a revolt by your nobles or losing national stability (which itself can produce MORE revolts). There are also national policies/ideas that you can adopt, which are a bit closer to the social policies you get in Civ 5, but they're slow to come as well.
- Warfare is...different. Very different. Wars are extremely expensive. Civ 5 is a lot closer in terms of expense of war than Civ 4, for example. There are also real serious consequences and downsides of declaring war. First, you need a "casus belli" -- a reason to go to war. If you have no reason, your country will take a "stability" hit, meaning that it is now a heck of a lot harder to govern. Tax revenues will be lower, cost of units and improvements will be higher, tech growth will be slower, and revolts will be a lot more likely. This will make it harder to maintain your armies, and they'll suffer from lower morale (as you'd expect when the empire can't pay its troops). Even if you're successful, you still have local revolts with which to contend, meaning that you can end up fighting smaller armies of rebel troops even after conquering a territory. AND if you've just gone around and gobbled up a bunch of nations, your reputation internationally will be trashed. Well, hey, that could happen in Civ 4 too, but so what? Well, the "so what" is that countries won't need a casus belli against YOU, so they'll be a LOT more likely to declare war. They can simply cite you as being a really nasty scumbag and attack. This makes maintaining your hold on all that territory a LOT harder. Basically, warfare is a valid approach, but it is not the ONLY approach, and the game makes being an out-and-out warmonger a LOT harder. Remember Napoleon? Yeah, he did pretty well for a while there, but buy he sure ticked off Europe and ended up blowing it in the end. That can happen to you, too.
- All of this spells out that the game is NOT about warfare exclusively. Diplomacy counts. Diplomacy in EU3 is handled...differently from Civ, however. You can improve diplomatic relations by entering into a royal marriage with a nation, which will in turn increase the legitimacy of your own ruler (so you won't suffer an attack by a pretender to the throne). Unless, of course, you're a Republic of some sort, in which case you won't have royalty to marry off anyway. But I digress. You can make claims on thrones when their legitimacy is weak, if you have a royal marriage with them, meaning that England could "inherit" or "make a claim" on Bohemia if Bohemia's legitimacy is weak and there's a royal marriage between the two...but that could also land you in a succession war if, say, Spain has a claim to the Bohemian throne as well. That said, you can't do things like enter into "research agreements" and trade is less obvious. You don't harvest resources, really, although provinces do produce a single resource of greater or lesser value. Still, you can corner the market on certain resources if you want to go that way (I haven't played a game like that, though, so I don't know how in-depth that goes).
There's a lot more I could write, but for the price, EU3 is DEFINITELY worth checking out if you want a more in-depth "world history" sim. It's a dense game that can be tough to master (I'm still learning), but it's a lot of fun, and in my opinion is a better game than Civ 5 as far as sims go. That said, for those who like Civ's more abstract approach, this game is not for you. It's probably too wonky. GalCiv 2 may be more your speed. I never played it, but GalCiv 1 was a terrific game and felt like a spiritual successor to both Master of Orion and Civilization. But if it's an in-depth historical sim you want, EU3 is the way to go.
One final note: EU3, at least prior to the Divine Wind expansion (which I haven't bought yet), is not as pretty as Civ 5. If that's something that really matters to you, EU3 may also not be your game. Personally, I find the attention to graphics in Civ5 to actually be off-putting, especially when it seems to have come at the expense of actual solid gameplay development, but your mileage may vary.
I came to EU3 after finally getting tired of Civ 4 (which, while a great game, did have its flaws). I found Civ 4 to be far too...I dunno...mathematical? You had to min/max a lot in order to do well, and it irritated me that the AI, instead of being somehow smarter, was just basically given "cheats" or "a finger on the scale" at higher levels. Civ's execution of certain concepts also irritated me. Warfare took considerably longer than in real life, turns felt artificial, etc. Civ is far more of an abstraction of concepts, and while it's a lot of fun, it's not really a "sim." It's just a fun 4X game. Different entries into the series are more or less in-depth, but at its core, it's never really been a "sim." Heck, you didn't even need to play on earth, if you didn't want to! Go generate a random new world and have at it! That's part of the fun of Civ, not a slight against it. But I found myself growing tired of that and realizing that I kept playing world maps and being frustrated at some of what I felt were goofy abstractions in the game, alongside what passed for "depth" being a lot of min/maxing of gold, tech, etc. I also wasn't a huge fan of the way warfare played out (although a lot of that was due to how I've always been kind of lousy at warfare in Civ games), and felt that there really seemed to be "optimum" paths to victory.
