Europa Universalis vs. Civilization IV – Head to Head!

I finished my first game of Europa Universalis 3 (hence forth abbreviated as EU 3) a week or so ago, and I was struck by how well-thought out the game was. I then had an unusual thought strike me — is this game actually better than Civ IV? For a long time, Civilization and its predecessors were the ultimate turn based strategy games. The Total War series filled a niche — people that liked the scope but demanded more detailed warfare. EU III, however, is a hybrid, in which war is helpful and even necessary (in the Clausewitzian sense) to pursue your goals, but isn’t overly complicated. I shall evaluate them head to head, and let you, Kevin the reader decide. My review for Civ IV is here, but the review for EU 3 is here.

Graphics: Civilization IV. Despite Civ IV being the older game, the graphics are 3D and beautifully drawn. There’s nothing wrong with EU 3’s graphics, but it’s clearly designed to simply portray what’s needed and not to look perfect. This has the upshot of making the game run faster and more smoothly, unless you zoom in all the way.

Sound/Music: Civilization IV. The music is about even, but the sounds in EU 3 are all canned and rarely change. Sometimes, I find myself turning off the speakers for EU 3.

Gameplay: Obviously, this is the meat of both games, so I’m going to break this down into subjects which are present in both games.

Battle: Civilization IV. Units are far more customizable in Civ IV, and the battle engine means that each battle is going to be different. EU 3 focuses not on different unit types, but armies and leaders, so you’re looking at more of a macro level. The battles are entirely simulated (nothing really to see), but they’re there. Armies have three components in EU 3 – infantry, cavalry, and artillery (later in the game). Sieges are well done in EU 3, but honestly, the battles just aren’t as exciting.

Religion: EU 3. Religion is so much more complex and wonderful in EU 3. You have the Reformation, which shakes things up a lot, and there are lots of religions around the world. How they interact is partly historical and partly choice – you can pass religious acts to either be more or less tolerant. It makes diplomacy much richer, and the missionary system, although again simplistic, does a fine job of simulating how hard it is to convert a population. Civ IV’s religion is nice, but it’s actually more economic than anything else. Converting your own cities or your opponents is useful, but not critical. In EU 3, having too many religions causes revolts.

Diplomacy: EU 3. Another win for EU 3. There are multiple agreements with any given power, from alliance to war, and the casus belli system makes war a little harder to start, so you have to get creative. Relations with a given country range from -200 to 200. Some acts, like royal marriages, guaranteeing independence, or gifts of cold hard cash, improve relations. Others, like embargoes, insults, and warnings, destroy relations. Alliances mean something; either your ally joins the war you’re in or you gain a free casus belli on them. In wars, there are junior partners and leaders. Junior partners can only negotiate a separate peace with the leader of the other coalition, which is how you gain territory. You can also make another power your vassal, which gives you half of their income but none of their maintenance – you are required to protect them in war, but after a certain time, you can annex them. Diplomacy in Civ IV, ultimately, is horse trading. That’s about it.

Technology: Civ IV. EU 3 has a simplistic tech system. Each tech is numbered, and the techs are divided into six areas: government, trade, production, land, naval, and stability. Each country has slightly different tracks for their military techs. Russia is behind unless you westernize, while Prussia has good infantry but bad cavalry. They’re also geographically appropriate – the English do not get Janissaries. However, tech has always been the crown jewel of Civ, and Civ IV is no exception. You have much more choice and customization, and your choices matter.

Stability: EU 3. Stability is a key facet of EU 3. If you declare war on someone without a casus belli, or as a result of certain decisions (be they national, religious, or provincial), you lose stability. The range goes from +3 to -3. Lower stability causes revolts, decreased taxes, decreased manpower, and can entice a neighbor to attack you. Each province has a revolt risk, which can be adjusted up or down, based on a percentage which is tested every month. Newly conquered provinces typically have nationalism for up to 20 years. Religion and decisions also adversely affect stability. Older versions of Civ took stability into account, but the worst thing an unhappy populace will gain you in Civ IV is an unproductive city. A destabilized country in EU 3 can find itself wiped off the map or vassalized by another power.

Resources: Civ IV. Civ IV has strategic resources, trade, and luxury. EU 3 just has trade resources, and apart from gold, the only value for them is which manufactories you can build.

Trade: EU 3. Trade is based on Centers of Trade (COT), which control a particular region. People send merchants to a COT in order to earn money for their country. With enough technology, you can even win monopolies, which prevent anyone else from earning income. Some markets will be closed, you can either ask them to be opened or force them open. Embargoes hurt; if you’re embargoed from a COT, all of your merchants get booted and you’ll have to go somewhere else. Trade in Civ IV is more bartering – tech for tech, province for cash, so on and so forth. Embargoes are pretty much meaningless unless you have a key resource you’re trading.

Macro management: Slight edge to Civ IV. What to build, what to produce, the general shape of civilization — these are all key decisions for both games. The civics in Civ IV are innovating and well designed. Placing a new city can be critical to success or failure. In EU 3, most provinces are the same, apart from manpower and trade goods. The management comes through government sliders (sliders between one or two extremes – Centralization vs. Decentralization, Land vs. Naval, Free Trade vs. Mercantilism). Decisions also play a vital role. Provincial decisions, like building a court system or holding festivals, are generally minor and are more for fine tuning. Religious decisions can be dramatic — like changing your religion, but usually are more fine tuning. National decisions make big changes for a country. Whether it’s forming an empire, becoming a new country (Brandenburg to Prussia, Muscovy to Russia, Castille to Spain), or westernizing (for non-Western powers), you can gain cores, improve taxes, learn new technologies — or totally collapse. Civ IV has the slight edge because there really is no one best solution – any choice can work depending on your taste. EU 3 offers less choice simply because some choices are always bad – Centralization is always better than Decentralization, Free Trade is always better than Mercantilism, Free Subjects are always better than Serfdom.

Micromanagement – Civ IV. Civ IV is still the game for micro managers. It’s not as complex as prior games (Civ II in particular), but there’s just so much more to do. In EU 3, your individual provinces simply don’t matter that much, unless they’re a COT, have strategic value, or you need them for a particular mission or require them for a decision (like East Prussia to form Prussia, which was a huge pain in the ass).

Historical value – EU 3. EU 3 is historically accurate enough that really wild things generally don’t happen – like Wales conquering the world – but loose enough that some pretty dramatic things can happen – Germany is destroyed by Poland in 1455. Each game of Civ IV is hugely different and has little to do with history – Rome can nuke Istanbul in 2012. Because there’s no geographic basis for a Civ, there’s too much fluctuation. Spain will almost never conquer Japan in EU 3 because it’s too far away and there’s too many countries in between. It happens all the time in Civ. I see EU 3 as a historian’s sandbox – what wold have happened if country X had not attacked country Y, but country Z? In my Russia game, I never attacked Poland because I focused on expanding to the south and to the Balkans. Therefore, Poland had a secure eastern border, and after we partitioned Lithuania (not the little Baltic country, but the former Grand Duchy), Poland had free reign to attack the Holy Roman Empire and keep Germany from ever forming. I devoted my time to colonizing the Philippines and Siberia.

Overall: EU 3. Step aside, Civ IV, you have been supplanted! Particularly for history nerds, Civ just can’t compare.