Civ3 Vs EU2

[awesomedude]

Originally posted by 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

Ok, system config is the most popular response about bugs in EU, I'm sure you would know better than I do, let's leave it at that. Would you mind just telling me what's so special about EU? I must appearently have missed something out of the manual (I suppose everyone agrees that its not very informative), because I find there to be so little to do. I played a campaign with Sweden my first game and it was all about waiting for your annual funds and upon receiving them build some infantry and then bash on Poland-Lith., Russia and Denmark, and later on central Europe. I was playing on normal (difficulty) and by the end of the game me and my ally Turkey (historically correct too ) had conquered most of Europe, and most of eastern Asia. All I did was pretty much constantly building troops. When all research was finished, i.e there was nothing left to research I got an income increase of about a 1000 annualy which I think is really stupid.

In my other game I was playing Venice, trying to hold off the Turks from invading Europe. I inherited the Hungarian throne, and played until the game wouldn't let me past a certain date, but crashed all the time. Still essentially nothing but getting allies and building troops... What did I miss out on?

[Ironikinit]

I haven't played EU2, just EU. It's a good game, but no deeper than Civ 3 as to gameplay. EU is easier, really, which is odd because I thought EU was hard to learn. Mostly it was hard to learn because they didn't pay enough money to get someone who spoke good English to write the manual and the in game help was lame, too. Also it crashed so much... never had a game crash like that and I've played games written by 15 year olds. Finally I looked for help online and read their forums and got the patch. Suddenly it was pretty much a cakewalk and it was np to crush the AI no matter what.

About the combat simulation, EU's is real real simple but that actually helps with the suspension of disbelief. But it's flawed too. For instance the situation with highest levels of fortification. People used to take 1000 cannon against them when historically that was more artillery than there was anywhere on the planet. So EU fails with any real pretense of accuracy as to military or economic history right there in that single instance. There are more. Civ 3 makes that admission immediately upon the instance of ancient units combating modern units.

I found that to really try to simulate a historical situation, say, Austria in the Grand Campaign, I had to pretty much know the story myself and set out to do it. Yes, I had the possibility to annex Bohemia and Hungary and get elected HRE a lot, but there was no way to simulate the political situation. Little oddities like Charles V running Spain and Aust. at the same time but as different people sprang up or a military unit also being a king. Close to the beginning of a game, things were close to history, but there's not much way to ensure that England rose in power, even with generously ranked leaders. Games where the computer ran England she usually couldn't take over Scotland and lost a lot of land to France and maybe some oddball country like the Papal States would have a chunk of Ireland. I believe this to be a problem with the engine. At times a player might feel handcuffed by historical accuracy when waves of obscurantism repeatedly strike his country to simulate a civil war. Players posted about those incidents just as angry posts appear about culture reversion appear on the Civ 3 board.

Both games are great story games. Not a story in a Liesure Suit Larry sort of way but in that players love to tell the story of the games they played. After action reports on the EU boards are a retelling of the games they played. Some AARs are concise, telling the facts of the settings of sliders and armies built. Other players make up characters, present it like a history lesson, use little gimmicks. They write whole novellas in installment format.

One thing EU had was wonderful boards. There are too many resident habitual complainers on the Civ 3 boards. It's beyond my understanding why people who don't like a game would make it their daily business to read and write about it. A game, a toy. Such a small thing. One might as well make it one's mission to write mean unfunny things about china dolls.

Fan concern #1 about EU was the AI, once they got it to run. It blows, it's really really bad. Hundreds of thousands of AI controlled troops die harmlessly to attrition. It's about as hard to fool as a retarded baby once you know it's ways. From what I've heard about EU2 is that the AI still blows and just as hard. Good AI is awfully uncommon and Civ 3 is as good as it gets at this time. Revolutionary, at least compared to EU or Civ 2. Supposedly the AI doesn't cheat in EU but ... big deal. The computer doesn't care if it cheats, and I don't care so long as it's still likely that I'll beat it. Even if I don't beat it, because games sometimes aren't about winning.

[PatMaster]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
I haven't played EU2, just EU. It's a good game, but no deeper than Civ 3 as to gameplay. EU is easier, really, which is odd because I thought EU was hard to learn. Mostly it was hard to learn because they didn't pay enough money to get someone who spoke good English to write the manual and the in game help was lame, too. Also it crashed so much... never had a game crash like that and I've played games written by 15 year olds.