EU3 is far closer to a "sim." There is no "winning" in EU3. Not in the sense that there is in Civ. It's not like when you accomplish XYZ goal the game says "Congratulations! You have won and become the ruling nation!" You can set goals for yourself in EU3, and obviously the goal is to increase your power...but you can "win" in a wider variety of ways. You don't have to be a warmonger to do well in EU3. You could, for example, be an economic powerhouse. Or you could effectively maneuver yourself into position to become the Holy Roman Emperor (although the benefits of that are debatable...). You can play with the papacy and try to become Papal Controller, but that's pretty difficult.
A few key differences:
- You don't manage cities. You manage provinces/counties. You also don't build "buildings" the same way. The technologies that unlock buildings are VERY slow to come.
- You don't have "Gold sliders" and "Tech sliders" exactly. Your gold influences your tech speed and you allocate resources. But, you can also play with MONETARY policy, for example, minting more coinage. This will let you do things like buy up lots and lots of troops...but at the expense of debasing your currency, killing your tech progression, and making EVERYTHING more expensive.
- The game is not exactly "turn-based," but is in real time. Still, you can slow the game to such a low speed that it FEELS turn based and you have enough time between activities to basically treat it as "turns without having to click next turn."
- The whole "social policy" or "governmental policy" structures from Civ 4 and Civ 5 aren't really comparable to what's in EU3. You can have different governmental structures, but you can also modify how the government works...with varying consequences. For example, maybe you like more centralized control. That's great! Except that you'll end up potentially having a revolt by your nobles or losing national stability (which itself can produce MORE revolts). There are also national policies/ideas that you can adopt, which are a bit closer to the social policies you get in Civ 5, but they're slow to come as well.
- Warfare is...different. Very different. Wars are extremely expensive. Civ 5 is a lot closer in terms of expense of war than Civ 4, for example. There are also real serious consequences and downsides of declaring war. First, you need a "casus belli" -- a reason to go to war. If you have no reason, your country will take a "stability" hit, meaning that it is now a heck of a lot harder to govern. Tax revenues will be lower, cost of units and improvements will be higher, tech growth will be slower, and revolts will be a lot more likely. This will make it harder to maintain your armies, and they'll suffer from lower morale (as you'd expect when the empire can't pay its troops). Even if you're successful, you still have local revolts with which to contend, meaning that you can end up fighting smaller armies of rebel troops even after conquering a territory. AND if you've just gone around and gobbled up a bunch of nations, your reputation internationally will be trashed. Well, hey, that could happen in Civ 4 too, but so what? Well, the "so what" is that countries won't need a casus belli against YOU, so they'll be a LOT more likely to declare war. They can simply cite you as being a really nasty scumbag and attack. This makes maintaining your hold on all that territory a LOT harder. Basically, warfare is a valid approach, but it is not the ONLY approach, and the game makes being an out-and-out warmonger a LOT harder. Remember Napoleon? Yeah, he did pretty well for a while there, but buy he sure ticked off Europe and ended up blowing it in the end. That can happen to you, too.
- All of this spells out that the game is NOT about warfare exclusively. Diplomacy counts. Diplomacy in EU3 is handled...differently from Civ, however. You can improve diplomatic relations by entering into a royal marriage with a nation, which will in turn increase the legitimacy of your own ruler (so you won't suffer an attack by a pretender to the throne). Unless, of course, you're a Republic of some sort, in which case you won't have royalty to marry off anyway. But I digress. You can make claims on thrones when their legitimacy is weak, if you have a royal marriage with them, meaning that England could "inherit" or "make a claim" on Bohemia if Bohemia's legitimacy is weak and there's a royal marriage between the two...but that could also land you in a succession war if, say, Spain has a claim to the Bohemian throne as well. That said, you can't do things like enter into "research agreements" and trade is less obvious. You don't harvest resources, really, although provinces do produce a single resource of greater or lesser value. Still, you can corner the market on certain resources if you want to go that way (I haven't played a game like that, though, so I don't know how in-depth that goes).
