Civ3 Vs EU2

[SpartanKing]

I have been a Civ fan since its first release. Dissapointed with the latest release so much more could have been done to truely make it a great game.

I went out and bought Europa Universalis 2 and have never looked back. Those of you who are looking for a strategy game on a grand scale with plenty of "Meat and vegetables" with less eye candy this IS a game that will rock you. Don't get me wrong I love the CIV games but geez what a game EU2 has turned out to be. The gameplay is A+++ Has any one tried both games and what do they think.

[yin26]

I played EU after initially finding it horridly boring. I then went back determined to see what all the fuss was about ... and I loved the game! I am waiting a bit longer to buy EU2. As for comparisons with Civ3:

Civ3 is light, breezy and slapped together rather thoughtlessly.

EU is a bit akward and complex but lovingly crafted by a group of guys who think you CAN simulate a broad range of history with at least some nods to the challenges rulers actually faced.

In other words, the serious historical strategy fan really should think of Civ3 as nothing more than a hard-drive place holder. More casual players, though, are likely more apt to enjoy the simplicity of Civ3.

[Rolfski]

I played both.

IMO:

What makes Civ III better than EU II:
- empire building from scratch
- city building and development
- culture system
- tech development
- challenge, although it takes an AI cheating like Clinton
- simplicity/ learning curve
- graphics
- popularity (you can actually talk with friends about this game)
- game community (quantity)
- game marketing & distribution (you can actually buy this game!)

What makes EU II better than Civ III, pretty much the rest:
- empire development on macro level
- diplomacy
- religion
- trade/ economy
- colonization
- warfare
- leaders
- politics/ stabilty management
- historical events engine
- realism/ accuracy
- gameplay
- strategy (deeeeeep)
- intelligence
- multiplay
- AI level of cheating
- replayability
- "4 am/ no social life" factor
- educational aspects
- music
- game support
- cult (this is a good game for snobs)
- game community (quality)
- game company
- did I forget something?

By the way, Civ III and EU II are both solid games (although they're both boring in the end game).

[dungball]

Civ vs Eu2?

It's like comparing fantasy with simulation...

[Mordoch]

As one of the closed beta testers for EU2, I definately feel that EU2 is better! Check out this thread on the EU2 boards for opinions from people who have played both here . Personally the thing I really like about EU2 is the degree of historical realism you get. When I played different Civ games I always cringed as I witnessed spear wielding soldiers defeat tank regiments, but with EU2 I feel like I am really in control of a historical nation.

[awesomedude]

I bought EU, and although European history is of GREAT interest to me I didn't find the game all that great. Yes, the idea behind it all is good and it's pretty much historically accurate, but you can tell that Paradox are really new into game development. The game is infested with bugs, patches are very few. Well I've managed to run it better than most people I see around the EU board, but anyway, on to the gameplay.

The essential gameplay of the game is diplomacy and war. Not much of anything else. Micromanagement is almost non-existing, increasing your income only through building occasional upgrades to your provinces (very few) and sending merchants to centers of trade forever (well there is the auto-send merchants function, but with it turned on there's absolutely nothing to do at peace time).

When it comes to war, battles are handled through a horrific status window that doesn't say very much at all about what's going on. That's really the greatest problem of EU. There's not really much of a way to tell what effect the small changes to everything that's adjustable (it ain't much) does. For example the effect of cavalry in battle.

Nope this game is just missing way to much, and is way to full of small bugs. I really, really want to like it, like some of you Civ2 people out there want to like Civ3, but there's just not enough things to do in the game (the extremely poor manual doesn't help you either).

Civ3 over EU

* Much more micromanagement.
* Better overview.
* Not as tedious.
* Stable (at least on my machine).
* Tougher-to-beat AI.
* Better graphics and sound (not that is counts for that much).

EU over Civ3

* Better diplomatic model.
* Non-cheating AI.
* Doesn't count the US as a civilization (seriously it's ridiculous).

EDIT: Maybe I shouldn't have been so quick to answer, considering that I played EU(1) and this is a thread about EU2. Unless EU2 is way superior to EU1 I think my post still has some relevance . I'll simply have to get EU3 whenever that comes out.

[Seeker]

You NEED to get EU2. It's way way better than EU, and much less 'euro-centric'.


My favourite challenges:
-Play Manchuria in 1419, try to conquer China and then build the historical Manchu Empire.
-Play Austria and gain control over the historical Holy Roman Empire
-Play Byzantines and try to recreate the Roman Empire....(tough)
-Play the Navajo and try not to suck too hard (very tough)
-Mongol conquest with the Chagatai Khanate!!(or Tamerlane. Rules: must be as brutal as possible, stability be damned so no religious tolerance, narrowmindness, max serfdom, max aristocracy and centralization, everyone should hate you)

I love the new Missonaries, I love how every country gets events and missions (not just euros...my Japanese empire virtually collapsed under the weight of revolt and stability events during Sengoku period, my army was in China and when the Takeda revolted I lost Kanto, Echigo)

Civ III had a lot of potential that has mostly been wasted. I still hold out great, towering, probably vain hopes for the scenario editor.