Well, I am a frequent visitor of the Eu-forums, and quite frankly I've never heard people complain of crashes the last six months or so because of the new patches. On your last post, you said that not even the latest, 1.10 patch helped you much, but I can't recall there have been a single complain about crashes. I dont know, try the forums for help.

Finally I looked for help online and read their forums and got the patch. Suddenly it was pretty much a cakewalk and it was np to crush the AI no matter what.

Well, you can always play a MP-game

About the combat simulation, EU's is real real simple but that actually helps with the suspension of disbelief. But it's flawed too. For instance the situation with highest levels of fortification. People used to take 1000 cannon against them when historically that was more artillery than there was anywhere on the planet. So EU fails with any real pretense of accuracy as to military or economic history right there in that single instance. There are more. Civ 3 makes that admission immediately upon the instance of ancient units combating modern units.

Well, EU's combat system isn't as simple as people think, really.
It takes in concern attacking from a river, attacking an army in a mountaneous(Is that a word) province, cavalery advantage, technology, morale, and a couple of other things which I can't remember right now
On the concern of the need of large amounts of artillery when assaulting a fortress of the highest level, I can only say this is a minor issue, IMHO and if you want to, you can always pretend it's a hundred cannons insted

I found that to really try to simulate a historical situation, say, Austria in the Grand Campaign, I had to pretty much know the story myself and set out to do it. Yes, I had the possibility to annex Bohemia and Hungary and get elected HRE a lot, but there was no way to simulate the political situation. Little oddities like Charles V running Spain and Aust. at the same time but as different people sprang up or a military unit also being a king. Close to the beginning of a game, things were close to history, but there's not much way to ensure that England rose in power, even with generously ranked leaders. Games where the computer ran England she usually couldn't take over Scotland and lost a lot of land to France and maybe some oddball country like the Papal States would have a chunk of Ireland. I believe this to be a problem with the engine. At times a player might feel handcuffed by historical accuracy when waves of obscurantism repeatedly strike his country to simulate a civil war. Players posted about those incidents just as angry posts appear about culture reversion appear on the Civ 3 board.

Hm, Englands weak AI is a known fact, but you must bare in mind that in 1492 when the game starts, England was historically a weak country which after the 100-years war was striked by civil war (War of The Roses). England regained her strength mainly because she stayed out of the conflicts on the continent. So, a weak England is rather more of a "feature" than a problem with the engine.

Well, if you don't like the Civil Wars, just turn 'em off!

Both games are great story games. Not a story in a Liesure Suit Larry sort of way but in that players love to tell the story of the games they played. After action reports on the EU boards are a retelling of the games they played. Some AARs are concise, telling the facts of the settings of sliders and armies built. Other players make up characters, present it like a history lesson, use little gimmicks. They write whole novellas in installment format.

One thing EU had was wonderful boards. There are too many resident habitual complainers on the Civ 3 boards. It's beyond my understanding why people who don't like a game would make it their daily business to read and write about it. A game, a toy. Such a small thing. One might as well make it one's mission to write mean unfunny things about china dolls.

Fan concern #1 about EU was the AI, once they got it to run. It blows, it's really really bad. Hundreds of thousands of AI controlled troops die harmlessly to attrition. It's about as hard to fool as a retarded baby once you know it's ways. From what I've heard about EU2 is that the AI still blows and just as hard. Good AI is awfully uncommon and Civ 3 is as good as it gets at this time. Revolutionary, at least compared to EU or Civ 2. Supposedly the AI doesn't cheat in EU but ... big deal. The computer doesn't care if it cheats, and I don't care so long as it's still likely that I'll beat it. Even if I don't beat it, because games sometimes aren't about winning.

Hm, it's true that the AI don't pay attention to attrition much, but I don't quite agree it beeing as bad as you claim it is. It is not perfect of course, but as you said it doesn't cheat, except for that it doesn't get any attrition at sea, but if you want it to cheat, be my guest!
You are able to modify close to any part of the game, and if you want to, you can add extra troops, money, provinces, just name it, in the Scenario-file.

Now, I saw that there was a post underneath yours, and I'll probably answer that later, now I'm off to play some Eu2!

[awesomedude]

Originally posted by PatMaster

Well, I am a frequent visitor of the Eu-forums, and quite frankly I've never heard people complain of crashes the last six months or so because of the new patches. On your last post, you said that not even the latest, 1.10 patch helped you much, but I can't recall there have been a single complain about crashes. I dont know, try the forums for help.