There's a lot more I could write, but for the price, EU3 is DEFINITELY worth checking out if you want a more in-depth "world history" sim. It's a dense game that can be tough to master (I'm still learning), but it's a lot of fun, and in my opinion is a better game than Civ 5 as far as sims go. That said, for those who like Civ's more abstract approach, this game is not for you. It's probably too wonky. GalCiv 2 may be more your speed. I never played it, but GalCiv 1 was a terrific game and felt like a spiritual successor to both Master of Orion and Civilization. But if it's an in-depth historical sim you want, EU3 is the way to go.
One final note: EU3, at least prior to the Divine Wind expansion (which I haven't bought yet), is not as pretty as Civ 5. If that's something that really matters to you, EU3 may also not be your game. Personally, I find the attention to graphics in Civ5 to actually be off-putting, especially when it seems to have come at the expense of actual solid gameplay development, but your mileage may vary.
Wow theres a lot of old games in this list! Im not sure if the OP wanted those suggestions or wanted new selections, but yall have some pretty good lists! Also, I think were all strategy gamers here, so no need to exclude the occasional RTS. Here are some of my recommendations broken out by subgenre:
SciFi 4x:
MOO series (MOO3 doesnt count!)
Gal Civ2
Fantasy 4x:
Age of Wonders
HOMM series (3 is the best IMO)
Tactics
Final Fantasy Tactics
Knights in the Nightmare (unusual and unique mechanics)
Ogre Tactics
Wargame style (admittedly I play few of these)
Wesnoth
RTS
Starcraft 2
Company of Heroes (just awesome)
Light TBS
Greed Corp. (pretty new indie game thats a lot of fun not huge depth though).
Other:
X-COM series (possibly my favorite in my list)
Might and Magic: Clash of Heroes (overlooked DS game that combines tactics and puzzle game elements)
SciFi 4x:
MOO series (MOO3 doesnt count!)
Gal Civ2
Fantasy 4x:
Age of Wonders
HOMM series (3 is the best IMO)
Tactics
Final Fantasy Tactics
Knights in the Nightmare (unusual and unique mechanics)
Ogre Tactics
Wargame style (admittedly I play few of these)
Wesnoth
RTS
Starcraft 2
Company of Heroes (just awesome)
Light TBS
Greed Corp. (pretty new indie game thats a lot of fun not huge depth though).
Other:
X-COM series (possibly my favorite in my list)
Might and Magic: Clash of Heroes (overlooked DS game that combines tactics and puzzle game elements)
Renergy
Warlord
LOL, +1 for Torchlight.. I have discovered it during Christmas since it was on sale on Steam. First I just started on easy, killed some monsters.. then it was like.. "hm this is looking good, let's try it 'seriously'". And then I spent most of holidays with it
Very good game. Nice blend of action and strategy (which skill/spell/armor/weapon to choose). Very nice graphics, and it's not that much HW intensive. "Skills" are much like "social policies" (a vice versa). And it has the "just one more level" feeling, much like "just one more turn" in civ.
TBH (means 'to be heretic'
), I don't play ciV much these days.. TL won me over. 
Anthropoid
Grognard fantome
@Solo4114 : good description of EU3. Also, your reasons for gravitating over to it sound very similar to mine.
Not sure if they've been mentioned yet, but the Ageod games (now partnered with Paradox and for sale on Gamersgate) are pretty good.
I had a bad experience with the original World War I: La Grande Geurre, but have not tried the new "Gold" version. My guess is that that "Gold" version is just simply the original with some fixes to make it playable and fun. Might be worth it but I'm hesitant.
