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

[TheChronoMaster]

EDIT: To keep this on the topic of EUIV, I don't think it's a relevant comparison. Both games do things in vastly different ways, with EUIV striving for 'historical flavor', while Civ strives for a more straightforward 'game' approach. Neither one really prizes accuracy, and both have challenges and failures, but they are enjoyable games that can coexist without cannibalizing each other.

It's no different with Total War either, for what it's worth. It's a foolhardy comparison made only by those who can't appreciate the good things about any given game.

Off topic content removed

 

[Krajzen]

As I have played MUCH both games, I agree with OP.

I think I had similar fun from both EU4 and Civ5. AI in Civ5 isn't THAT incompetent, especially as there is <very sophisticated to create by team of best modders + one proffesional programmer> a mod which actually manages to GREATLY improve Articficial Intelligence.

Personally I would say both titles have some annoying and awesome features.

ANNOYING
- EU4 often feels 'very slow' due to it's real time and realistic, slow accumulation of power
- Civ5 offers active entertainment at every given moment but this is compensated by unavoidable huge turn loading times. I have a strong computer but ONE TURN (from 400 - 600) on big map can last 1 - 3 minutes. Literally three full minutes of waiting for all AIs to do their turn - now imagine you have to wait 20 turns for a world wonder or whatever, and you have nothing to do besides that...
- EU4 is based on military expansion, there is not much to do in peace
- Civ5 on the other hand while has cool military system it is much easier than EU one (due to nature of it and AI) and also it is logistical nightmare in late game. World Conquest in EU4 is boring, World Conquest in Civ5 is infuriating when you have to give orders to dozens of units each after another every turn... And one - unit - per - tile creates horrible traffic jams all time and everywhere

AWESOME
- EU4 is, after all, quite realistic and quite free simulator of Planet Earth in 1444 - 1821 period
- Civ5 is completely not realistic but absolutely free simulator of entirely alternate human history, on entirely alternate planet


I would rate both of them 8.5/10. I prefer warfare in EU4 - as it is often dramatic and difficult even despite mediocre AI. I mean, in EU4 unless you start with top global power or finally become one, you are always in danger of facing factions which can completely massacre you - this feeling of 'geopolitical danger' is cool. In the same time I prefer peaceful time in Civ5 as you always have lot of cool things to do in peace (always something to build, always something to 'terraform', Cultural Gameplay is amazing, World Wonders, World Congress, race for the victory etc)




Generally speaking, I am sure next expansion should GREATLY expand cultural/intelectual/administrative aspect of EU4.

 

[Ciaphas Cain]

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.

But would it still feel like an achievement if you weren't rewarded with an victory for achieving one of the conditions? Apart from the obvious lack of peace time content in EU4 one of the things I guess a lot of people have problems with is the lack of a clearly defined victory at the end of most PDS games.

 

[toroltao]

But would it still feel like an achievement if you weren't rewarded with an victory for achieving one of the conditions? Apart from the obvious lack of peace time content in EU4 one of the things I guess a lot of people have problems with is the lack of a clearly defined victory at the end of most PDS games.

There should be a comparison between in game achievements and the real life accomplishments of the nation at the end of the game.

 

[Krajzen]

But would it still feel like an achievement if you weren't rewarded with an victory for achieving one of the conditions? Apart from the obvious lack of peace time content in EU4 one of the things I guess a lot of people have problems with is the lack of a clearly defined victory at the end of most PDS games.

I think in EU series a Score, Achievements and joy of building historical empire + observing how the world evolves through centuries is enough. I mean, clear victory condition would be bad as this would spoil sandbox feeling of freedom - you would have to worry about victory instead of having fun from, whatever, playing Kongo.

 

[Ciaphas Cain]

I mean, clear victory condition would be bad as this would spoil sandbox feeling of freedom - you would have to worry about victory instead of having fun from, whatever, playing Kongo.

How did you know I was playing Kongo? GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!! hmy:

 

[Blindbohemian]

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.

Mate, you just described EUIV.

