Played a game of Civiliztion after a long pause - EU4 feels shallow by comparison

[Me_]

Played a game of Civilization after a long pause - EU4 feels shallow by comparison

Why? I would say that its most defining aspect is it's greatest shortcoming. Whatever people may say, EU4 is the most realistic game about its period. Civilization, by comparison, is ridiculously abstract.

So why is it so, that the less complex, more abstract game feels better?
It's just my guess, but maybe because EU is all about conflict, while Civ is more about achievement. And achievement is more positive.

The game I played had one interesting aspect of note - through the entire history of the "Spanish Empire" (founded 4000 BC ) I have waged exactly one war. One. On the other hand, playing as the Aztec Empire from 1444 to 1516 (so far) I have waged 20, maybe 25 wars. War never changes, and neither does Europa Universalis.

The Spanish Empire achieved an arbitrary "victory" after being elected "World Leader" by the "UN", but it was also around 20 turns away from becoming "influential" culturally over the whole world and had 3 parts of a spaceship to Alpha Centauri ready. None of this makes any sense, if you stop just for a moment to think of it, but also none of this had anything to do with waging wars. It was all about achieving something peacefully.

The Aztec Empire did nothing but wage war. It waged war on its enemies, it waged war on its allies, it waged war on its own people. It build armies and ships and forts and collected money to build more of those. Even its trade it waged through war, by conquering more land to get "tradepower". It didn't do a single thing that would make it stand tall and proud above other nations that did not involve piling up skulls to stand atop them. To be fair, though, that's an achievement, as well.

Now, that's not to say that there isn't fun to be had in conquest, but the more I think of it, the more I become convinced that EU4 is all about Genghis-Khan-wannabes. There's no room for Plato, Einstein or Michelangelo here.

I guess the next game I play is going to be as the Jurchens. I'll conquer and conquer and conquer. And then, I'll have all the tradepower I need.

Cheers

 

[LinusLinothorax]

Well its well known that EU4 is quite of empty in peacetimes. We can only hope that Paradox will finally decide to implement new mechanics (Extended culture and religion systems etc.),

 

[Haakon_XIII]

pufff Civilization sucks

 

[TolHydra]

Civ vs EU comparison is only fair in one term, your personal enjoyment.. and I have to agree, sometimes Civ feels a lot more enjoyable.

As in, when I'm not playtesting the patches.

 

[Kh3lben]

So you wanted to make a(nother) thread about EU IV lacking things to do during peacetime and you chose the passive-aggressive way of doing so. To be honest it would be better to plainly ask for it or even make some suggestions of your own.Comparing EUIV to CIV is,to say the least, laughable.

 

[unmerged(463193)]

civ 5 honestly just sucked. it streamlined and simplified the game so much that it neutered the game. diplomacy is still crap from what i've heard even with all the expansion and patches.

the different victory conditions do help civ become more unique (in comparison to euiv where there are no victory conditions) but the most effective way to play (at least for me) is still just to conquer the rest of your competitors (domination).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Civ is much more micro tilted. It shares too many of this games flaws too, though at least it has less fake difficulty...but micro isn't my thing.

 

[toroltao]

Civ is much more micro tilted. It shares too many of this games flaws too, though at least it has less fake difficulty...but micro isn't my thing.

CiV has less fake difficulty? What?

 

[LinusLinothorax]

civ 5 honestly just sucked. it streamlined and simplified the game so much that it neutered the game.

Play with "Brave New World" and "Gods & Kings" then.

 

[Rozmarzony]

Play with "Brave New World" and "Gods&Kings" then.

It still sucks.
All next patches just makes the game simplier, while adding some new mechanics.

 

[achmedino]

I don't get it, just because there's multiple ways to win the game is way better? peacetime in civ 5 and beyond earth are pretty boring as well, in my opinion. What do you like doing in civ 5 that makes peace so fun? The only thing I can think of is expanding, which just means producing settlers and chosing spots for them to settle, aside from that peacetime is pretty much the following: choose production in a couple of cities, choose a tech, maybe get a trade offer from someone. And then you pretty much do the same till something else needs a new production set, or you have researched your tech and you have to move on to the next one, in that aspect civ peacetime is just as much a waiting game as EU is...

 

[Pornek]

Civ4:BtS was the best of their series anyways.

I dont think its really fair to compare both games though as one plays more like an arcade-style strategy and the other as historical, real world risk. I definitly like the pdox games more, somehow all the history basis is more of my thing. That being said Civilization boils down to conquest aswell, if you're playing on immortal or higher.

 

[itsuart]

Why? I would say that it's most defining aspect is it's greatest shortcoming. Whatever people may say EU4 is the most realistic game about its period. Civilization, by comparison, is ridiculously abstract.

So why is it so, that the less complex, more abstract game feels better?
It's just my guess, but maybe because EU is all about conflict, while Civ is more about achievement. And achievement is more positive.

The game I played had one interesting aspect of note - through the entire history of the "Spanish Empire" (founded 4000 BC ) I have waged exactly one war. One. On the other hand, playing as the Aztec Empire from 1444 to 1516 (so far) I have waged 20, maybe 25 wars. War never changes, and neither does Europa Universalis.

The Spanish Empire achieved an arbitrary "victory" after being elected "World Leader" by the "UN", but it was also around 20 turns away from becoming "influential" culturally over the whole world and had 3 parts of a spaceship to Alpha Centauri ready. None of tis makes any sense, if you stop just for a moment to think of it, but also none of this had anything to do with wagin wars. it was all about achieving something peacefully.