However, the other games I've played from Ageod I love, and they definitely fit into the TBS category: Birth of America; Russian Revolution (forget the actual name, it is new). Seven Years War.
If you like EU you may really like the Ageod games: historical sim style with limited geographic and period coverage.
Not sure if they've been mentioned yet, but the Ageod games (now partnered with Paradox and for sale on Gamersgate) are pretty good.
I had a bad experience with the original World War I: La Grande Geurre, but have not tried the new "Gold" version. My guess is that that "Gold" version is just simply the original with some fixes to make it playable and fun. Might be worth it but I'm hesitant.
However, the other games I've played from Ageod I love, and they definitely fit into the TBS category: Birth of America; Russian Revolution (forget the actual name, it is new). Seven Years War.
If you like EU you may really like the Ageod games: historical sim style with limited geographic and period coverage.
Yep. It's a great game. Definitely more my flavor. Don't get me wrong -- I still enjoy Civ 4+BTS, but it's just a very different kind of game. I do not, however, find Civ 5 to be a worthy successor to Civ 4. It doesn't "continue and build upon" what came before. It pretties-up and tries to re-invent large portions of the game, which I fear may have proven a bridge too far for the development team, since some stuff seems sort of half-assed, and other stuff seems well developed...but not really appropriate to the rest of the game. Taken as a whole, I find Civ 5 in its current state to not be worth the current sticker price. I'd peg it closer to $20-30.
EU3, by contrast, is well worth its price, which comes out to be around $48. (EU3 Complete is $8 on Amazon, and Heir to the Throne and Divine Wind are about $20 a piece on Gamersgate.) Considering that you end up paying $50-60 for Civ 5 with 18 civs, one scenario, an earth map that doesn't give you start positions in accurate locations, "plus all it's potential," plus another $7.50 if you want to get Spain and Inca and a scenario....well, to me, the choice is pretty clear.
EU3, by contrast, is well worth its price, which comes out to be around $48. (EU3 Complete is $8 on Amazon, and Heir to the Throne and Divine Wind are about $20 a piece on Gamersgate.) Considering that you end up paying $50-60 for Civ 5 with 18 civs, one scenario, an earth map that doesn't give you start positions in accurate locations, "plus all it's potential," plus another $7.50 if you want to get Spain and Inca and a scenario....well, to me, the choice is pretty clear.
That's what I thought.
Looking at some threads over at Paradox, the AI plays on an even playing field on normal settings, which is how I had remembered it when EU3 first came out.
It is wonderful isn't it?
It's just going to get better with Torchlight II when multiplayer is introduced along with an outdoor setting.
Truly a quality game for an extremely reasonable price.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as the AI cheating in EU3, I never found that to be the case.
It's challenging enough and fairly competent in making naval invasions. Something rare in strategy games I think. Lol.
Anyway, here's a fairly good let's play video series on EU3 Divine Wind. The player is playing Brandenburg. I found it quite informative.
Here's part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vioSrK2uRo&feature=related
Venereus
This Is Streamlined!
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2010
- Messages
- 1,026
LOL, +1 for Torchlight.. I have discovered it during Christmas since it was on sale on Steam. First I just started on easy, killed some monsters.. then it was like.. "hm this is looking good, let's try it 'seriously'". And then I spent most of holidays with it
Very good game. Nice blend of action and strategy (which skill/spell/armor/weapon to choose). Very nice graphics, and it's not that much HW intensive. "Skills" are much like "social policies" (a vice versa). And it has the "just one more level" feeling, much like "just one more turn" in civ.
TBH (means 'to be heretic'
It's also easy to mod. And for real this time. In just a few minutes my Vanquisher was topless. Try doing that to Catherine of Russia.
Not serious, I'm not a pervert. May be a little. The mods do exist, in case you're interested (you pervert).
blind biker
King
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2009
- Messages
- 609
It seems Catherine the Great was also a great w***e, and many would have had the opportunity to see her topless.
ImperialGuard
Prince
I've watched the first 12 parts of this playthrough ..... EU3 looks really, really good. The diplomacy in the game appears very indepth.