I was one of many that complained about crashes in the support forum of the EU site, and that was less than 4 months ago. So what you're stating above is obviously not true.

Originally posted by PatMaster

Well, EU's combat system isn't as simple as people think, really.
It takes in concern attacking from a river, attacking an army in a mountaneous(Is that a word:hmmm province, cavalery advantage, technology, morale, and a couple of other things which I can't remember right now
On the concern of the need of large amounts of artillery when assaulting a fortress of the highest level, I can only say this is a minor issue, IMHO and if you want to, you can always pretend it's a hundred cannons insted.

That's not a good thing, it's one of the game's biggest flaws. What would I care how many different parameters battles are judged by if I don't know what they are, and more specificly how much they account for.
And that last paragraph... , why don't we all just pretend as if computer game bugs/flaws don't exist. That's brilliant!

[PatMaster]

Originally posted by awesomedude


I was one of many that complained about crashes in the support forum of the EU site, and that was less than 4 months ago. So what you're stating above is obviously not true.

No, as a matter of fact it is true, as I said I haven't heard anyone complain about it, and I haven't. The EU-forums are big, so I don't have time to read all posts I must've missed it, or I've simply forgotten about it.

That's not a good thing, it's one of the game's biggest flaws. What would I care how many different parameters battles are judged by if I don't know what they are, and more specificly how much they account for.

Well, I must say I quite not understand the above sentance's.
Are you not knowing the battlerules the game's biggest flaw?

And that last paragraph... , why don't we all just pretend as if computer game bugs/flaws don't exist. That's brilliant!

Well, I did add a smily after the sentance, to make sure you understood it was a bit of a joke, but obviously you didn't catch that

[PatMaster]

Originally posted by awesomedude


Ok, system config is the most popular response about bugs in EU, I'm sure you would know better than I do, let's leave it at that. Would you mind just telling me what's so special about EU? I must appearently have missed something out of the manual (I suppose everyone agrees that its not very informative), because I find there to be so little to do. I played a campaign with Sweden my first game and it was all about waiting for your annual funds and upon receiving them build some infantry and then bash on Poland-Lith., Russia and Denmark, and later on central Europe. I was playing on normal (difficulty) and by the end of the game me and my ally Turkey (historically correct too ) had conquered most of Europe, and most of eastern Asia. All I did was pretty much constantly building troops. When all research was finished, i.e there was nothing left to research I got an income increase of about a 1000 annualy which I think is really stupid.

In my other game I was playing Venice, trying to hold off the Turks from invading Europe. I inherited the Hungarian throne, and played until the game wouldn't let me past a certain date, but crashed all the time. Still essentially nothing but getting allies and building troops... What did I miss out on?

Damn, I hate vBulletin boards, my answer was lost!
Ah well, I'll rewrite it tommorow or when I get the time..

[awesomedude]

Originally posted by PatMaster

No, as a matter of fact it is true, as I said I haven't heard anyone complain about it, and I haven't. The EU-forums are big, so I don't have time to read all posts I must've missed it, or I've simply forgotten about it.

Maybe you should consider checking the support forum next time. I believe that's where those kinds of posts belong. Clearly you don't spend much time there, and since you don't (correct me if I'm wrong), I don't really see what relevance you seeing or not seeing posts has.

Originally posted by PatMaster

Well, I must say I quite not understand the above sentance's.
Are you not knowing the battlerules the game's biggest flaw?

Maybe you should read it over again, I think it's pretty obvious what I'm getting at, but here's a more thourough explanation. How am I supposed to know the battle rules? I read through the entire manual (believe it or not), which obviously gave me nothing. I searched for FAQs and found one or two I believe (that was 4 months ago), but they didn't enlighten me either. Maybe I should've checked the forum, but as you pointed out, you don't even really know much about them yourself. Anyway that's not the point, the point is due to the poor overview in the "battle window", I don't know the impact of whatever factors that are calculated during battles, and that's what I think should be implemented in EU (better overview, because there's hardly any of that in any of the games different aspects).

Originally posted by PatMaster

Well, I did add a smily after the sentance, to make sure you understood it was a bit of a joke, but obviously you didn't catch that

You obviously missed the smiley I put in my post.