The Aztec Empire did nothing but wage war. It waged war on its enemies, it waged war on its allies, it waged war on its own people. It build armies and ships and forts and collected money to build more of those. Even it's trade it waged through war by conquering more land to get "tradepower". It didn't do a single thing that would make it stand tall and proud above other nations that did not involve piling up skulls to stand atop them. To be fair, though, that's an achievement, as well.

Now, that's not to say that there isn't fun to be had in conquest, but the more I think of it, the more I become convinced that EU4 is all about Genghis-Khan-wannabes. There's no room for Plato, Einstein or Michelangelo here.

I guess the next game I play is going to be as the Jurchens. I'll conquer and conquer and conquer. And then I'll have all the tradepower I need.

Cheers

Nice observation!

 

[Kirikano]

I'm gonna have to disagree. I have CIV 4 5 and BE and I find EU a lot more fun for the very reasons you feel civ is better. Especially cbe feels shallow to me and boring. Wars in civ has neither the randomness or planning that goes into a war in EU, but look more like a battle in an RTS yet lack the speed and variety of units in RTS games. And don't even get me started on diplomatic AI. We complain about it in EU but honestly Civ diplomacy is way worse.

And sorry I might not be explaining it well and typos all over the place but I'm typing on my phone.

 

[Lord Finnish]

I fancy Civilization to be a very bland story. I've played only 4 and 5 of the main franchise though.


Must say though that SMAC is one of my favorite games ever. Deirdre is my waifu :wub:

 

[TheMeInTeam]

CiV has less fake difficulty? What?

The UI is less prone to lying to you, and there is no equivalent to absurdities like peasant's wars. The AI is equally cryptic so you can call that a push I guess, but there are far fewer esoteric mechanics.

For example, for over a year since release, you have to memorize the base combat width and do a fast arithmetic just to know your in-game combat width in EU IV, while in civ you do at least see all the relevant modifiers on mouse-over. That kind of stuff is massively in Civ's favor if comparing the two.

I dont think its really fair to compare both games though as one plays more like an arcade-style strategy and the other as historical, real world risk.

EU's "historical" advantage is marginal, existing primarily due to the timeframe limitation.

Also, even back in civ IV you could win on deity with 3 cities, something I posted a few times before I stopped playing that frequently.

 

[LinusLinothorax]

peacetime in civ 5 and beyond earth are pretty boring as well, in my opinion. What do you like doing in civ 5 that makes peace so fun? The only thing I can think of is expanding, which just means producing settlers and chosing spots for them to settle, aside from that peacetime is pretty much the following: choose production in a couple of cities, choose a tech, maybe get a trade offer from someone. And then you pretty much do the same till something else needs a new production set, or you have researched your tech and you have to move on to the next one, in that aspect civ peacetime is just as much a waiting game as EU is...

In Civ i never get bored in peacetimes, i always have the feeling that i can do something. But how often i am sitting before my computer while playing EU4, waiting minutes to happen something while it was peace.

 

[tyler45455]

Why? I would say that it's most defining aspect is it's greatest shortcoming. Whatever people may say EU4 is the most realistic game about its period. Civilization, by comparison, is ridiculously abstract.

So why is it so, that the less complex, more abstract game feels better?
It's just my guess, but maybe because EU is all about conflict, while Civ is more about achievement. And achievement is more positive.

The game I played had one interesting aspect of note - through the entire history of the "Spanish Empire" (founded 4000 BC ) I have waged exactly one war. One. On the other hand, playing as the Aztec Empire from 1444 to 1516 (so far) I have waged 20, maybe 25 wars. War never changes, and neither does Europa Universalis.

The Spanish Empire achieved an arbitrary "victory" after being elected "World Leader" by the "UN", but it was also around 20 turns away from becoming "influential" culturally over the whole world and had 3 parts of a spaceship to Alpha Centauri ready. None of tis makes any sense, if you stop just for a moment to think of it, but also none of this had anything to do with wagin wars. it was all about achieving something peacefully.

The Aztec Empire did nothing but wage war. It waged war on its enemies, it waged war on its allies, it waged war on its own people. It build armies and ships and forts and collected money to build more of those. Even it's trade it waged through war by conquering more land to get "tradepower". It didn't do a single thing that would make it stand tall and proud above other nations that did not involve piling up skulls to stand atop them. To be fair, though, that's an achievement, as well.

Now, that's not to say that there isn't fun to be had in conquest, but the more I think of it, the more I become convinced that EU4 is all about Genghis-Khan-wannabes. There's no room for Plato, Einstein or Michelangelo here.

I guess the next game I play is going to be as the Jurchens. I'll conquer and conquer and conquer. And then I'll have all the tradepower I need.

Cheers

I am at a loss for words...

 

[toroltao]

The UI is less prone to lying to you, and there is no equivalent to absurdities like peasant's wars. The AI is equally cryptic so you can call that a push I guess, but there are far fewer esoteric mechanics.

For example, for over a year since release, you have to memorize the base combat width and do a fast arithmetic just to know your in-game combat width in EU IV, while in civ you do at least see all the relevant modifiers on mouse-over. That kind of stuff is massively in Civ's favor if comparing the two.

Well I'll give you this. This mechanics in EU really do need to be made more apparent.

 

[CommunistCookie]

Well its well known that EU4 is quite of empty in peacetimes. We can only hope that Paradox will finally decide to implement new mechanics (Extended culture and religion systems etc.),

If peacetime is the complaint, then I don't really see how civ improves on it. Peacetime in civ is 100% bucket filling.