Question For Yin

[soaringknight]

Civ3 sucks.
Many things could have been done a lot better.
There's no problem to win using the same strategy, implementing which over and over again makes you feel like mindless robot.

AI selfdestructs itself - AI players can easily be turned against each other and fight each other till they're all out of race.

The question is, evidently, not about civ3.
Yin, once you mentioned playing Europe Universallise.
What is your opinion about this game, should one try it and spend hours on it?
Is it better than Civ3 in terms of strategic deepness?

Regards, Andrew.

P.S. Always enjoyed your posts

[SpencerH]

You addressed the post to Yin but I thought I'd chime in. I played EU2 for while but found it less satisfying than (even) CIV3. There are some interesting elements to the game but there wasnt enough detail to interest me as a builder and the combat was too simplistic to interest me as a conquerer. I think I bought it online for about $10. At that price it was worthwhile to me.

One last thing. I did have to get a patch for it to work at all and that info and patch was not available on the official website

[Capt Dizle]

Hey, you can't answer for Yin!



But since you have, I am going to pile on. Yin has already highly recommended EU and EU2 and I do so as well. Its very different but very interesting.

I patched right off the site so there.

I think Yin would tell you to get it and enjoy while Civ3 is being polished and come back when the expansion is out.

jt

[Cookie Monster]

Ok now my turn to butt in.................


I played EU and loved it. The game gets very repetitive and very long esp. if playing the grand campaign. Thankfully the game is very deep. Initially playing it you will think that hey this is boring. I'm doing the same thing over and over. But as you peel back the many layers to this game you will find that it is a very intricate Nation simulator. Not war simulator, nation simulator.

Check out www.compuexpert.com they have EU for about $10. YOu may even get a good deal on EU2 as well.

[SpencerH]

Hey, you can't answer for Yin!

I didnt answer for Yin, I answered for me.

Initially playing it you will think that hey this is boring. I'm doing the same thing over and over. But as you peel back the many layers to this game you will find that it is a very intricate Nation simulator. Not war simulator, nation simulator.

I found it interesting as a nation simulator. I played at least 3 versions of the Grand campaign and found them very similar in requirments to win despite playing the russians, swedes and turks. Perhaps I would have seen more intricacies if I had stayed with it, but I didnt.

[ACooper]

EU2 sucks.
Many things could have been done a lot better.
There's no problem to win using the same strategy, implementing which over and over again makes you feel like mindless robot.



oh, look. Way up top! It says Apolyton CIVILIZATION Site!

[Cyclotron]

The question is, evidently, not about civ3.

Then why, oh WHY are you posting it in the Civ3 forum?

[Skanky Burns]

Collects peoples bets on when this thread will be deleted/moved.
I'm thinking the "Other Games" forum.

[Spook42]

Originally posted by ACooper

oh, look. Way up top! It says Apolyton CIVILIZATION Site!

Invariably, a game like Civ3 is going to draw comparisons from other "civilization" strategy games.

And as this is NOT an official Firaxis site, I don't see as that such comparisons need be hampered. If a former EU player, disappointed in EU/EU2, later developed a preference for Civ3 and expressed his pleasure here through comparisons, I somehow think that less people here would discourage the comparison.

(And yes, ACooper, I know that you indicated playing EU2 earlier. But I am again referring to a hypothetical case of someone making comparisons.)

If you wish to learn more of the EU series, soaringknight, below is a link to an EU fan site, with its own "community" forum too.


Europa Universalis Site

[yin26]

In terms of strategic depth, there is no better history simulator on the market. Period!

Some bad news first: The abstracted combat means you'll have to do the visuals in your head and take stuff like 'upgraded value +1' in place of named techs and so forth. Next, when you are first learning the game, it can be hard to get used to managing the flow of time. My suggestion for this is to initially set ALL messages to pause the game ... as this will allow you to learn what kinds of messages are important and which can just be related to the bottom of the screen without pausing the game. From there, you can begin to speed up the slower parts of the game. Remember that you are spanning hundreds of years of history on a day-by-day basis here! Once you get used to manipulating how time flows, you'll be much happier.

The good news: If Civ3 is the 'Feel Good but Screw Logic and Strategic Depth History Game of the Year' --and some people like that sort of thing-- EU2 is the 'Feel Overwhelmed At First As a Complex Web of Interrelated but Devilishly Tricky Historical Choices Force You to Think Carefully Movie of the Decade.'

I have written much more on this topic in other places (Do a 'yin26 EU EU2' search on this forum), but I'll leave it at this: Civ3 is tic-tac-toe. EU2 is chess. Nothing wrong with tic-tac-toe, of course. Oustanding game when your only goal is to waste time that you don't deem better spent on, say, cleaning the toilets at home.

But if you really want to sit down and face some of the challenges a ruler would have faced when trying to guide his nation among a complex web of nations, politics, religion, war and the hapless turn of events or two, then put the Civ3 screensaver away and step up to the plate.

[ColdWizard]

Originally posted by yin26
(Do a 'yin26 EU EU2' search on this forum

just fyi, EU and EU2 are too short to be search terms (4 character minimum)



skanky: 5 on it being moved to the Apolyton/Community forum

[Spook42]

Originally posted by yin26
In terms of strategic depth, there is no better history simulator on the market. Period!

In the way as how EU2's religious, diplomatic, economic, and governance elements tie in together, yes, "depth" is the apt term.

One potential downer for those interested in EU2, however, is that the "timespan" is only four centuries (1419-1820). That's suitable to me, but for those wanting to move to "modern age," Civ3 or other strategy games like EE might satisfy more.