[Green Giant]

I just bought EU2 a couple weeks ago and at a first glance it is vastly superior to Civ 3. Its just too much fun rewriting history and its educational too. I have to do a report on Sulieman the Magnificant for Modern World Civ and I already know all about him. The atmoshpere and feel of the EU2 to great as well. It really pulls you in and makes you feel part of the world. I found Civ 3 to be quite stale and boring. The few features that were new are on the whole very frustrating. When in comes down to it there are less features in Civ 3 than there were in SMAC

The only thing that Civ 3 has on EU2 is initial stability. EU2 was very very buggy when it was released while Civ 3's only major bug that was not design related was the air superiority bug.


EDIT: One more thing which I think is an important advantage that EU2 has. In EU2 I am always plotting my next conquest and mulling over tough diplomatic decisions. In Civ 3 I find myself clicking endlessly into oblivion with nothing to really accomplish.

[chequita guevara]

EU2 is frustrating, but it's the good kind of frustrating. Argh! My nobles are demanding their old rights just as I Declared War (DoW) on Burgunday (-1 stability for royal marriage, -1 for having the same faith as us) and raising war taxes (-1). I can go with -1 centralization or take an additional stability hit, argh! Choices.

What, my vassals have DoWed each other?!?! Awk!

Plus, when you get big and tough, all of Europe gangs up on you. Colonizing and exploring are fun, even when you know the map (though it does tend to get you looking for specific places rather than randomly searching the world.

Pirates! Rebel scum! Henry the Fifthl, Charles the Rash, Napoleon, Chinese junks in the Indian Ocean, Great Zimbabwe!

EU2 is just so much fun, though if you take a large power, esp France, the game is especially easy. So take a weaker power, like Brandenburg or Siena or the Byzantines. Take an exploding country like the Golden Horde or The Timurid Empire and just try to survive!

I enjoy Civ III in the starting game, but it gets tedious to me very quickly. It's especially horrible towards the mid-game, where it becomes a wait fest, and I have to start reading or doing chores or taking napes between my turns.

Paradox is much more responsive to its fan base.

I'll start playing Civ III when I get a new computer and after it's been patched up. I'm having a blast playing EU II now.

[Imran Siddiqui]

EU2 is alright, but it tends to get a little boring. I've spent some time away, and then played for a long while and then spent some time away... it seems that is how I've been getting through the game .

EU1 was worse though. Without events, it eventually became too boring. I didn't finish a single game in EU1, hopefully I'll finish the game I'm playing in EU2 (with England).

[Ironikinit]

Patmaster,

About the crashes, realize that I've only played EU, and not EU II, as I said. It crashed heaps. It crashed so much that I became frustrated and looked for the patch online. Yay, I found it. It crashed less. Now some people said that it didn't crash all for them. Cool. For me it crashed quite a bit, much more than the relatively stable Civ III. I don't know about the last 6 months because I stopped reading the EU forums, but when I did read them, people occasionally would show up to rant about what a poorly programmed hunk of junk it was. I don't know if it really was poorly programmed, I just know that it crashed some on my system, even after the patch. Anyway, Civ III needed a patch too. When you suggest that I try the forums for help, I wonder what you're on about because I thought I made it clear in my post that not only did I read the EU forums but that I liked them.

When you suggest that if I don't like the AI in EU that I can always play MP, that is less than helpful. For starters, I don't play EU at all now, I play Civ III. Secondly, I'm not really interested at this point in playing any game MP, except cards with some friends. Sometimes I'll play HOMM III MP hot seat if a bud of mine is in town. Mainly what I'm saying is that I like single player games. That requires good AI. I have to assume that most people prefer single player games or at least play them often or PC games wouldn't need to have AI at all. Later in your post you say that I'm exagerating how bad the AI is in EU. I assure that I am not. If you like, I'll play EU and make up a list of the boneheaded things that it does and provide screenies of its armies dying of attrition in the Alps. Or you could just concede the point, because if you've played the game, you know the AI is weak.

Now I feel the need to make it plain that I said that the combat simulation is simple in EU. I didn't say the combat system. There's a difference, at least to me. The simulation is the representation of the outcome of the combat system. I'm sorry if I was unclear. You say that using 1000 cannon to take a high level fortress is a minor issue. Pardon me, but I must disagree. In a game that makes much of historical accuracy, 1000 cannons at a single battle is a glaring anachronism, something like a MiG at the Battle of Hastings. Yes, I can pretend that it is 100 cannons, but it's still a failing in a supposedly historically accurate game. All the smilies in the world won't help with that, please forgive my stubborness.