The playthrough is painful to watch at times, but the poster is actually starting to "grow on me"
I'm gonna watch a few more, then start playing (bought the game on sale just before christmas for $8.00).....EU3 appears way better than CiV in almost every aspect
I've watched the first 12 parts of this playthrough ..... EU3 looks really, really good. The diplomacy in the game appears very indepth.
The playthrough is painful to watch at times, but the poster is actually starting to "grow on me"
I'm gonna watch a few more, then start playing (bought the game on sale just before christmas for $8.00).....EU3 appears way better than CiV in almost every aspect
Cool. Glad you liked it.
One thing I really like about EU3 is it's worldwide popularity. It's really big in Europe. I suppose it's kind of like Civ in that aspect.
I think the guy who does the let's play is Polish if I'm not mistaken. I like his easy going speaking style.
I think EU3 is a lot better than Civ in quite a few areas but Civ (at least the older iterations) has it beat in others.
$8.00 is a fantastic value I think. The game's replayability is through the roof.
A few things re: EU3.
1.) It's very very good.
2.) It's also (potentially) very very slow, but it moves in "real time." In other words, you never click "next turn." The game just plays. You can slow down or speed up the game, however, but if you make it go too fast, you can screw yourself pretty easily.
3.) I haven't played Divine Wind but the diplomacy is....interesting. It's not quite what I'd want it to be, but it lets you do different things from Civ. Bribery is absolutely part and parcel to diplomacy in EU3. Pay gold, get favorable relations (or at least improve relations). But, you also can improve relations by entering into agreements with the other nations, be they trade agreements (which basically means you agree not to compete each others' merchants away in the various centers of trade), royal marriages, vassal relationships, or alliances. Various things will piss off other nations, such as competing their merchants away in centers of trade, breaking treaties (IE: royal marriages, etc.), having claims on each others' lands (for example, at the start of the game, England and France are at odds with each other, because of hereditary claims to each others' lands).
There are other elements of diplomacy, too. Differences in religion can cause conflicts, failing to support an alliance in a war can lead to the termination of ALL arrangements with them (including royal marriages, trade agreements, and the alliance itself), etc. You can also get a bad reputation for being a warmonger, which can, in turn, lead ALL states to gang up on you. You could find yourself excommunicated, too, if you piss off whoever controls the pope. Likewise, you can lift an excommunication if you are the current papal controller in order to curry favor.
The thing is, as many options as you have, they're also a lot more spread out across the UI. It's not like there's a single "diplomacy" screen, nor are there visual representations of ambassadors or national leaders (oh, your leaders die, too, which can lead to succession wars and such). It can be jarring for someone who's coming from the Civ tradition.
EU3 is much much more of an "empire simulation" than an "empire builder." Yes, tehre are building elements, but a lot of what goes on in the game is designed to prevent one single nation from taking over the world. Also, there's no "tech tree" to speak of. There are tech improvements which happen over time, and you can choose which area of technology you want to devote resources too, but it's not like you say "Ok, research pottery. Now research iron working. Now research gunpowder." It's far more hands-off and progression is more linear.
Anyway, it's a great game, and I like it quite a bit but -- and this is important -- it's not Civ and it's not a 4X game. Not in the traditional Civ/MOO sense. There are elements of expansion, extermination, exploration and exploitation, but it's not the traditional model. I find it to be, generally, a far better, more in-depth game than the Civ series, as far as being a "play the world" sim goes. Given that that was always my focus in Civ, I really like it. But it's not Civ, and it's never been intended as something to "replace" Civ.
One last thing. I find that EU3 is better as a game for those who are big on understanding general concepts. If you understand that stuff, you can do well in the game. You can still dig into the "math" side of the game, of course, but you don't need to be doing things like "maximizing hammers" by micromanaging your cities. You still micromanage in some cases, but it's a bit less about abstract "gaming" and (to my mind, anyway) a bit more tied to reflecting some historical concept. Obviously, it's a computer game, so it's all built around math-ish stuff, and understanding that will let you manipulate the game, but I've always felt like the guys who did REALLY well at Civ were the guys who loved logic problems and math-ish stuff, whereas a "big picture/screw-the-numbers-and-lets-talk-history" guy like myself could do well, but not as well. In EU3, it's a bit more of a level playing field. Or so it seems to me. I'm still learning the game and have yet to get a game past 1600 where I didn't completely bone myself.