[korn469]

i own both civ3 and EU2, and my problem with EU2 is the exact opposite problem with Civ3, it seems that the tactical depth in EU2 is lacking for my tastes

so i play them both to get a balance (when i have time, i mostly just mod)

but i like both games

[yin26]

Agreed that the tactical end is too abstracted and that those who do not like this time period should consider the purchase carefully. That said, I feel that EU2 is a MUST TRY for any gamer on these boards.

O.K. I found one of my previous posts about EU2 since the search engine is a bit limited:

I have only just begun with EU2, but I played EU quite a bit and was disgusted with Civ3 (though I am watching the patching carefully). I won't try a complete response to your request just yet (I think others here could do a better job at the moment), but I will outline a few things that make EU --for me-- a deeper game.

First I should note that EU is actually *more* abstracted than is Civ, particularly in the areas of combat, tech and internal infrastructure. At first glance, this is quite a turn off as one of the more satisfying elements of Civ comes in seeing your differentiated units, techs and buildings seemingly add more strategy and depth to the game. I will submit that EU would do well to incorporate some of those elements, but the fact remains that despite all that Civ offers in this regard, the combat falls a bit flat (see above), the tech tree and tech progression are in dire need of a face-lift, and the building aspect of Civ is 2-dimensional and stale. When was the last time you sweated over what to build next?

In return for abstracting those elements of the game, EU instead gives you far deeper challenges, which comes to your question. What kind of challenges?

EU is simply outstanding in placing your country in part of a complex and intricate web wherein history (in the form of events), religion (in the form of ruling over disparate peoples), and now --in EU2-- domestic policy (in the form of less or more centralized government, etc.) place in such a position that if you merely *react* to the challenges instead of *proactively* planning, you WILL lose. Compare that with Civ, a game in which it's a fairly obvious path to upgrade tech ASAP, expand ASAP and, ultimately, attack ASAP. Simple. Dull.

A step further back and we can compare the maps these two games play on. EU runs on a province by province basis. Civ has no such distinction as even borders can be rather easily ignored or overrun. In EU, you are once again part of a complex web of nations, and conquest, while certainly possible, is FAR MORE delicate balancing act in EU than it is in Civ.

Most notably, if you attack a neighbor in EU without just cause, you gain a horrible reputation that will eventually see you gang-attacked by the myriad nations surrounding you. While that gang-attack AI approach is not subtle, it demands that if you are going to go in the warpath, you must keep a close eye on any number of neighboring nations' attitudes toward you or be simply overwhelmed by forces from all sides that seek to stip you of your power as a warmongerer.

In Civ, does it really matter if the entire world is pissed at you? Not if you are a good player. With the huge army and huge coffers you should have stuffed yourself with from quite early, winning in Civ3 is almost always a matter of hitting hard, early and often. Trying that in EU will get you killed 9 times out of 10.

I should also note that most of the time in Civ, the AI is simply geared to hate you for no good reason other than to win. It seems the latest patch made this even more silly. You can pledge your first born to some AI civ in one turn and have it attack you in the next simply to fulfill the 'give the player' a challenge approach. In EU, peace *IS* an option. You *can* keep people generally happy with you. Of course, you won't expand very well that way, so if you plan to expand, plan to be hated by some people.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

In EU, you have to choose your times and places to attack very carefully. And so as to not rise too many eyebrows, you've often got to follow up any conquests with periods of peace and rebuilding of diplomatic relations...or suffer that gang-AI. Does Civ offer anything even close to this sort of dimplomatic challenge? No. The diplomacy in Civ is paper thin. Ignoring the dimplomacy screen entirely in Civ, in fact, is likely to speed up the game and your enjoyment of it.

It's also worth noting that your treasury in EU is far more difficult to maintain than it is in Civ. In EU, maintaining a large army costs you dearly, once again challenging you to decide how many troops, when and where. In Civ, by contrast, particularly with the changes to support rules in Civ3, keeping a huge army on-hand is a breeze, thereby further undermining the need to worry about your actions raising the ire of other Civs.

I could go on and on. Civ3 is really just a lot of meaningless eye-candy trying to disguise tedious linearity. Of course, people like a lot of eye-candy, and it is certainly easier to identify with "I built a temple so I'm more religious" than it is to look at something like: "I want to conquer Protestant territory, so should I decree a shift in religion and risk mass revolts?"

But tell me, in the end, which decision is more challenging? Civ is certainly easier to play and jump into, but once you played EU for any length of time, you realize that Civ is a game just as easily mastered since most of the supposed 'challenges' it gives you boil down to taking the obvious and linear path.

Ending with something I hinted at ealier: In Civ, the point seems 'to win.' Of all the options of winning, how many are satisfying? You can kill everybody, but the combat is so weak (as with the underlying economy supporting it), that it's a tedious bore most of the time to win that way. You can build a spaceship, but once again the underlying economy makes this less than a challenge. Etc.

In EU, I hardly ever found myself saying "I have to win this game." In fact, now that I think about it, 'winning' hardly crosses my mind while playing EU. Instead, I focus first on survival and then well-timed but measured expansions to my empire. World conquest? What a joke! I am happy enough to look back at where I started and see that not only have I survived but my nation thrived to some degree under my leadership.

And if at anytime I find that too easy, I fire up a small nation and learn what it's like to have one misstep spell the end of your people. Can Civ offer that? Not even close.

[Tuberski]

Hey Yin, after reading your posts in these CIV3 forums, i decided to look at EU2 a little more.

Went to the EU2 website and wandered through the forums, read a couple of the stories there, It seems like it could be interesting, but, after CIV 3, I don't think I would be willing to shell out another 45$ for this game(price at the local mall). When it comes down in price i will surely buy it.

Thank you, for at least getting me to look at it.