[awesomedude]

Originally posted by Seeker
You NEED to get EU2. It's way way better than EU, and much less 'euro-centric'.


My favourite challenges:
-Play Manchuria in 1419, try to conquer China and then build the historical Manchu Empire.
-Play Austria and gain control over the historical Holy Roman Empire
-Play Byzantines and try to recreate the Roman Empire....(tough)
-Play the Navajo and try not to suck too hard (very tough)
-Mongol conquest with the Chagatai Khanate!!(or Tamerlane. Rules: must be as brutal as possible, stability be damned so no religious tolerance, narrowmindness, max serfdom, max aristocracy and centralization, everyone should hate you)

I love the new Missonaries, I love how every country gets events and missions (not just euros...my Japanese empire virtually collapsed under the weight of revolt and stability events during Sengoku period, my army was in China and when the Takeda revolted I lost Kanto, Echigo)

Civ III had a lot of potential that has mostly been wasted. I still hold out great, towering, probably vain hopes for the scenario editor.

I got EU really late thinking it was new (got it in september) and it really pissed me off that EU2 was being released just one or two months after that instead of fixing the issues that EU had. Honestly, EU was the worst game investment I ever made, and considering the enormous let-down felt over Civ3 at this board, I'll be careful to read all the forums available before buying my next game .

[yin26]

Seeker: Thanks for the info. Now I have two games to buy on my next trip to the States in March -- Wizardry8 and EU2.

[yin26]

Hey. READ THIS!

One section that struck me:

Civilization contains a paltry handful of "civilizations" compared to this game, and the complex web of military alliances, trading agreements, and politico-religious divisions is both compelling and extremely realistic. This is not a game for those who fear complexity, but if you're a detail-oriented kind of person, you'll be enthralled. At one moment you might be trying to calculate if you'll have enough diplomats to create a new alliance, then a random event will crop up that will cost a huge slice of your treasury, or throw you into debt. And of course you almost never have enough money to do everything you want to do.

This is really the point, I think. Civ3 is just too damn simple and too damn easy to do virtually anything you want because it's too easy to just get steamrolling.

Here's another section:

But I'm sure these nagging bugs will all eventually be patched out, because the game's developer, Paradox Entertainment, runs an excellent interactive community online, where bug reports are actively collected and team members regularly inform the game's following on what's going on with the state of the game. All developers should be this attentive!

Ummm. No comment so as to not incriminate Firaxis.

[dungball]

Originally posted by awesomedude
The game is infested with bugs, patches are very few. Well I've managed to run it better than most people I see around the EU board, but anyway, on to the gameplay.

This is BS actually, Eu1 had something like ten patches, and is bufree nowdays. Eu2 has had two patches in a month, and will certainly NOT require another eight to get bugfree... Paradox support is next to none.

[Sikander]

I agree with most here that EU2 is a great game. One of the best things about it is the ability to choose any country in the world to play (and even a few countries that were never countries). The potential for challenges is very great. Civ3 on the other hand lets you play the same game with different colors. It is a step back from Civ 2 for fun. If you have one of the other Civ games there is no good reason to ever buy Civ 3.

[awesomedude]

Originally posted by dungball


This is BS actually, Eu1 had something like ten patches, and is bufree nowdays. Eu2 has had two patches in a month, and will certainly NOT require another eight to get bugfree... Paradox support is next to none.

Hell it ain't BS at all. Patches went up to version 1.10. It wasn't anything like 10 patches. When I got the game patch 1.09 was out and still filled with bugs. 1.10 didn't do much to fix anything.

[dungball]

Originally posted by awesomedude


Hell it ain't BS at all. Patches went up to version 1.10. It wasn't anything like 10 patches. When I got the game patch 1.09 was out and still filled with bugs. 1.10 didn't do much to fix anything.

Ok, my err, sorry... (really!), There can't be too many left in 1.10 anyway

[PatMaster]

Well, maybe you have some strange system configuration.
I've played Eu1 since April (or rather, started to play ), and bugs just have never been a problem for me, and nor have it affected my games. Not even with the 1.08 patch which was used back then (yes, only two have been needed since april)!
Ok, multiplayer was unstable, close to unplayable in earlier patches, but patch 1.10 was mainly concentrated on multiplayer. MP is now very stable, I haven't occured a single crash in MP since the new patch, even though I mostly managed to play with 1.09 as well. A majority of all MP problems actually occured(s) because of different IGC settings or various modifications of the game (probably the one backside with a game that is easily modified ).

Now, with patch 1.10 I would actually say that the game is close to entirely Bug-free.

/Pat