 

[Krajzen]

How did you know I was playing Kongo? GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!! hmy:

...out of like 300 countries from EU4 I randomly picked exactly this one... @_@

 

[Zak Preston]

There is a huge minus for EU4:

You can form a strong state, like Prussia, Commonwealth or even westernized Aztecs, but still all empires are doomed in XX century anyway. So even if you restore a Roman Empire, than sooner or later it would fall again because world history has shown that there is no place for empires in industrial world.
In Victoria 2 you can start as a Kongo or Persia and become a great power without wars easily.

 

[Incompetent]

Kongo is a well-known magnet for EU4 hipsters.

 

[toroltao]

world history has shown that there is no place for empires in industrial world..

Russia and China both still exist.

 

[Zak Preston]

Russia and China both still exist.

China is not an empire by any means, and history will show if the remnant of Soviet Empire will live long enough. Actually I always considered modern Russia to be the last empire =)

 

[BeardedHoplite]

I honestly used to love the hell out of Civ, I used to play CivII on the friggin Playstation, but EU actually killed my love for it. The ability to play in real time just blew my mind. That and the events that separated each country (or at least, their culture groups) into semi-unique entities beyond a stereotypical special unit and +5% to metal gathering. Civ feels like the abstract ramblings of a history professor with dementia, while EU feels at least grounded in historical reality.

Not bagging on Civ, but I prefer Paradox titles.

 

[Blindbohemian]

Russia and China both still exist.

...and the USA...

 

[toroltao]

I honestly used to love the hell out of Civ, I used to play CivII on the friggin Playstation, but EU actually killed my love for it. The ability to play in real time just blew my mind. That and the events that separated each country (or at least, their culture groups) into semi-unique entities beyond a stereotypical special unit and +5% to metal gathering. Civ feels like the abstract ramblings of a history professor with dementia, while EU feels at least grounded in historical reality.

Not bagging on Civ, but I prefer Paradox titles.

EU actually isn't in real time. Each day is essentially a "micro-turn" and you can change the speed of gameplay in 5 different values.

 

[unmerged(303856)]

I don't understand the fascination some posters have with comparing Civilization and Europa Universalis. Civ uses historical labels, and some of its mechanics are slightly influenced by history, but it is not a historical game by any means. EU is far more focused on history. It is very abstract, prioritizes gameplay, and is simply inaccurate in many instances, but it is still a historical game. Both are strategy games focused on large-scale state management, but that is where the similarities end, other than the superficial history aesthetic.

On the topic of EU's lacking peace-time gameplay, it seems like many people want to see either Victoria's pops or Crusader Kings' dynastic politics incorporated. I don't think EU needs (or will ever include) either of these features fully, but a limited form of each could be included. This is the period in which the old feudal systems were gradually shifting to more modern governmental structures, so basic versions of both systems would be somewhat fitting from a historical perspective. This would also work well in terms of gameplay, as it would mostly negate one issue that is frequently mentioned as a counterpoint to these suggestions (the fact that full implementation of either feature would eliminate the unique nature of Paradox's various series). Guiding your country from one model to the other over the course of the game would be a fascinating mechanic, and using a heavily simplified version of Victoria's population modeling would partially alleviate the problems with gathering the necessary data for this time period.

 

[jjjdddsss]

With that argument no game is real time as they all have discrete logic ticks.

 

[toroltao]

With that argument no game is real time as they all have discrete logic ticks.

Generally the games with "real time" are the ones where the micro ticks are imperceptible. EU4 isn't one of them.

 

[Osman Pasha]

Yes, I don't like how this game is all about wars and nothing else, you can't do anything at peace...Also I think the war mechanics is quite broken: over-lengthed battles, coalitions, warscore, truce, AE, OE, etc... is all ahistorical.

 

[Brainblow]

China is not an empire by any means, and history will show if the remnant of Soviet Empire will live long enough. Actually I always considered modern Russia to be the last empire =)

China is ENORMOUS, and is filled with different native peoples of great variety. Han Chinese, Cantonese, Mongolians, Tibetans, Ughyurs, etc
Easily an empire by definition. However, China has managed to function as a nation-state post-industrialism. Simple as that.
Having an empire keep on functioning is a matter of assimilation and management.