You say that England's weak AI is a known fact. The weakness of the AI as a whole is well known and widely commented upon. I considered buying EUII because EU really isn't a bad game IMO, but I heard that the AI was not improved.

Thank you for the suggestion about turning off the civil wars. I wasn't really commenting upon them as a personal problem, but rather that I noticed complaints about them from players. Surely you will agree that a civil war can be represented more creatively than with 10 waves of obscurantism in a row.

I feel that I'm in danger of giving the impression that I dislike EU. I don't. I liked it quite a bit, and played it until I got sick of it. That's my usual pattern with games. EU had a great feeling of discovery, especially in the first game, and the many different countries that could be controlled gave it replay value. I'd even say that it was somewhat educational.

That said, it did have flaws. They weren't horrible flaws, but flaws nonetheless. Personally, I'd rate both EU and Civ III about the same, but Civ III happens to be the game I'm currently playing, so I favor it. Thanks for reading.

[Grumbold]

I think the one problem with Paradox is the flip side of their strength. They are a small company that cares. So much so that they have been prepared to produce 10 patches for a game, taking time out from their next money generating project to do so, which big companies never bother to do in the first place. Unfortunately, being small they don't have the resources to test their patches for stability against hundreds of different system configurations.

I initially had stability problems with EU like I have had with many games. I did what I normally do. Gave my computer its twice yearly overhaul by re-installing everything from the operating system upwards and check for latest drivers. With Windows O/S its really the only thing you can do to unscramble the registry and dll confusion that builds up as more and more games get installed and uninstalled. Since I did that EU has not crashed once and after my most recent rebuild Civ III has been virtually crash free too. I haven't even bothered upgrading EU from 1.08 since that did everything I wanted it to.

My only other suggestion is to look out for common themes between games that result in problems. For instance many titles I have played recently have had a tech support FAQ specifically for SB Live owners. Eventually you have to recognise that complaining at the software writers is probably unjustified and the hardware manufacturer has obviously produced a non-standard or defective piece of kit. Better to upgrade it to something mainstream and move on.

Lastly, one fantastic thing in EU that people have not mentioned is its scenario potential. Because the game files are in open ascii text anyone with patience can set up a completely new scenario just by sitting down and typing. Meanwhile purists who don't think Paradox got it quite right can be tweaking the Grand Campaign to give one province somewhere 1000 more infantry or adjusting a leaders stats by a single point. Awesome! Yes, the end-game becomes boring if you reached max-tech conquered the world 100 years earlier. Declare yourself victorious and start a new game as the Knights of St John. Bet that isn't so easy!

[Ironikinit]

Well, yes and no about the scenario thing. Personally I'm not interested in playing a minor country. Yes, the game was easy enough that a semi skilled player could dominate Europe as a minor power, such as, say, Saxony or Prussia, and a skilled player could conquer the world with a minor. (I understand that EU2 has taken steps to make such ahistorical domination more difficult.)

That really wasn't my interest, though. I can see how people who are going to make the game a big part of their lives might care about scenarios, but me personally, I don't care. I played the IGC and that's it. I got my money's worth (joke), and it was nice to have the IGC, but I probably would've been just as happy with the standard GC.

This is a concern with Civ III. Currently on the general Civ III board there's a lot of criticism of the game for not having the capacity to make scenarios. I don't think the typical gamer cares much. I know a lot of people do around here, but I sure don't. I mean, I know it's a legit concern, but... if they don't like Civ III without a scenario editor, I don't think they'll like it with one. The game is what it is, and if people don't like what it is, they won't like it with a few minor improvements. I think I'm getting off topic.

Anyway, thanks for reading.

[Grumbold]

For Civ III I would agree with you. I prefer the game as a random 4000 BC-2000AD game, not as a history simulator of a smaller period of time. EU(2) however is all about scenarios, from the big 400 year one to the smaller campaigns. Conquering the world in the Grand Campaign is fun a few times but I find the smaller tighter campaigns better because you have to be focussed to achieve and surpass the scenario objectives rather than just setting yourself up for massive ahistorical expansion.

I can see why taking over one of the smaller nations in the GC might not appeal since the game does not have all their events built in. A carefully researched scenario with their attributes expanded upon should be indistinguishable from and just as much fun as one of the eight that come with the box.

[Jer8m8]

I think EU 2 is much better, and I don't think anyone mentioned the (I think) more than 100 playable countries???

Has anyone thought to start a poll?