This or Civ V?

[fawkernot]

Just wondering which is better, is this more complicated?

[Siight]

This to me is a lot more complicated. Civ 5 is fairly easy to pick up. I'm speaking as someone that is just starting to get into the strat genre.

[apg]

EU4 every time.

[Iridescence]

Totally different games. This is an alternate history sim. Civ is a strategy game with some historical paint. They're both really good for what they are (although Civ IV >Civ V)

EU4 is way deeper with a more obtuse UI thus more complicated for a newbie to get into (not that bad once you learn the UI though).

[Ellye]

I love both games, so let me give a rundown from my point of view:

Civilization is more "gamey". It has a boardgame feel (but with much more depth than most boardgames). It has mechanics that are simple to grasp, but that lead to very deep strategical and tactical decisions. That's the main beauty of the Civilization series for me - they are very easy to pick up and get started, but are still quite deep and take a long while to truly master.

Europa Universalis has a different style. There are no set objectives, there's no "victory". It's sort of an "Alternative Story Simulator". EU4 is probably the most "gamey" entry in the EU series so far, and it has pretty good gameplay, indeed. You'll be faced with decisions that have a lasting impact on your game. It's a much more complex game than Civilization, and it's not as friendly to get into, but it's very satisfying to play, especially if you happen to enjoy history and geography (as EU is set on actual historical time setting and real world map, as opposed to Civ).

As a side note, despite EU4 being real-time and Civ5 being turn-based, I feel that EU is more "slow paced" than Civ. You'll have a few years of "downtime" at times, when you do few things besides waiting.
At the end of the day, both are great, and it's really down to which genre you want more.

On a last point, if you're going to pick up Civ5, you'll need the DLCs. The two major expansions (Gods & Kings and Brave New World), at least. They add a lot to the game and greatly improve it. For EU4, you don't really need the DLCs, they're quite optional.

[Mestermagyar]

Civ 5 just cannot be compared to eu 4 really. it's like comparing an arma and a COD.

Civ5 has got some nations to play as, some of them as DLC-s, they are really just a bunch of pros and cons while playing as them exactly the same way. EU4 got ALL the existing countries with realistic borders from 1444 to 1820, with their real power. Civ 5 is turn based while EU4 is not. Civ 5 has got a quite enough diplomatic options. EU4 has 1000x more diplomatic options than that. Same goes to about everything. :P

So, if you buy EU4, get ready for being tied to the computer for long hours to get into the game, and become the superior race of gaming community. Or get Civ5 and have some arcade fun in an instant.

[Brahir]

Games are totaly different. You cant say wich one is "better" since there is nothing signifficant to compare with. Yes, you can say they are both " A world wide Strategy Game", but they cant be compared.

The most important thing you need to understand IF you want to compare this games is that in Civ V, you have a goal in the game. You can actually WIN a playthrough.
In EU IV, its not about wining, but creating your own goals and achieve those. (yes, you have score, but that is not important)

[Wolfgang Von Mittermeyer]

EU IV for me, Its deeper, more thought goes into it and I prefer the way things work in terms of political depth

[Myxyplyxx]

EU IV is vastly superior, in my opinion.

[Bandit17]

I have a ton of hours in both and enjoy both games for very different reasons.

Civ5 is what I call a "bad game" with addictive gameplay mechanics. It's easy to get into and is more of a casual friendly strategy entree. It's greatest two weaknesses are that you need to buy the DLC's to get the most out of the game and secondly the AI is horrendous at the one unit per tile combat mechanics. Once you master the game it becomes a waste of time playing against the poor AI but multiplayer can be very rewarding.

EU4 is a complex game that can be hard to get into for those unfamilar with Paradox games. The AI will also kick your butt which can cause gamers that have grown used to always "winning" to rant and leave the game calling it all sorts of nasty names;) The game also has more of a historical sand-box feel to it so gamers used to playing with clear objectives to win games might not like this but the EU4 DLC's is very optional.

Another problem with EU4 (Paradox games in general) is there will be bugs. After new DLC's and Expansion things will be broken. The devs are good at fixing everything again in a timely manner but it can be a turn-off for some gamers. But if you want real brain food and want to be challenged in a strategy game than EU4 is the way to go.

[Atosl]

Maybe this is the wrong Forum to ask the question in. but: I have both and I don't think you can compare the games. EU4 is managing countries with such detail you can't believe someone wrote that as a program, Civ5 is combat with units , which I never quite understood, better play Rome ;)

[Swesal]

Two vastly different games, Civ 5 is a turn based 4X game, EU isn't. It's like asking is call of duty better then metel gear solid..... sure there are guns, and soldiers in both games, but that doesn't mean they are comparable. The whole mentality well playing any 4X game is different then playing EU.

[Asane]

Eu4's replayability has been bigger to me, and the nations even seem much more diverse to me, Civ 5 has way too much put into balancing a game to be slightly more competitive, whle Eu4, taking a OPM in Asia and making a world power feels more rewarding than winning a war as Ethiopia in Civ 5.

Also, historically, I've learned so much more from Eu4, Geographically, between this, ck2, Viki2 and HoI, I know a map so much better than I ever did before.