(briefly, I played one particular game as England where I found out the hard way that inflation REALLY REALLY MATTERS in the game, and in ways that aren't immediately obvious).
1.) It's very very good.
2.) It's also (potentially) very very slow, but it moves in "real time." In other words, you never click "next turn." The game just plays. You can slow down or speed up the game, however, but if you make it go too fast, you can screw yourself pretty easily.
3.) I haven't played Divine Wind but the diplomacy is....interesting. It's not quite what I'd want it to be, but it lets you do different things from Civ. Bribery is absolutely part and parcel to diplomacy in EU3. Pay gold, get favorable relations (or at least improve relations). But, you also can improve relations by entering into agreements with the other nations, be they trade agreements (which basically means you agree not to compete each others' merchants away in the various centers of trade), royal marriages, vassal relationships, or alliances. Various things will piss off other nations, such as competing their merchants away in centers of trade, breaking treaties (IE: royal marriages, etc.), having claims on each others' lands (for example, at the start of the game, England and France are at odds with each other, because of hereditary claims to each others' lands).
There are other elements of diplomacy, too. Differences in religion can cause conflicts, failing to support an alliance in a war can lead to the termination of ALL arrangements with them (including royal marriages, trade agreements, and the alliance itself), etc. You can also get a bad reputation for being a warmonger, which can, in turn, lead ALL states to gang up on you. You could find yourself excommunicated, too, if you piss off whoever controls the pope. Likewise, you can lift an excommunication if you are the current papal controller in order to curry favor.
The thing is, as many options as you have, they're also a lot more spread out across the UI. It's not like there's a single "diplomacy" screen, nor are there visual representations of ambassadors or national leaders (oh, your leaders die, too, which can lead to succession wars and such). It can be jarring for someone who's coming from the Civ tradition.
EU3 is much much more of an "empire simulation" than an "empire builder." Yes, tehre are building elements, but a lot of what goes on in the game is designed to prevent one single nation from taking over the world. Also, there's no "tech tree" to speak of. There are tech improvements which happen over time, and you can choose which area of technology you want to devote resources too, but it's not like you say "Ok, research pottery. Now research iron working. Now research gunpowder." It's far more hands-off and progression is more linear.
Anyway, it's a great game, and I like it quite a bit but -- and this is important -- it's not Civ and it's not a 4X game. Not in the traditional Civ/MOO sense. There are elements of expansion, extermination, exploration and exploitation, but it's not the traditional model. I find it to be, generally, a far better, more in-depth game than the Civ series, as far as being a "play the world" sim goes. Given that that was always my focus in Civ, I really like it. But it's not Civ, and it's never been intended as something to "replace" Civ.
One last thing. I find that EU3 is better as a game for those who are big on understanding general concepts. If you understand that stuff, you can do well in the game. You can still dig into the "math" side of the game, of course, but you don't need to be doing things like "maximizing hammers" by micromanaging your cities. You still micromanage in some cases, but it's a bit less about abstract "gaming" and (to my mind, anyway) a bit more tied to reflecting some historical concept. Obviously, it's a computer game, so it's all built around math-ish stuff, and understanding that will let you manipulate the game, but I've always felt like the guys who did REALLY well at Civ were the guys who loved logic problems and math-ish stuff, whereas a "big picture/screw-the-numbers-and-lets-talk-history" guy like myself could do well, but not as well. In EU3, it's a bit more of a level playing field. Or so it seems to me. I'm still learning the game and have yet to get a game past 1600 where I didn't completely bone myself.
(briefly, I played one particular game as England where I found out the hard way that inflation REALLY REALLY MATTERS in the game, and in ways that aren't immediately obvious).
