Civ3 VS EU2

[St Leo]

http://www.europa-universalis.com/eu2.asp

Am I the only one here more interested in EU2 than in Civ3? IMHO, EU2 will be much more historically realistic, detailed, and plausible in AI terms than Civ3.

[Sabre2th]

Double post

[Sabre2th]

At the moment, civ3 leads 100%.

[August Borms]

Never played EU...

[Boris Godunov]

I am a big EU fan. Have been playing it a lot lately, and am looking forward to the sequel.

However, I think CIV3 will be a much more immersive experience. After a while, EU shows it is rather hollow. The diplomacy model seems complex, as there are lots of options, but the AI is actually pretty simple and, after you get to know it, hardly a challenge. I prefer more hands-on empire-building and city management, so EU doesn't have the depth I want in that regards. Also, I like random maps. The one-and-only-one map in EU is limiting.

More historically accurate? Yes. More fun? I don't think so. I've read up on EU2. While I like the enhancements, it is really the same game with the same graphics. The proposed changes should really be an expansion pack rather than a new game, as it isn't altering any mechanics at all. It looks like it will be great, but it just makes me feel like I wasted $$ on EU, because this is really EU v.2.

Don't get me wrong...I'll buy EU2, probably. But CIV3 will be more likely to have a permanent position on my hard drive.

Cheers.

[dainbramaged13]

EU

haha jk

[Dauphin]

Where was the both option?

I intend on getting both and playing both on a regular basis, bugs and crash outs not withstanding. (EU crashed out too much for my liking).

[Mikael]

Well, StLeo, it looks like there's two of us now

[Steve Clark]

Re: Civ3 VS EU2

Originally posted by St Leo

http://www.europa-universalis.com/eu2.asp

Am I the only one here more interested in EU2 than in Civ3? IMHO, EU2 will be much more historically realistic, detailed, and plausible in AI terms than Civ3.

That certainly is true, but I, yin and others will say that EU wasn't fun. Civ2 (and presumably, Civ3) is fun.

St Leo, did you know that there was an active EU here at Apolyton? Check out yin's thread, I think the posts in there summed up best the different reactions. To me, EU was way too obtuse and I don't see EU2 being any better since I felt they needed to change their basic model (to more the way Imperialism II worked).

[jadlakha]

Not an objective poll

This poll isnt very objective, considering your posting this poll on a Civilization III fan site forum. Its pretty much a waste post since you can expect CivIII to easily crush EU2 because of the place its been posted at.

[Sabre2th]

I think civ3 would win pretty much anywhere this is posted, just because of the history behind civ. I would guess that the only place EU2 would really beat civ3 is at an EU2 fan site.

[Sarxis]

Re: Civ3 VS EU2

Originally posted by St Leo

http://www.europa-universalis.com/eu2.asp

Am I the only one here more interested in EU2 than in Civ3? IMHO, EU2 will be much more historically realistic, detailed, and plausible in AI terms than Civ3.

Well, the truth is- even though EU is more detailed and realistic for the epoch that it encompasses, it just doesn't have the same appeal that CIV does. This is because CivIII does deal with the entirety of human civilised history, and also, it is just a lot more fun overall. What would you rather have? the years 1492 to 1792; or the years 4000 b.c. to 2050 a.d.?

I do agree that EU is a more 'realistic' game, but many computer gamers aren't looking for realism- they are looking for 'fun and interesting'. EU just doesn't provide this for a lot of us.

As far as your comparison of the AI- that is a speculative comment, and not really credible at this time.

[Mahdimael]

I agree that Civ3 will be more fun, because it isn't as detailed and so forth. EU is fun, but it takes so long to play the GC...I played for about an hour or two a day for a month, and I wasn't even halfway through the game. That's insane!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Mahdimael
I agree that Civ3 will be more fun, because it isn't as detailed and so forth. EU is fun, but it takes so long to play the GC...I played for about an hour or two a day for a month, and I wasn't even halfway through the game. That's insane!

No kidding!

Actually, I would like to see some of the fundamental flaws of EU get fixed. First, I should be able to quit the game without having to "surrender" every time...thus having to view the "loser" cutscene. Also, the diplomatic and AI systems had a lot of bugs and flaws. Allies would get a Casus Belli against me for no reason I could ascertain, and I was hardly ever able to get a one of my own on ANYONE, even ones who refused to honor alliances. After I'd built up all my cities as much as I could (which isn't much...4 buildings to upgrade? 5?), there would be interminably long stretches where nothing would happen. I'm talking 10 years of nothing, and that's a looong time in EU gameplay terms. I also noticed an interesting trick. Playing as Austria, I went to war with Genoa. One of her allies was England, and I had colonies in N. America near hers. I captured three of these colonies, and then captured Genoa itself. In my peace deal with Genoa, they gave me England's colonies.

I don't know about you, but if I were England, no way in hell this would happen (esp. since England was fairly strong). And if it happened to me in reverse, I would be very p*ssed at the game!

There are a lot of other flaws to the game that rob it of that immersive depth. Still, I did like it and will check out EU2, I'm sure. But Civ3 has me chomping at the bit...I've never been this eager for a computer game in my life. So Civ3 wins hands down! *puts hands on the table*

Cheers.

[Earthling7]

I have only SEEN EU played. Well, I did the tutorial, but it didn't seem very much fun. I do realise that I may be wrong, considering what EU is about, but from this I am forced to vote for CivIII.